Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power  (Read 826023 times)

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #510 on: September 30, 2007, 12:49:27 PM »
Hi Hissyfit,

I can see where you are coming from with your comments. There is a lot of things published here that are at least doubtful.
I's like to know what your opinion is about the Lawton/RAvz replication of the SM work. (Pure from a scientific view)
Do you think SM has it all wrong or do you think it might work if we follow strictly his tech briefs and patents. I mean are the claims by lawton and Ravz (more than 300% faraday HHO production) for real in your opinion?

thanks,

Robert

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #511 on: September 30, 2007, 01:23:59 PM »
Hi Hissyfit,

I can see where you are coming from with your comments. There is a lot of things published here that are at least doubtful.
I's like to know what your opinion is about the Lawton/RAvz replication of the SM work. (Pure from a scientific view)
Do you think SM has it all wrong or do you think it might work if we follow strictly his tech briefs and patents. I mean are the claims by lawton and Ravz (more than 300% faraday HHO production) for real in your opinion?

thanks,

Robert

My opinion is simple: 

Until the results can be shown and quantified using reasonably accurate scientific measurement methods and until the methodology can be clearly documented and reproduced then it is all just pleasant charming stories.  I do not form opinions based on stories and claims.  In the absence of evidence and clear testing methods and good documentation, my default belief/opinion is skeptical doubt. 

It seems there is a concerted effort here to make sure none of that good science ever happens, despite the open pretense that this is a forum designed and intended to do just that.  99 percent of what I see here falls squarely into the category of socializing around mysterious foggy delusions and forming beliefs and alliances based on meaningless jargo and misunderstood physics. 

Why no one can just come out and say "Here is what I am accomplishing and here is exactly how I am doing it" is beyond me.  It appears no one here working on this stuff has the ability to communicate clearly or measure correctly or even define a particular goal or methodology.

Hissyfitnihilism

Hi Hiss,

Ok I think that is a reasonable point view. I am still gonna continue with the replication. Mainly because i want to either proof or disproof the claim.
I also think that you are contributing to this forum (although be it in your own way and for some people maybe a bit harsh and to direct  ::) )
Hopefully I can change your skeptic view in the future (cos by that time it's must be pretty much proven that it works).
When and if that time comes I will certainly consult you to try and proof and claims wrong!

Robert

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #512 on: September 30, 2007, 01:37:53 PM »
I applaud your intentions.  Could you state for the record exactly what you hope to achieve/prove/demonstrate/replicate?  Thanks!

Hissy

The first task will be to either proof or disproof the claim made by lawton/ravz to produce more than faraday levels of hydroxy with the setup from the latest D14 pdf . That including proper conditioning of the cell as per ravz instructions.....

The outcome of this will determine if I want to take it further from there or not....

Robert 

Duranza

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #513 on: September 30, 2007, 01:57:23 PM »
Well I must say this is sad.... Hissy Missy has nothing better to do, but to keep you from doing what you must to find the results. Wheather the bifilar works or not let us find out for our damn selves. And if you do work for big oil.... well better find another job, unless you plan to retire soon....

motofox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #514 on: September 30, 2007, 02:48:04 PM »
How many people have to replicate somthing before people believe it works?  If runningbares tubes were the same spec as ravis, then i believe he too would have a ravi replication..

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #515 on: September 30, 2007, 03:02:43 PM »
Which begs the question, where are the other replicators?, I've seen a few who have Ravi's tube setup, but non of them have stated they have the same results as Ravi.
My setup was only to test the difference between straight DC and pulsed DC on electrolysis and I'm sorry to say but so far all I see is a loss in the latter, but if you folk really want to get serious about this, forget the blather about resonating the tubes!, but look at the series resonance instead, the tubes will NOT physically resonate, if you do not believe me, try putting a sensor on the WFC, if there was any physical resonance it would show up on a scope, about the only thing that will show on the scope is the noise of the bubbles.

Sorry guys, but I'm a realists, I do not go for this energy from the resonant heavens  ;)

How many people have to replicate somthing before people believe it works?  If runningbares tubes were the same spec as ravis, then i believe he too would have a ravi replication..

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #516 on: September 30, 2007, 03:30:44 PM »
Which begs the question, where are the other replicators?, I've seen a few who have Ravi's tube setup, but non of them have stated they have the same results as Ravi.
My setup was only to test the difference between straight DC and pulsed DC on electrolysis and I'm sorry to say but so far all I see is a loss in the latter, but if you folk really want to get serious about this, forget the blather about resonating the tubes!, but look at the series resonance instead, the tubes will NOT physically resonate, if you do not believe me, try putting a sensor on the WFC, if there was any physical resonance it would show up on a scope, about the only thing that will show on the scope is the noise of the bubbles.

Sorry guys, but I'm a realists, I do not go for this energy from the resonant heavens  ;)

How many people have to replicate somthing before people believe it works?  If runningbares tubes were the same spec as ravis, then i believe he too would have a ravi replication..

Well said runningbare! There is no physical resonance of any importance. If people would only read what Stanley wrote in the tech brief...everything you need is in there.
Btw I'm waiting for the acrylic tube to arrive, have SS tubes ready, pulser build.....

Robert

peter from oz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #517 on: September 30, 2007, 03:35:15 PM »
Hello Runningbare, l cant get carried away with something l dont understand, but please presume l really want to get serious about this, what do you mean by look at series resonance, what changes to what would l have to do for what outcome. l have the D14 curcuit without chokes and 7 tube cell, slightly conditioned ???

Regards
Peter

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #518 on: September 30, 2007, 04:48:41 PM »
Sure, this is a series resonant circuit
(http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02098.png)

Now just think of that 10uf capacitor as the tubes and another coil on the other side, either way it is a series resonant circuit, at the resonant frequency this circuit would have lowest impedance(resistance) to current flow.

ETA, it should be noted that this is not beginner electronics, the formulas for calculating parallel or series resonant circuits can be quite involved, below is an example formula for series resonant
(http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12092.png)
Quote
With the total series impedance equal to 0 Ω at the resonant frequency of 159.155 Hz, the result is a short circuit across the AC power source at resonance. In the circuit drawn above, this would not be good. I'll add a small resistor (Figure below) in series along with the capacitor and the inductor to keep the maximum circuit current somewhat limited, and perform another SPICE analysis over the same range of frequencies



Hello Runningbare, l cant get carried away with something l dont understand, but please presume l really want to get serious about this, what do you mean by look at series resonance, what changes to what would l have to do for what outcome. l have the D14 curcuit without chokes and 7 tube cell, slightly conditioned ???

Regards
Peter
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 05:09:22 PM by RunningBare »

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #519 on: September 30, 2007, 06:22:01 PM »

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #520 on: September 30, 2007, 06:59:55 PM »

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #521 on: September 30, 2007, 07:04:29 PM »
it ran by itself. Thank you

TheNOP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #522 on: September 30, 2007, 07:13:03 PM »
I see it is very hard for you to admit when you are wrong.
See my post a few post back. ::)

Tesla's whole deal was AC power.  What do you think "frequencies" means in the context of Tesla's work?
My understanding is that Tesla also studied pulsed DC.


As for the other part of you post, i won't read it.
Why can't i get clear informations from you when i am asking clear questions ?

I am trying to understand why bifilars might, or might not, be important in the WFC.
Understanding each the parts of the WFC well, is what can make the difference between fail attempt and succesm as well as to be able to enhance the thing.





@ RunningBare
Thanks for the infos


RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #523 on: September 30, 2007, 08:11:04 PM »
I'm confused, you say the alternator ran by itself, so the motor with the fan belt to the alternator was doing what?, genuinly curious question.

it ran by itself. Thank you

Spewing

  • Guest
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #524 on: September 30, 2007, 08:29:20 PM »
I'm confused, you say the alternator ran by itself, so the motor with the fan belt to the alternator was doing what?, genuinly curious question.

it ran by itself. Thank you

lol, im sorry. the 120v ac motor was driving the alternator, but no battery was hooked to the alternator or the fuel cell at any time, nor any other kind of power supplie.

the water fuel cell is powering  the alternator, the alternator is rerouting the generated electricity back to the water fuel cell threw the mosfet.

if it helps, i could do it without the use of any battery, not needing the small 9 volt battery.