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 826005 times)

atlantex

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #600 on: October 08, 2007, 08:13:07 PM »
Hi saintpoida,

how much gas is produced when the cell is directly connected to a power supply without the pulse circuit ?

I wouldn't think to much about the voltage at the cell, it seems to take some time that the cell is starting to produce good amounts of gas.
Maybe there is some other variable in the game. I'm currently reading around the bedini maschine and the radiant energy.

@Robert
simply use SS wires if you can, my cell is made of no special SS (V2A insteat of 316L), the connectors are of the same material - cleanliness is one of the most important things !


best regards

atlantex


p.s.

if is someone out there, who would like to sponsor a project with the goal to offer a kit AND release all needed info's which makes it possible to replicate by everyone, then please contact me. Here in Germany we can get all the needed materials very easy.

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #601 on: October 08, 2007, 11:39:15 PM »
Ok, what makes anyone think they will see more than a few volts across the tubes?

Not going to happen, water itself has a fairly low resistance to current flow, and if anyone out there managed kilovolts across the tubes then your setup would become arc ignition, in other words you would have one almighty bang as the water is first vaporized then the resultant hydrogen ignited by the high voltage, this all assumes of course that you can sustain 5KV or more, I know the pulse circuit and 100 turn inductors will not be able to do this.

The best voltage I was able to measure across just two tubes was 8 volts and that was pushing the pulse circuit to max.


leeroyjenkinsii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #602 on: October 08, 2007, 11:56:40 PM »
Has anyone here actually achieved overunity?

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #603 on: October 09, 2007, 12:00:37 AM »
@Runningbare

Umm i dunno i just figured i would see more than 2v across the cell?

I thought we were trying to build a big voltage across the cell???????

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #604 on: October 09, 2007, 07:11:33 AM »
@Runningbare

Umm i dunno i just figured i would see more than 2v across the cell?

I thought we were trying to build a big voltage across the cell???????

Hi,

the d14.pdf differs in design from the meyer patent in that it doesn't have the stepup transformer. This will keep the voltage at the tubes quite a bit lower. Besides the very high voltages come in VERY sharp spikes and are impossible to measure with multimeters. You will need a very fast o'scope to make them visible.
Lastly, tocreate the spikes you need large inductors, fine wire with loads of turns.....

regards

Robert

saintpoida

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #605 on: October 09, 2007, 07:23:32 AM »
yeah ok so my inducotrs might be too small

and about the transformer is that the toroid with 200 24awg winds and 600 36awg winds?

or something else?

and if it is then should that be wired in before the blocking diode as it is in the patent?

RunningBare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 809
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #606 on: October 09, 2007, 11:28:08 AM »
@Runningbare

Umm i dunno i just figured i would see more than 2v across the cell?

I thought we were trying to build a big voltage across the cell???????

Hi,

the d14.pdf differs in design from the meyer patent in that it doesn't have the stepup transformer. This will keep the voltage at the tubes quite a bit lower. Besides the very high voltages come in VERY sharp spikes and are impossible to measure with multimeters. You will need a very fast o'scope to make them visible.
Lastly, tocreate the spikes you need large inductors, fine wire with loads of turns.....

regards

Robert

And I'll guaruntee the only time the scope will see those high voltage spikes from the transformer is while NOT connected to the tubes, once connected the load of the tubes will suppress those high voltage spikes, off load you may get spikes as high as 20kv but the current will be extremely low, in the microamps region, water has a resistance of around 400kohm depending on any impurities, do the maths...

20000 divided by 4000000 equals 5ma
Power equals I2R = 0.05 x 0.05 = 0.0025
0.0025 x 400000 = 1000 watts!

The circuit is not going to deliver 1000 watts, not even for a microsecond.

Stan Meyers was pulsing at high frequency to bring the water upto catastrophic break down which does not take more than a few 10s of volts.

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #607 on: October 09, 2007, 12:14:04 PM »
The patent tells us that the voltage across the cell will reach 1000 Volts or more because of the step charging.

Anyway, I suggest to either go by the patent OR by the D14.pdf file.

Robert

razasunny54

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #608 on: October 09, 2007, 04:59:18 PM »
Hi Guys,

    Im also replicating the Xogen/Stanley Meyer Hydroxy Cell. I was making the electrical circuit as described in Dave Lawton's circuit. I read somewhere that stanley meyers was using a frequency of about 10 MHz. Does any one know the exact frequency at which the cell would operate properly ?

Thanks
Raza

modernsteam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #609 on: October 09, 2007, 05:57:19 PM »
I read it through, and it doesn't really prove anything:
Quote
Conclusion

 

        Energy efficiency index of the low current electrolysis should be refined, but in any case it will be greater than 10, that?s why there is every reason to think that a way to production of inexpensive hydrogen from water and transition to hydrogen energetic is opened.

It's not terribly efficient, and its not near overunity. This is just a method of using less current to make hydrogen (less energy in general), which does make less heat, but also makes far less hydrogen:
Quote
generates small quantity of gases

What's your exact point of posting this?

This further proves my point that hydrogen is merely an energy *carrier* not a source! Its far more efficient to use batteries! The only reason to use hydrogen is because of its compressibility and use in combustion engines. But by the time you convert the electricity to hydrogen and back to kinetic motion, you've lost at least %50 of the original energy.


I still don't understand why there is so much research going into hydrogen technologies.

Well, Dyamios, "there is so much research going into hydrogen technologies" because at least some researchers are finding that more chemical energy in the form of hydrogen comes out of their systems than goes in to dissociate the hydrogen and oxygen from the water. Like it or not, these researchers, most of them "amateur" to be sure, have found that hydrogen, and probably all other substances, have at least one resonant frequency which allows astute pulsing to sharply "perturb" or "disturb" the local vacuum around or within the hydrogen molecule to "bust apart"  that molecule, so that the Co-efficient of Performance for that effort exceeds 1. The nature of the local energetic vacuum seems to allow that. If that is the case, as some of us think it is, then your point of hydrogen being a carrier of energy we believe is not only correct, but proves our point!! Many of us treat hydrogen in its carrier role as an intermediary or mediative step in accessing vacuum energy, which  the Boren experiment has shown clearly to be over-unity by 18 times (18 times more energy out than in). As a result, hydrogen is simply one means of several - others being directly accessing the vacuum via electromagnetics - to get real free energy. We therefore post these ideas, which you have apparently at least until now seem to regard as nonsense, but so many of us have come to see as valuable information, to encourage all of us to further research.

Hal Ade
Gatineau, Qu?bec.

srawofni

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • WATER FUEL
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #610 on: October 13, 2007, 05:19:19 PM »

Freenrg4me

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #611 on: October 14, 2007, 03:03:19 AM »
yeah ok so my inducotrs might be too small

and about the transformer is that the toroid with 200 24awg winds and 600 36awg winds?

or something else?

and if it is then should that be wired in before the blocking diode as it is in the patent?

The problem with using a mosfet in a resonant circuit is that the mosfet will shut down or be destroyed once the circuit resonates which is instantly. Usually, the mosfet will not even turn on.

A simple way to prove what I just told you is to go down to radio shack and buy a 2n3055 NPN transistor (the big one in the metal can) and watch the circuit start to work again. Silicone and mosfet are very different switch.

The next problem you are going to encounter is impedance between any inductive device such as a isolation transformer and the cell.

I calculate around 17ohms with my single cell and local tap water. That is a massive amount of impedance and so you will not transfer the full energy from the circuit to the cell. That must be calculated and matched or your production will decrease as your resonance increases.

So as you can see, you will have to learn how to calculate impedance, design an impedance  matching circuit and then you will need some fast rectifier diodes to keep what you created in the cell.

Google - The sum of all knowledge.

And then...  if you want to create the Meyer process, you will need to toss most of it in the trash because the Dave circuit does not seem to resemble the Meyer process in any way. In fact, the Dave thing really can't go, and never has gone OU from what I can see.

The only OU water crack I have seen with my eyes is Dr. Stiffler's electron recycle circuit. I replicated it and it does work as advertised.

Stifflers process is interesting and inventive but I think the Meyer process is probably better. It is the difference between (Meyer) making the electrons stay at work until the job is done with a Delrin insulation barrier (and maybe a barium ferrite core as Stiffler suggests may be the case with one of his experiments) and ------  (Stiffler) driving them back to work for overtime shift once they to sneak past the cathode and out the back door to go home. It takes energy to recycle the electrons but you do get something for it.

The Stiffler process did not make huge plumes of white gas bubbles but it did produce gas at 1.6 OU. Anyone can make bubbles with enough power, but you have to make them for free or it is pointless. You burn more gasoline to make more H and lose gasoline in the end.

Lastly, Hydrogen resonates at 42.580MHZ Dr. Stiffler has shown that you can make the water resonate at that frequency using barium ferrite core driven blue LED. Cold electricity 90 degree  winding on the core? Doc Stiffler did not specify, just said barium ferrite.

So if you are having fun with the Dave thing, the isolation transformer should filter out that choke resonance and protect your circuit from high voltage at the same time. I think decoupling is the key to making your switch work properly.

I use 1H FE core inductors per tube. I get as many as 15 resonate traces on my scope all overlapping each other. H production is lowest at that point but so is power drain. I need to work on the fast diode problem at the cell next. Rectifier diodes don't switch fast. 42k frequency works best for me. It is a harmonic of H and I use a NTE4046B phase lock loop for the pulse generator. 555 time is unstable, limited to 20K and more work to set up than the PLL.

I am only doing this stuff to prove that the Dave circuit is not the Meyer process in any way other than he figured out how create a mark space. A 4017B divide by ten works much better to enable a second PLL.

Also I built the toroid core transformer to the patent spec and it did not work well at all. I didn't expect it to. In the notes stan talked about "tuning to the frequency of water" and a wiper arm on the tunable choke. That is not a VIC on a toroid setup. Is the patent is full of disinformation? I think so but I also think I have a clue as to how it really worked thanks to Dr. Stiffler.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2007, 09:01:26 PM by Freenrg4me »

Freenrg4me

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #612 on: October 14, 2007, 04:15:24 AM »
I should also point out that the Meyer process evolved considerably and what was patented and what was the final product seem to differ greatly. It would be worth understanding the evolution of the product. If you feed hydroxy into your carb in a meaningful quantity, the last thing you will hear will be boom.

From what I have seen of the Meyer process, there was no aspect of it that was not previously patented, sometimes several times.

I suppose the oil company shills at the patent office would be more than happy to see inventors sue each other and in the end bring nothing to market.

It is also worth noting that every patent has to go through a national security review to determine if it has military value in the US and most other countries. If it does, what is patented is not going to be a lot of help since it will be dumbed down considerably to prevent you from replication.

The final Meyer process was a pulse compression network that used a plasma discharge to crack and explode the water in an instant. Cavitation at the end of the injector produced electron clusters and that is where it really went from thermal to thermonuclear.

It looks like the water was prepped in the way that Dr. Puharich specified in his patent. When you see the eight lines of bubbles coming out the top of your cell in perfect geometry, that is being produced by the H and means the dihedral bond angle has been modified and it is ready of be exploded with a plasma burst supplied from the magnetically compressed pulse created by the VIC.

The resonant chamber of the injector appears to be BS to me. It is really just the chamber of the gun so to speak. The plasma ignites at the end where the two sides come closest together, (engine side) and then the water is blasted through the plasma. The two electrodes that produce the static charge just hold the water droplet in place.

You can probably get some nology plug wires, a nology coil and they also sell a pulse compressor for your ignition coil. Inject some of that prepped water into the engine and have something that works but I have not done it so don't take my word for it.

There is a reason that the plasma spark plug invention was bought out. It doubled your mileage for the cost of new spark plugs. Resistive wires destroy the amperage to the plug. You usually go from a 100A spark to a .02A spark with resistive wires. They use resistive wires to prevent RF generation.. :-) and make sure that nothing you do with fuel cracking will increase your mileage in any significant way.

People claim to have run engines with a plasma plug and steel wires to boost the amperage of the spark and create plasma.

pleez2help

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #613 on: October 16, 2007, 02:35:22 PM »
Ok, so you have a working circuit, a resonant one, pipes that sing without restriction, poles of the magnet in harmony,where is the ....video...or .....photo.... or schematic... or...... web site with kits/instructions/mentoring/links???
If I had your obvious expertise and an empathy for what we are trying to achieve, surely I would let everyone know how??
Unless, of course, there is a whiff of ill-wind in what you say that emenates not from the feed hole?
I don't mean to be rude, only I have played with... the joe cell, leedskalnin coils and am a welder with plasma cutting experience.
I have been shocked by all three and each has touched my soul.
Something needs to be done now and I am in a unique position that would enable production of multiple units that, I beleive, would take "the authorities " a reasonable amount of time to find me.
THEREFORE:
IF you have a working resonant curcuit that fullfills the OU requirement, that will provide a stable environment in harmony with the future of this planet, please let us know now so we all can do what we can with what we have!!

pleez2help

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
« Reply #614 on: October 16, 2007, 02:41:51 PM »
I am new to this forum thingy so I thought I'd try doing what others had done and put a quote at the bottom of my post but it didn't go as planned.
SO:
 There is but one choice, grow, in harmony, or die!!!!!