Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: hartiberlin on August 18, 2007, 10:39:57 PM

Title: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 18, 2007, 10:39:57 PM
Here is a message from user ravzz:


Hi Stefan,

I've tried opening a new topic for this but I couldnt.

Check the following videos:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vzTzqpp-Uk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJ_vjuO_ME
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lScTsHBkQ
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyfwWuA9gA
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nto66FTfdTg
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqSyTiPu8VI

For all the info on these videos you could go to

www.oupower.com

Discussions.......than hydrogen forum.


You could copy all the info i've posted there under the user name ravzz and post it here if need be.

Just thought i'd help as many people to replicate my WFC before im stopped again.


Regards,
ravzz
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Dyamios on August 19, 2007, 12:02:03 AM
How many times is this going to be scrapped up off of the basement floor?

I don't want to be a pessimist or anything, but really, why is there any rhyme or reason to believe that pulsed (essentially AC) electricity will somehow fracture water molecules any better than regular DC. There is no electrical resonant frequency of water to be found. It physically does not exist.

H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy. The simple reaction occurring during electrolysis is merely extra electrons being transfered to form gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen (diagrammed below):
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2

The reason there is less energy use is because of the minute gap between the electrodes. The smaller the gap, the less distance the electrons and ions have to move to form new molecules.

The reason the water heats up is because when the water molecules fall apart when extra electrons are supplied, the various atoms must migrate through the water itself to the various electrodes, where it finally forms the gaseous form. As these particles move, they bump into other molecules and atoms, and add entropy (in the form of heat) to the system. This is INEVITABLE and ALWAYS occurs no matter what kind of frequency is used. The less gap, the less chance for the particles to bump into each other, therefore creating less heat, but heat will ALWAYS be produced.

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

Stanley Meyers had a flawed understanding of the process of electrolysis, and his theory was debunked by the patent office.

Electrolysis does not magically break apart water molecules wherever they stand. The particles must move extensively, and whilst doing so they always add entropy to the system.



I'm begging everyone who reads this: PLEASE learn the rudimentary science before running off go blindly believe somebody. Most, if not all, of the theories here are flawed in some basic way (it goes without saying that the laws of thermodynamics are excluded from this, as every theory violates this).


Enough of Stanley Meyers. He was a fraud. His theory was flawed. He was weighed, measured, and found guilty. What does it take to get people to realize that water is NOT an energy source. At most its an inefficient energy carrier.

Hydrogen is only the future of MOVING energy, NOT making it. Please people, understand this!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: NerzhDishual on August 19, 2007, 01:33:33 AM
@Dyamios

What about this link?
LOW CURRENT ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER
Ph. M. Kanarev

http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html (http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html)

Best
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Dyamios on August 19, 2007, 02:57:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rMuD on August 20, 2007, 03:21:07 AM
there is so much reseach on it because it's a technology that is natural progression and cost effective to existing technology.  Meaning that we can retrofit the technology of the past 100 years to use a new fuel without a complete overhaul, as the migration to fuel cell, or to whatever power source comes up next. 

Meyers and others may have made this work, and even if they didn't this is a grass roots forum for people to try, and dream and hope maybe it did.  pulsed DC may work under the theory of charging a capacitor, need 300KV charge at 7mm to get it reach the breakdown voltage though, and I don't see anyone talking too much about it here. 

Everyone is going after HHO for 20-30% more effeciency..  I was talking to someone that compresses air thru a membrane that only allows Oxygen thru, and has simular results as these HHO companies are having, power conversion and emission reduction, 10x less grief possibly...

Mixing Aluminum and Gallium (Heat sink paste for Computers)  causes the aluminum not to skin, and gives off Hydrogen..  no oxygen though..  no other gases at all...  make H2, alumia (Alumia Oxide completely prepared for re-electrolysis) and gallium is re-usable with no conversion.  http://www.instructables.com/id/ECB3EDDF2FRVK4R/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/ECB3EDDF2FRVK4R/)

I am more interested in this technology than most, as I have a gas hog, I get 2 Gallons to the mile.. to convert over to a Fuel Cell or magnetic flux or whatever bleeding edge technology would cost me $100k+  if not more.. dealing with weight differences, engineering etc...    where a Hydrogen Boost or HHO conversion solution costing me less than $5 or 10k    pay for it self in less than a year....

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 20, 2007, 10:11:27 AM
Hi Dyamios.....youre free to air your views about physics and thermodynamics!!......have you heard about plasma electrolysis??



Japanese Hokkaido University experiment which achieved some mind boggling results and was also replicated by JL Naudin...

These guys went OU with the generation of Hydrogen. Their experiment and results link

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgeneration.pdf

As per their conclusions: 'current efficiency' is 8000% to the input!!!


I'm not here to argue wether things work as per the preset laws of physics or thermodynamics but you need to keep an open mind to evolve and see if something actually works.......I'm and engineer and been taught that things dont work if you break the laws....well I know my laws...thank you.....I've been making cells for the last 8 years but now Ive got something that works......and if people want to replicate it they can im giving out info on how to do it.....if they dont want to.....fine by me!....im getting nothing nor losing any thing by this....Stan wanted to sell his units......well im not.......this is for the people who are already trying it out and who want to....

Now the reason why i wanted to post the replication info.......(Ive posted the following for Bob Boyce on oupower)....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its time we did something about the environmental mess the world is in.....its accelerating by the year and it wouldnt be long before that the powers be would realize that most of these changes are irreversible ......Vanishing Glaciers......melting polar caps.....Europe has seen the hottest summers in living memory.......and now Asia is going through the worst floods in the living memory.......we are heading for a disaster and have already reached a point of no return with the fossil fuel addiction.......time we make ourselves count....by helping others to make this technology feasible and easy to replicate......whatever small contribution.....no matter how much ever small to improve the air we breathe would go a long way for our childrens future......


We need people to know this side of science before its too late.......look at the change in the environment in the last 100 years......in the garb of development were ruining the world we live in for the future generations and we are shown a picture of development as prosperity.....actual fact being more the prosperity more we ruin the environment for our creature comforts......its a vicious cycle....we could introduce the alternate science at places where its hurting the environment the most atleast in a small way....

Bob lets see how they take this experiment and what they make of it...I wouldnt be surprised if some hooter comes onto the forum and starts rubbishing the work to make atleast a few people stay away from experimenting this setup....

I'm just hoping that the risk im taking in teaching people how to make this expt work wouldnt be for nothing!! I've been through some harassment before and can go through some more if its for the greater good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guys ive posted all the info needed for replication if you want to or not is upto you!.....well my work here is done!!

GOOD LUCK!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 20, 2007, 01:10:56 PM
Tha JLN Labs Replication of plasma electrolysis Link:


http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/diycfr/cfrg01.htm


and quite a few others who have replicate the same......


http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/index.htm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: wizkycho2 on August 20, 2007, 01:28:40 PM
Hi Dyamios.....youre free to air your views about physics and thermodynamics!!......have you heard about plasma electrolysis??



Japanese Hokkaido University experiment which achieved some mind boggling results and was also replicated by JL Naudin...

These guys went OU with the generation of Hydrogen. Their experiment and results link

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgeneration.pdf

As per their conclusions: 'current efficiency' is 8000% to the input!!!


I'm not here to argue wether things work as per the preset laws of physics or thermodynamics but you need to keep an open mind to evolve and see if something actually works.......I'm and engineer and been taught that things dont work if you break the laws....well I know my laws...thank you.....I've been making cells for the last 8 years but now Ive got something that works......and if people want to replicate it they can im giving out info on how to do it.....if they dont want to.....fine by me!....im getting nothing nor losing any thing by this....Stan wanted to sell his units......well im not.......this is for the people who are already trying it out and who want to....

Now the reason why i wanted to post the replication info.......(Ive posted the following for Bob Boyce on oupower)....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its time we did something about the environmental mess the world is in.....its accelerating by the year and it wouldnt be long before that the powers be would realize that most of these changes are irreversible ......Vanishing Glaciers......melting polar caps.....Europe has seen the hottest summers in living memory.......and now Asia is going through the worst floods in the living memory.......we are heading for a disaster and have already reached a point of no return with the fossil fuel addiction.......time we make ourselves count....by helping others to make this technology feasible and easy to replicate......whatever small contribution.....no matter how much ever small to improve the air we breathe would go a long way for our childrens future......


We need people to know this side of science before its too late.......look at the change in the environment in the last 100 years......in the garb of development were ruining the world we live in for the future generations and we are shown a picture of development as prosperity.....actual fact being more the prosperity more we ruin the environment for our creature comforts......its a vicious cycle....we could introduce the alternate science at places where its hurting the environment the most atleast in a small way....

Bob lets see how they take this experiment and what they make of it...I wouldnt be surprised if some hooter comes onto the forum and starts rubbishing the work to make atleast a few people stay away from experimenting this setup....

I'm just hoping that the risk im taking in teaching people how to make this expt work wouldnt be for nothing!! I've been through some harassment before and can go through some more if its for the greater good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guys ive posted all the info needed for replication if you want to or not is upto you!.....well my work here is done!!

GOOD LUCK!!

Dyiamios should know that everything in universe is capable of resonating, even the energy itself.
Let's talk about laws:
Still in hydrogen production (by means of electrolysis of water) science is using Faraday's law that uses only current strenght as relevant for ammount hydrogen produced.
This Faraday law can be seen here in action
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1245.0.html        130W

But this pulsed (probably resonating) setup proves that Faradays law can not be applied with pulsed DC:
production of O2 H2 is allmost identicall with 1A as I am producing at 30A.

@Ravzz, can you please give some more data (voltage, frequency...)
Are Coils needed ?

igor knitel
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 20, 2007, 02:37:57 PM
Hi Igor,

I've posted a lot of data on the following link...theres everything you need to replicate in the discussion page

http://www.oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1602



incase this link doesnt work then go here to the main page for hydrogen forums

http://www.oupower.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1


then go to 'Ravi's Meyer Replication - Tap water to H2'


Most of the questions you might have would have already been answered there....incase you need to know something else post it here or on the oupower forum so that I wouldnt have to answer the same thing again.




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 20, 2007, 03:09:49 PM
Hi Igor,

You seem to be using brute force el'sys....instead of 5 V try going down to 2 V which is practically sufficient in this kind of electrolysis..... or you could try Bob Boyce's devices......theyre pretty efficient...


http://pesn.com/2007/01/08/9500445_Bob_Boyce_Electrolyzer_Plans/

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bob_Boyce_Electrolyzer_Plans


Theyre all on public domain.....free to replicate.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheCell on August 20, 2007, 11:08:43 PM
Quote:
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:
//

@Dyamios
please have a look at the videos ravzz posted on youtube.

Ravi: (oupower.com)
I would be for one thing very impressed if you could generate anywhere close to the outputs mentioned with pulsed 12 Volts and HALF an AMP!!
________
(I hope he is honest)

And I would like to add: it would never be possible to gain such a gas - output with 12 Volts and 0,5 Amps straight current!

No its not near overunity, because if water is a fuel , the method of extraction of hydrogen and oxygen is more likely using a catalyst.(So many hints in the internet)

The Stanley Meyers WFC has now been replicated by Dave Lawton and Ravi.
John Aarons is using the brute force method, the bubbles of his cell are completely different from the meyer cells replicaters.

If you look at one video where ravi is using 1 amps , and the wires get hot, so the 1 amps are not the amperage that goes through the cell.
The main function of the electronic is a resonant circuit with capacitor and inductance in series.
So if the circuit is in resonance , there is allmost no resistance , therefore the high current, with a maximum of voltage across each the capacitor and inductance.
This high voltage (only achieved, when the circuit is in resonance) is breaking the chemical bonds. So noone speaks of the resonance of water.

Maybe a better circuit would be like the horizontal deflection unit used in TV's.
This circuit puts out a only one direction voltage peek (3kV) to the capacitor, and there is far less input power needed.Here the voltage of the capacitor depends on the mark space ratio.

@ravi
please post the whole circuit on oupouwer.com (I am missing somethin in D14.pdf)
If there is nothing to add the cells must discharge by themselfes?


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: h20power on August 20, 2007, 11:34:28 PM
Hi Everyone, It is good to see that this technology is going strong. If one want to disprove this type of type of technology you are going too have a hard time in that Daniel Dingel has been doing it for just about 40 years now, and a look at his technology show its simular to Stanley Meyer's. http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=de%7Cen&u=http://www.freie-energie.net/index/freie_energie/wasserautos/dingel_watercar/dingel_watercar.htm&prev=/language_tools
He has been doing this for a very long time.

The IMF and the World Bank have an agreement with the government of the Philippines not to get into this type of technology. For more informantion on the big pitcure for us all watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=662&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
and read this; http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/facts.html .

There is a reason why this technology is not wanted by the IMF and World Bank, it would totally mess up there plans for us all, for right now they are busy parting out Iraq as I type. Imgine what would happen if you dump free energy onto the market? With this technology if one lost there job, the lights would never be cut off and they would still be able to go anywhere they wanted to go (provided they have a car). This technology does just that, it free's mankind of the money manipulators, the banks and IMF related interest. The more the technology spreads the more people would become self sustaining. This technology trully free's the whole of mankind, and they wouldn't be able to have their 'One World Government' if that happens.

Get wise too what is really going on in our world and open your eyes with what I put out, all the information just provided too you.
Only then will you make the conection of this technology and the IMF and World Bank, and why it is being fought at every turn.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: NerzhDishual on August 20, 2007, 11:59:21 PM

@h20power

IMF, world bank...
liberate mankind of the money manipulators....
You can say that again...

I'm in touch with a French inventor who has mastered the hydrogen on demand  process.
I will say more about this when the next issue of the (French version of) NEXUS magazine is published (beginning september).

Best
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 21, 2007, 07:58:12 AM
Thecell :


I started off with the same circuit as Dave's in the beginning.....but had to replace a few components with higher wattages as the failed....I think the bigger cells you build you might have to increase the wattages....as per D14 they are 0.25watt but I would advice you to go in for 1 watt for the 100 ohm resistors being used and 0.5 watt in both 220 and 820 ohm resistors.....thats if you are trying to build a 9 tube 9 inch length setup like mine but if its as per Dave's 6 tube 5" length tubes then his D14, Pg 7 circuit should be Ok.

The D14 setup with inductors will be the most efficient of the lot. It on the new updated D14.pdf and not the old one. Inductors are very very important.

I still have no clue why the WFC leads got burnt at 12 V   1 Amp input to the freq generator. Trying to make a few modifications.....would post the results as soon as its done.


Ravi



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: wizkycho2 on August 21, 2007, 09:13:59 AM
Quote:
...
If you look at one video where ravi is using 1 amps , and the wires get hot, so the 1 amps are not the amperage that goes through the cell.
The main function of the electronic is a resonant circuit with capacitor and inductance in series.
So if the circuit is in resonance , there is allmost no resistance , therefore the high current, with a maximum of voltage across each the capacitor and inductance.
This high voltage (only achieved, when the circuit is in resonance) is breaking the chemical bonds. So noone speaks of the resonance of water.
@ravi
please post the whole circuit on oupouwer.com (I am missing somethin in D14.pdf)
If there is nothing to add the cells must discharge by themselfes?


@thecell

Just the opposite. When circuit is in resonance (means source is in resonance with load) load has HIGH impendance
and very weak current is flowing from source to the Load although strong currents are flowing within the Load itself.
(look at the rotoverter - it is the same "kind" of resonance)

"...So if the circuit is in resonance , there is allmost no resistance ..." is wrong should be
"...So if the circuit is in resonance , there is high resistance ..."

once again source "feels" that Load (cell) has high resistance, but the resistance within load is low.

Ravi explained in one of his posts that he used SS wire to connect tubes. SS wire has 100 times higher resistance
than Cu and the thickness of those wires as you can see on video are not so thick, so wire burns.

Allthogh Ravzz is meassuring current 0.5A this is RMS currnet or effective current which is good to calculate input power
but peak currents are certanly stronger than that - I would estimate 5A. and there is another reason why high resistance
SS wire burns.

I think that ravzz cell is much more efficient if he would use Cu wires to the tubes.

So everything seems in order... the cell realy seems to be working in OU.

Coils in D14 due to frequency cca 21kHz do not allow cell to discharge.
Cell (and coils) may discharge only when there is a pause on first oscilator cca 100Hz, and that is why there is diode (I would use 4 or 5 in parallel).

reagrds
wiz
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 21, 2007, 09:32:38 AM
Hi Wiz,

I've used 1.2mm dia SS 316L wirer to connect the pipes....so if you have seen video 6....im doing exactly what you suggested....connecting 4 sq mm copper wires upto the bottom of the WFC....the leads are resin bonded to the WFC casing to prevent leaks...so at present im trying to reduce the length of the leads up until the bottom of the WFC...some of the leads have started leaking now so this needs to be rectified first.

Any Ideas on why the efficiencies coming down when higher amps are given to the freq gen?


Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 21, 2007, 10:19:56 AM
Hi everyone,

Panacea-Bocaf is in the process of independently replicating what Dave and I have replicated with our inputs. Will keep you posted on this. The intention being to simplify and get a better understanding of the whole process for everyone to easily replicate the system.

Ravi


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rapttor on August 21, 2007, 04:52:18 PM
Ravzz great to see someone is working at deciphering what Meyer did, his patent is so convoluted & shrouded in uneccessary jargon that once broken down and interpretted to current  electronics of the present day, It becomes apparent that it much more simple in design, the theory & how it really works I think is still something to be understood better.

Do You know of hydrocar's work? I've built the circuit that powers this cell, and blows me away with the little current it draws to produce this volume of gas.

Ravzz, keep up the hard work, it's paying off... thanks for sharing with us.

dyamios, care to elaborate on this one for us... I'm all ears and would love to understand it better sir, see link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGk6KOImmkk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGk6KOImmkk)

Regards,
-rapttor
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Unicron on August 21, 2007, 05:12:54 PM
@rapttor

in this thread it gets explained! (from the creator himself)
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=454
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tinu on August 21, 2007, 07:11:33 PM
Ravi,

What is the power you put in as pure dc?
(I mean before the oscillator and everything.)

Tx,
Tinu
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 21, 2007, 08:07:58 PM
He is using:


http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

The circuit given on page 7 with the inductors is what gives the highest efficiencies. The inductor on both positive and negative is a must. Why would you want to build one with the alternator? from what I can remember the page 7 circuit doesnt have an alternator and you can power the circuit with a DC 10A coverter like I did or use a plain heavy duty battery for getting the output. If you want to experiment with the other circuits in the document then its ok.... Good luck!!

There is another difference that needs to be noted compared to Dave's Replication. I didnt remember the exact gap between the pipes till patrick just asked me what were the differences between my setup....sat down and calculated....

The gap in between the pipes was:

Outer Pipe OD : 25.317 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Outer Pipe ID : 25.317 - (2.032 x2) = 21.253mm


Inner Pipe OD : 19.930 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Gap is 1.323mm ( 21.253 - 19.930 )

and this adjusted to both the sides as the inside pipe is centered is

1.323/2 = 0.6615 mm on either sides of the inner tube.

So effectively the gap between the pipes is less than 0.670 mm

I went for a lesser gap by increasing the thickness of the outer tube.
If you go through Stans Canadian Patent he mentions that the lesser
the gap between the pipes more the efficiency

I had a lot of difficulty in the alignment of pipe as they were
shorting. Had to get them straightened on pipe alignment machine.
Wouldnt advice people without engineering skills to go for this small
a gap.

The higher output of my setup could be due to the smaller gap aswell.
==========================

Posted by Kumaran :

Hi Ravi,

According to my calculation you got 644.62% OU.

Liter : 16.776
Seconds : 3600
LPM : 0.2796

Voltage : 12
Amp : 0.51
Watts : 6.12

Your cell efficiency : 0.36 Wh/L
Faraday efficiency : 2.3516 Wh/L (varies depending to atm pressure)

OU : 644.62%

No doubt on efficiency. Just need to push the system a little bit further to produce more gas while maintaining the efficiency. Great job.
_________________
Regards,
Kumaran



======================


So all in all this is a very nice cell !
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 21, 2007, 08:10:34 PM
So any cell that is needing less than about 2.4 Watthours of energy
for 1 Liter of HHO production is overunity
as this is the Faraday law.

Ravi?s setup is thus way overunity.
I will post the formular to calculate this in another thread.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheCell on August 21, 2007, 10:09:06 PM
@wizkycho2

A Series oscillatory circuit draws the maximum current when in resonance.
Believe me , I am an Engineer of electronics.
A paralell oscillatory circuit will draw the least current when in resonance.
You can prove it using Electronics Workbench Simulation Tool.

The higest current means NOT the highest power input.
Because alternating current and voltage is used , you must multiply in short time steps the volts

and amps (take care of the sign) . And for a whole loop you will get allmost 0 power input.
In resonance the energy is alternating between the capacitor and the coil.
The small amount of energy to put in , is only needed to compensate the power losses.
(The capacitor has a paralell resistor , the inductance isself has a series resistor)

@ravzz

I am missing a resistor paralell to the cell, what meyer called the 'current inhibitor resistor'.
Without that the cell won't discharge, the voltage will get to the 12 Volts input, and remain

there.(using the above metioned simulation tool)
You don't use such a resistor ?
Then I think the cell discharges itself; water is not a so good dielectricum , while the voltage
drops down to 0, the cell has the chance to discharge.

First Meyer was talking about a resonant step charging effekt.
Varios voltage levels that step by step will tare apart the water molecules.
With using inductivities in series you will get so high alternating voltage levels ,
that will surely overide this small step charging levels.

So I am nearly convinced , that periodic high voltage peaks will make a efficient electrolysis.

Please ravzz measure the voltage of your cell with an oszilloscope and a voltage devider. There will be 1000V - 3000V , so take care!
We would like to examine the main function of the circuit.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 22, 2007, 07:57:49 AM
Thecell:

I'm using Nichrome 80/20 Resistance Alloy wire in 1.6 mm diameter as the variable resistor. This has resistance of 0.52 Ohms/mt. I remember mentioning this on the oupower discussion board....but i dont think I mentioned the grade or size of the resistance wire used over there. The efficiency of the cell comes down initially if I dont use it for about three to four days but about ten to fifteen minutes after its switched on it gets back to the higher efficiencies. Is this what you meant by cell discharge.

If you go through Stan's patent 4,798,661 on page2 Figure 1 these variable resitors are designated by the numbers 60a to 60n which are individually connected to each of the inner tubes.

I have not tried the immersed excitor array in figure 1 this could probably increase the efficiency even more!

There should be very high voltage at the cell as I remeber Dave saying something about seeing a glow from between the tubes when WFC is run in the dark.....could be HV discharging.....I havent checked for this though...




Rapttor:

Check the following link of the same setup where you can see the input amps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugd2HFmNL3k




Tinu:

Yes I used 12 Volt  10 Amp  AC to DC coverter as the input to the Freq generator and the reading you see in the videos are the current draw from this converter (the wires are the input leads of the freg gen).




Unicron:


Hydro seems to be doing some thing else altogether on the electronics side but using pipes to generate H2....looks like hydro's on to something new!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tinu on August 22, 2007, 08:36:31 AM

Rapttor:

Check the following link of the same setup where you can see the input amps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugd2HFmNL3k


Tinu:

Yes I used 12 Volt  10 Amp  AC to DC coverter as the input to the Freq generator and the reading you see in the videos are the current draw from this converter (the wires are the input leads of the freg gen).

Hi Ravi,

"This video has been removed by the user."
Another available link?

Tx,
Tinu
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 22, 2007, 11:57:15 AM
Not just that even the link you posted has been removed by the user!! I saw it a little while ago1

Whats Happening???????



'Water Fuel Cell blast' was the name of the video on youtube.

Description of the video:
120v to 25v step down transformer, primary amp pull AC .80 amps. Secondary DC pull 3 amps. Heat issue if ran over 1 min.

The generation in both the videos looked the same except that he shows the amp meter showing around 0.82 Amps.


You could visit his forum postings on the link after yours.


Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 22, 2007, 12:01:07 PM
The link to hydrocars postings forum is

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=454
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: NerzhDishual on August 22, 2007, 02:05:33 PM
@Harti_Berlin

Do you mean 2.4 Ampere/hour?

2 moles of electrons for one mole (22.4 liter) of H2.
2*96500= 193000 coulomb for 22.4 liters.
193000/3600/22.4 = 2.4 amp/hour for one liter.

You need more than one volt (theorically 1.23 volts but in practice almost 1.6 volts). This 'leads out' to about 2.4* 1.6 =/= 4 watts/hour for one liter (or 4 kWh per cubic meter) of h2.  Leads it out not?

According to Kanarev:
Quote
"The most modern Electrolyzers consume 4.0 kWh per cubic meter of this gas.
Electrolysis process takes place by voltage of 1.6-2.0 V and current strength of
dozens and hundreds of amperes. When one cubic meter of hydrogen is burnt, 3.55
kWh of energy is released."
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html (http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html)


BTW: This is not a skeptic remark. I'm convinced  that COP >1 ('overunity') electrolysis is possible.

Best



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 22, 2007, 03:12:03 PM
Faraday's is 2.4 watts / hour / liter.


Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts
the generation is around 7 cc/sec of H2 + O2

This converts to 4.66 CC of H2/sec

which converts to 16.776 Lits / hour

16.776 x 2.4 watts (Faraday/lit/hour generation) = 40.262 Watts


Well I seem to be generating the equivalent of 40.2 watts as per Faraday with just 6.12 Watts.........I hope this answers Kumaran's question aswell.

I dont know if im right but I seem to be generating 550% excess

as the above works out to 40.2/6.12 x 100 = 656.86%

656.86 - 100 (Faraday) = 556.86% OU !!

Correct me if im wrong with the calculations.



I remember watching on one of Stan Meyer Videos where they mention the Output to be over 1700% faradays....I guess there's more work needed to be done in this direction.

Dave's unit was 250% OU mine looks a little higher....one of the reasons I think is because my unit is comparitively bigger 9" length 9 tubes compared to Dave's 5" length 6 tubes. Stans was 18"length 9 tubes...double the size of my WFC.

Another reason for higher efficiency could be Dave's gap between the tubes was 1/16" or 1.5875 mm and mine was lesser at less than 0.670 mm....calculations posted by Stefan above.


{For pictures of the Pipe sizes check next page, the pics were posted on 25th Aug 2007.}



I'm using individual leads to each pipe in the WFC.

these I remember now. will post if I remember some more.

Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rapttor on August 22, 2007, 10:01:16 PM
@rapttor

in this thread it gets explained! (from the creator himself)
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=454



@ unicron, I know... I was specifying someone in particular who I see has remained silent, no big deal, thanks for the reply.

-rapttor
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: H2earth on August 23, 2007, 01:26:26 AM
Dyamios,

Your dogma is getting in the way of your education.  The Meyer WFC works, and we have multiple examples of HHO being created at 1.5 wh/ltr,  0.383 wh/ltr., and even 0.0 wh/ltr.  When the free electron current released from the water is counted, they are all net current producers, and, in effect, the Hydroxy is then better than free from an energy standpoint.


How many times is this going to be scrapped up off of the basement floor?

I don't want to be a pessimist or anything, but really, why is there any rhyme or reason to believe that pulsed (essentially AC) electricity will somehow fracture water molecules any better than regular DC. There is no electrical resonant frequency of water to be found. It physically does not exist.

H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy. The simple reaction occurring during electrolysis is merely extra electrons being transfered to form gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen (diagrammed below):
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2

The reason there is less energy use is because of the minute gap between the electrodes. The smaller the gap, the less distance the electrons and ions have to move to form new molecules.

The reason the water heats up is because when the water molecules fall apart when extra electrons are supplied, the various atoms must migrate through the water itself to the various electrodes, where it finally forms the gaseous form. As these particles move, they bump into other molecules and atoms, and add entropy (in the form of heat) to the system. This is INEVITABLE and ALWAYS occurs no matter what kind of frequency is used. The less gap, the less chance for the particles to bump into each other, therefore creating less heat, but heat will ALWAYS be produced.

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

First, there is no similarity between AC current and pulsed DC as employed in the WFC.

Second, the compound resonance in the WFC is clearly evident to experimenters.  There is an electrical resonance between the inductors (Resonant Charging Choke coils), there is an electrical resonance within the intraelectrode gap itself within the water, and, finally, there is an acoustical resonance between the cylindrical electrodes, which is somehow phase coupled to the electrical resonances.  The electrical resonance involves a phase delay between the pulses to the electrodes, which has the effect of inhibiting current flow into the cell; the acoustic resonance produces a standing wave which inhibits ion transport.  Both of these contribute to dielectric breakdown in the water, which is where electrons are ripped from the water (by voltage alone) producing gas in the process.

Actually, what about the Water Fuel Cell even resembles electrolysis?   1) There is no electrolye;  2) There is NO current admitted to the water, in a proper system;  3) No heating occurs in the water as it produces gas; 4) The gas produced is Hydroxy (aka HHO or "Brown's Gas"), not differentiated Hydrogen & Oxygen; and 5) All of the work is performed by voltage potential alone.


Stanley Meyers had a flawed understanding of the process of electrolysis, and his theory was debunked by the patent office.

Why make such demonstrably FALSE statements?

Actually, in a Sec. 101 technical appeals hearing by the U.S. Patent Office, Meyer's fundamental "Methods" patent was issued because, upon inspection of the working device by engineering examiners, it did exactly as he claimed it was doing.


I'm begging everyone who reads this: PLEASE learn the rudimentary science before running off go blindly believe somebody. Most, if not all, of the theories here are flawed in some basic way (it goes without saying that the laws of thermodynamics are excluded from this, as every theory violates this).

Enough of Stanley Meyers. He was a fraud. His theory was flawed. He was weighed, measured, and found guilty. What does it take to get people to realize that water is NOT an energy source. At most its an inefficient energy carrier.

Hydrogen is only the future of MOVING energy, NOT making it. Please people, understand this!

The old 'rudimentary science' is obsolete, and all of this evidence posted by different experimenters proves it.  A growing list of independent replications is establishing the viability of "Hydrogen-on-Demand" from water, with no (or negligible) net external eneregy input.  Water is definitely a fuel, when used as an electron source for Radiant Energy circuits.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: starcruiser on August 23, 2007, 03:17:37 AM
It appears to me that Dyamios may be trying to dissuade us from following a path that will free us from Big Oil? I could be wrong but???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: h20power on August 23, 2007, 07:49:45 PM
Yeah, it does indeed. History is behind us with Dangel Dingles work since he has had this type of stuff working since 1968. That really makes it hard too say it's all BS, like this guy Dyamios is trying too do that, or he is so stuck on the old ways and he is willing to give his life in it's defense. So many lost souls out there.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 24, 2007, 04:59:07 AM
Faraday's is 2.4 watts / hour / liter.


Just to not confuse other people, I must correct you a bit:
It must be 2.4 Watts x 1 hour long applied  /  liter.

so it is 2.4 Watthours of energy per Liter.

( so it is multiplied with the hour not divided by the hour...)


Quote
Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts
the generation is around 7 cc/sec of H2 + O2

This converts to 4.66 CC of H2/sec

and NerzDishual wrote:

Quote
@Harti_Berlin

Do you mean 2.4 Ampere/hour?

2 moles of electrons for one mole (22.4 liter) of H2.
2*96500= 193000 coulomb for 22.4 liters.
193000/3600/22.4 = 2.4 amp/hour for one liter.

You need more than one volt (theorically 1.23 volts but in practice almost 1.6 volts). This 'leads out' to about 2.4* 1.6 =/= 4 watts/hour for one liter (or 4 kWh per cubic meter) of h2.  Leads it out not?


So the real question I have now,
must the Faraday law be
2.4 Watthours per liter (H2 plus O2) gas
or per Liter H2 gas alone ?
So do we have to remove the O2 gas from the equation ?

If yes, we would need to generate more HHO gas for 2.4 Watthours of energy input....

Can somebody clarify this ?
I have been reading about this somewhere on the web but don?t find
the link anymore...
Many thanks.

Regards,Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on August 24, 2007, 05:36:15 AM
Compound Resonance....H2EARTH, thank you for that post !!!! and if Im not mistaken you may have just coined that term "Compound Resonance" You were a first HERO among alot of us o boys....and Im proud that you were the one to clear up Dyamios unfortunate pleas to piss all over one of the GREATS, just wanted to say Thank You.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 24, 2007, 10:08:25 AM
Hi everyone,

I've uploaded two more videos with the new leads connected up until the bottom of the WFC.

A lot of small bubble generation this time around. WFC gets fogged up. Need to check if there's any improvement in the outputs. The leads dont get hot....but need to check with prolonged use.

WFC leaking...so cant do the gas output test right now. This thing will take time I guess.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsKOdxLIJU


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw


Stefan i'll try and do what you asked me to once the leaks are rectified.

Feed back would be appreciated and any ideas on doing something else to the WFC to improve efficiency further.



Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 24, 2007, 04:24:57 PM
The following images were taken when I was conditioning the WFC a few months ago. Initially the outputs remained ver very low but gradually increased with the conditioning progressing...

Don't worry if the generation is low at the beginning



First pic is conditioning at 2 Amps.

Second pic is scum on the surface in between conditioning.

Third pic is scum at the end of the conditioning...when you need to change the water for the next round of conditioning.

Fourth pic is generation at 5 Amps.

Fifth pic is scum again

Sixth and Seventh pics are the scum holding on to the tube edges which need to be cleaned with a brush only...do not touch the pipes with bare hands.


Ravi

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 25, 2007, 05:54:41 AM



2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw


Ravi

Is this just 12 Volts x 0.5amps = 6 Watts only ?
Really ? if yes, you really have a huge gas output for
such a low input power...

Do you have a scope and can show the waveforms
at each pipe pair ?

What frequency do you use and can you also show
your chokes ?

Why do you power each pipe pair individually and don?t
put them all in parallel at the device , so why are you using
so many wires there ?

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 08:08:43 AM
Hi Stefan,

Yes the current draw by the freq gen is 12V 0.5 Amps its from 12 Volt 10 Amp DC converter that I use. The current reading you see is the input draw to the freq gen from the DC converter. Everything you need to make this unit is in the updated D14.pdf in the link below

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

including the inductors....which are very very important. Then comes the conditioning which is crucial....how to is posted on oupower. Its a specific procedure that has to be followed!

Dave who was the first to replicate stan meyer system had got outputs in the range of 250% OU (without the inductors, should be more now...he hasnt talked about the outputs with the inductors). I have made my system based on his inputs and all these inputs on how you can get these kind of outputs are already posted on the oupower forum and partially here.

No I dont have a scope. My system was slightly modified and I have so many leads going in as I can control the number of tubes that can be operated without opening the WFC. I have 18 leads coming out of the WFC 9 +ve and 9 -ve.....with this I can run on one tube or six like daves or all 9....you basically have an easier control on the number of tubes to be used for experimentation without dismantling the WFC. Dave's and Stanleys systems had a spacing of 1/16" (1.5875mm) and my pipes have a gap of less than 0.670mm (could be the main reason for the higher efficiency in my unit) and im using 9 tube sets of 9" length and the inner being 1/2" more than the outer for connections. Dave used 6 tubes of 5" length for his 250% OU. Stans were 9 tubes of 18" length on his demonstration electrolyzer and in one of the videos available, there are claims that he's making 1700% OU over Faradays. When compared to this efficiency I still have some more work to do. Dave's electrolyzer generating HHO with inductors as per the updated D14..... video link...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiA4z_Kpgg4


Stefan the excess gas outputs were documented quite sometime ago by Dave. There are a few people who have connected the D14 system to vehicles.....here's a link....this guy claims his mileage increased from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal....thats an increase of 17 miles per gallon.....he's even showing you how you can tune a WFC with an AM Radio!!...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


Everything you need to make this system is in D14 and the data which is required to make this system efficient and how to go about it has been posted by me on the oupower and here. You get very very low gas generation in the beginning when you are conditioning like you see in the pictures above and below. I dont know why it works the way it works or the theory behind why or how it works.......it just works!......Make it follow the procedure and you will achieve OU over fardays!!! I've put in efforts without thinking it would fail and it didnt...

Im posting a few pictures of WFC under construction and progress....

The wall thickness of both the pipes is 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 10:12:57 AM
I'm unable to connect to oupower.....incase someone can get through....the info & data could be copy pasted here...

Just incase.....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 03:16:26 PM


Hi everyone,



You need to make changes as per the updated D14! the older one doesnt work that well ! If you already have an old one then check the differences and modify.


PLEASE USE THE UPDATED D14 CIRCUITS ONLY NOT THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS.


Patrick had updated these on June 2nd 2007.


Incase you have doubts please got to the following link and compare with the page 7 circuit (with inductors):

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf



Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheCell on August 25, 2007, 03:18:20 PM
Hello ravzz

you should find a way to measure the volts and amps of one cell with a oscillograph.
If you don't have one , then try to rent one.
Or maybe dave lawton can do this.I don't know his E-Mail .
Specially when the cell is in a conditioned mode, it surely does not behave like normal capacitor.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 03:55:01 PM
Hi,


Im not sure if I can give Dave's Id. But you could ask Patrick to convey this to Dave....theyre in regular touch...

Patrick Kelley's id:

engpjk@yahoo.co.uk



Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Super God on August 25, 2007, 04:05:29 PM
My setup was gonna be something like 30 tubes that were 4 inches long.  I didn't know that longer tubes yeilded more efficiency.  It's so damn expensive to get good tubes though!  Whew!  But anyway, how would you scale this system up to run a car?  That's my goal.  Maybe I could just cram as many electrolyzers as possible under the hood?  Space is my concerm here... :)

Thank you ravzz!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 04:38:02 PM
From what i remember seeing in one of Stans water car video he had his buggy running on his demonstration electrolyser.

But he even claimed that it was almost 1700% OU over faradays....so theres lot more work to be done to reach those efficiencies!

Check this guy who's already fixed the D14 unit to his car.....he claims to have gotten an increase from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal!! Thats an increase of 17 miles to a gallon!! dont know who he is....in case anyone knows ....please post the info about him!!

Check the video on how he tunes his WFC with an AM Radio and his claims.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


This should be of help to you Super God


Ravi

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 25, 2007, 05:30:18 PM
Alright people there's something really weird happening in the WFC.

Dave had mentioned some time ago that there's some glow in the dark.


I just checked it in pitch dark..... theres some kind of orange glow coming from the bottom of the WFC but cant make out exactly from where... tried taking pics but didnt work they got all pixulated.


Any idea what this could be??

Will get back in a day or two.


Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 25, 2007, 07:36:54 PM
Have a look at this guy,
he is actually using very cleverly the HHO output to heat water up
in a Stainless Steel bowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq65lrw4-Ro

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 26, 2007, 09:06:37 PM
...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 26, 2007, 10:38:41 PM
Have a look at this guy,
he is actually using very cleverly the HHO output to heat water up
in a Stainless Steel bowl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq65lrw4-Ro



Thats an awful lot of wattage to create that amount of heat, I can boil that amount of water faster with my 25 watt soldering iron.

Look, I know you guys see me as the bad guy, but try to stay in perspective, we all want to achieve as high efficiency as possible.

I'm in the process of replicating Stan Meyers work, for the moment I'm testing two stainless steel plates with an aluminum plate as the neutral(not electrically connected), the stainless steel plates are connected to approx 45 volts DC, the current being drawn presently is .510 amps, thats 510 milliamps, I will admit that the amount of HHO being given off is surprising me.

All three plates are seperated by about a 2 to 3 millimeter gap with the aluminum plate between the two stainless steel plates.


As soon as I've completed the pulse circuit I will test again.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TS on August 27, 2007, 06:28:17 AM
Ravi,

First off thanks for all your hard work and contributions to the forum.

I will be starting on my own replication soon, everything has been ordered and is shipping or already here. 

Initially I will going for strait replication, then move towards improvements.
I have a decent background in digital electronics and programming small processors and I look forward to incorporating some of this after successful replication.

When I ordered my tubes I went with 12 inches, It could have been a mistake. I will make sure the 100 Ohm resisters are rated heavier then .25amp in schematic.

I have some specific question about assembly. It your photos it looks like you welded the Stainless steel wire to the tubes,  then sealed them in silicone and some type of tubing.

#1. Do the stainless steel wires act as resistors?

#2. Do you think I could use copper wire sealed in silicon? (The connection too tubes will be bolts)

#3. In your notes on conditioning you state;  ? 1. Do not use any resistance on the negative side when conditioning the pipes.?   The d14 document does not show any resistors on the negative side. Could you clarify?

Thanks again,

Respectfully,

Tom
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rMuD on August 27, 2007, 06:32:05 AM
Aluminum has a stronger bond with oxygen than water, normally aluminum forms a oxide layer instantly..  you are actually thru electrolysis converting the alumina coating back to aluminum then it instantly grabs the water molecule and gives off H2 and keeps the O or possibly it's grabbing back the O it just split off to turn back into alumina.  Try adding Gallium or Mercury to the mix (liquid metal)  prevents the alumina from coating the aluminum..  will dissolve that aluminum plate up quick, should generate some very impressive amounts of Hydrogen.

What I've wanted to try is disolve some aluminum with gallium in water.. and also do electrolysis at the same time, once the alumina is in suspension in the water, it's in a pristine condition to be converted back to aluminum with electrolysis, which immediately may bond with water to go back to alumina.  the electrolysis of aluminum probably takes more energy than split water, but I'm wondering if partial gain from recycling in a closed system could extend your milage from 1 mile per pound of aluminum to 3-4 miles per pound or maybe more.  the gallium is not used at all, it stays in solution, and can actually be squeezed out.  Also I don't know what it will do to the stainless steel.. 


All three plates are seperated by about a 2 to 3 millimeter gap with the aluminum plate between the two stainless steel plates.


As soon as I've completed the pulse circuit I will test again.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 27, 2007, 07:56:06 AM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 27, 2007, 09:06:43 AM
WOW Tao you seem to give a totally different perspective on what's happening......you could be right!!

Can any one throw a little more light on this?

This could make replications much easier if we can actually determine the frequency needed for a particular dimension / length of the tubes!!




Runningbare:

There is an anamoly thats not understood when neutral plates are used!  Try using three neutral plates and see how much more you generate.





TS:

You're welcome.

12" is fine. Well I went in for 9" when Dave's was 5".....you could probably throw some light on what modifications might be needed if you use longer tubes. Stan used 18" tubes so maybe I should try making a setup with 18" length tubes now.


#1. Yes the SS wires act as resistors. The specificresistance of 316L is around 75 Micro-Ohm-cm and that of copper is 1.72 Micro-Ohm-cm. The leads heat up when higher amps are drawn by the freq gen....you can see this in the videos  I posted. I've replaced the leads upto the bottom of the WFC with 4 Sqmm double insulated copper wire and the heat generation did come down. I need to check if theres any increase / decrease in generation.

#2. I have spot welded the 316L wires to the tubes. Used silicone to keep them in place and avoid shorting. The tubes are plastic for insulation. Yes you can use copper wire sealed in silicone sealant. Cover the exposed copper leads in the water with silicone sealant as well.

#3. Stan's patent 4,798,661 figure 1 has variable resistance connected to each of the inner tubes with numbers 60a....to 60n, this was what I was talking about. This is a variation you can try much later on.



Hydro:

When I tried conditioning the tubes at 3A to 5A range.....the resistors got burnt so I got them replaced with higher wattages. Its as simple as that.


Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 27, 2007, 11:15:24 AM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 27, 2007, 03:58:15 PM
Hydro:

Just pin 3....Left part of the circuit after the switch and the second part of the circuit at pin 3 before the 220 ohm resistor.

The blinking is when the switch at pin 3 of circuit 1 (left) is on.....when you switch it off its more or less continuously on....look at the wave form given there....its only the circuit 2 (right part connec to MOSFET) which is on then. If it doesnt blink then theres something wrong with the first part of the circuit!

I'm experiencing problems connecting to youtube......is it the same with you guys as well?

Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on August 27, 2007, 04:05:47 PM
yes. something has happened to youtube, the whole service has been completely laminated. i think its time to use http://www.videodownloader.net/ to download the clippets you have posted and retain them elsewhere.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 27, 2007, 04:24:41 PM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 27, 2007, 06:03:36 PM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power - closing the loop?
Post by: SwinG on August 27, 2007, 06:11:59 PM
Hi guys.

Big thank's to all the people involved with this technology. I have been following both hydrocars and Ravzz for some weeks now, and I must say that I'm impressed (who isn't).

I have been watching for a while know.
I tryed a closed looped system from ring_theory a few months ago, but never got it to work, so with nothing to contribute with, I have been holding a low profile.
But... I'm planning on getting back into business.

My main motivation for the OU hunt is not powering my home or car. My main motivation is the impact a working OU device would have on people, politicians and scientists.
The people could use a optimistic lift, and a new way of looking at the UFO phenomenon (a working OU device would, with one blow, make interstellar travel possible). People would also be more likely to belive that BigOil have been supressing OU devices for years, and that way see the world in a more clearly light.
Politicians would be forced to embrace the new paradigm. Energy and global warming agendas would be gone.
Scientists would have to stop beliving we are the top of the intellectual food chain, in a universal context, and start exploring new ideas and possibilities.

I may be naive, but that's what I hope a OU device would bring the people of the world, besides free energy :)

I think a closed loop system is absolutely nessesary for making the OU case. Thats why I wouldn't try to make a veichle run on a WFC. That woulden't be necessary. Instead, I find it very intriguing to see a moderate sized WFC, running a smaller engine (or a regular hydrogen fuel cell), pulling a generator to deliver power for the WFC.

Does anyone have input in this regard?

I'm thinking a RC Nitro car engine or alike. Can such an engine run from HHO?
What about a generator. Would a 12V accu driller motor be usable as a generator?

I thing the whole project would be to much for myself, but the project could be split into 2 or 3 stages. A WFC stage, an engine stage and a generator stage.

I know bringing free energy to the world won't be as easy as building such device, and rush down to the nearest newspaper, university or the state secretary of energy, but I consider that a positive problem.

@hydrocars
Have you abandoned you setup without the Frequency generator from the waterfuelcell.org forum?. Your HHO production seemed pretty nice.

SwinG

P.S. Any one from Denmark interested in coorporation?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 27, 2007, 06:37:05 PM
Hi Hydro,

Yes the tubes are Bright Annealed. You can use sand paper on the outside of the inner tube and the inside of the outer tube. See to it that you use a small grit so that you get small scratches on the surfaces....I used grit 100 with cloth backing as it can withstand the curved surfaces well.

Rest Looks good.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 27, 2007, 06:54:48 PM
Alright People some have been very skeptical about the volumes I mentioned....so this video is for especially for them!!



Sorry about the bad quality....the natural light wasnt there like in the videos 7 & 8......so you need to adjust with this till I make a fresh one with better lighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ

Well Hydro looks like you were right the WFC seems to be producing more!!
1.31min into the video the gas collection was started and stopped at 1.51min of the video......20 secs to be exact.

The gas collected was over 150CC could be 160 / 165CC....
As some might say that there could be Steam / Vapour / Mist......lets just take the output as 150CC in 20 Secs.

This comes to 7.5CC of HHO/Sec at 0.48A - 0.50A.

Last I checked with the old leads was 7.0 CC HHO without any thing removed from the generation.




Stefan I hope this is what you had asked for.



Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 27, 2007, 07:37:18 PM


#1. Yes the SS wires act as resistors. The specificresistance of 316L is around 75 Micro-Ohm-cm and that of copper is 1.72 Micro-Ohm-cm. The leads heat up when higher amps are drawn by the freq gen....you can see this in the videos  I posted. I've replaced the leads upto the bottom of the WFC with 4 Sqmm double insulated copper wire and the heat generation did come down. I need to check if theres any increase / decrease in generation.

#2. I have spot welded the 316L wires to the tubes. Used silicone to keep them in place and avoid shorting. The tubes are plastic for insulation. Yes you can use copper wire sealed in silicone sealant. Cover the exposed copper leads in the water with silicone sealant as well.


Ravi and all,
remember, if you have 2 different metals fixed together and run a big current through
it, one side will heat up, cause you have the Seebeck effect, it is like a thermo element...

So maybe it is just better to use the same SS material also for the connections
and use low current and high voltage and low conduction water
to break the H20 bonds apart...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 27, 2007, 07:49:59 PM
Alright People some have been very skeptical about the volumes I mentioned....so this video is for especially for them!!



Sorry about the bad quality....the natural light wasnt there like in the videos 7 & 8......so you need to adjust with this till I make a fresh one with better lighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ

Well Hydro looks like you were right the WFC seems to be producing more!!
1.31min into the video the gas collection was started and stopped at 1.51min of the video......20 secs to be exact.

The gas collected was over 150CC could be 160 / 165CC....
As some might say that there could be Steam / Vapour / Mist......lets just take the output as 150CC in 20 Secs.

This comes to 7.5CC of HHO/Sec at 0.48A - 0.50A.

Last I checked with the old leads was 7.0 CC HHO without any thing removed from the generation.




Stefan I hope this is what you had asked for.



Ravi

Hi Ravi,
well done.
We now really see, how much gas you are producing.
Well done with this setup.

But the question still is, what kind of pulses
do you use at the pipes ?
Can you loan a scope from someone and show the pulses on a scope ?

Where did you connect exactly your Ampmeter ?
As it is an ampmeter for high current DC amps probably,
it would not work good
for low current Khz frequency pulses...
So the reading could be wrong.

Can you try to use an analog DC ampmeter and also
show the used voltage on an analog voltmeter ?

With digital meters you can get wrong readings very easily.
Best would be to use a 12 Volts battery and hook onto it
the DC ampmeter, then next after this 2 or 3 lowpass LC filters
with big chokes and for instance 10.000 uF capacitors
and then going into the input to your frequency driver.

This way you would really measure a DC only input into the
LC lowpassfilters and then into the frequency driver,
so you are sure you have the right input power without
pulses destroying your DC amps measurements.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on August 28, 2007, 01:18:58 AM
My approach to amps measurement in this case would be at the mains source, by  a meter oblivious to phase shift.

Better still, use a fully charged rechargable battery of known storage characteristics.   Power yer circuit for a while, quantify gas production, note time of operation, shut it all down and recharge the battery with a mAh counting charger.

See exactly how much power went into the process via battery, divide into gas production for gas per watt.

This would go a long was towards validation.   Many wattmeters cain't deal with pulses and phase shifts.   Measure the source if possible.

Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 28, 2007, 02:26:22 AM
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, is the voltage measured?

I can get huge reactions from a few milliamps so long as I have very very high voltage, eg it is the input wattage that is needed, voltage or current alone are meaningless, if voltage and current are quoted we can then at least calculate the wattage which is the most important calculation when measuring input to output ratios.


Alright People some have been very skeptical about the volumes I mentioned....so this video is for especially for them!!



Sorry about the bad quality....the natural light wasnt there like in the videos 7 & 8......so you need to adjust with this till I make a fresh one with better lighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ

Well Hydro looks like you were right the WFC seems to be producing more!!
1.31min into the video the gas collection was started and stopped at 1.51min of the video......20 secs to be exact.

The gas collected was over 150CC could be 160 / 165CC....
As some might say that there could be Steam / Vapour / Mist......lets just take the output as 150CC in 20 Secs.

This comes to 7.5CC of HHO/Sec at 0.48A - 0.50A.

Last I checked with the old leads was 7.0 CC HHO without any thing removed from the generation.




Stefan I hope this is what you had asked for.



Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on August 28, 2007, 02:31:12 AM
My post presupposed voltage measurement, as wattage cain't be calculated without it.
Sorry I fergot to mention that.
Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 28, 2007, 07:25:20 AM
Hi Stefan,

I do have an analogue DC Amp meter fixed in the Freq Gen. The digital meter I have was read on the range of 0 to 20A and the analogue shows almost the same but you can see that it keeps fluctuating with the pulse.....even thats at around 0.5A.

The voltage is straight DC from the AC to DC converter. Is there any thing else I might be missing?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFrw3xxDow



Hydro the LED on the left part of the circuit is placed before the switch and you can see that when the switch is turned off the right LED doesn't blink and the current draw increases by more than four fold! The right LED is on pin 3 of the second 555. I hope this clears what you had in mind Hydro.

Ravi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 28, 2007, 07:52:46 AM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on August 28, 2007, 07:57:00 AM
Looks good now.
So I see, that you are using a 12 Volt power supply to run the whole thing, right ?

Are you using just pulses in the Hz region not Khz range ?

Is your circuit the D14.PDF page 7 circuit
with 2 x 555 timers ?

What are the exact 2 frequencies ?
Can you show also the chokes in your video
or just open up your plastic box and have
a
longer look into it ?
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 28, 2007, 08:14:03 AM
Hi Everyone,

I've received a mail asking me to market the system....I would want to close this topic once and for all.....so im posting the reply to the mail.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Im free sourcing what i've done......all the circuits needed and the hardware that I used including the dimensions is on this thread and the thread at www.oupower.com

Trust me you wouldnt be allowed to market this unit....the world economy runs on fuel and energy taxation.....you cant put something into the market that is going to alter everything the way we know it.....it takes time for everything to evolve.....this is the future but if you can make it....make it for yourself. I've already been raided once for trying to experiment with this technology....and free sourcing is the only way out for this kind of technology.

I am already collaborating with Panacea-Bocaf to release some ideas where in this system can be used to augment non-conventional fuels (which have very low calorific values) in the power generation sector. This idea would basically curtail immediate job losses and would give time for the economies to evolve to the next generation fuels but eventually it would seep down to the grass roots level in a few decades.

I'm posting this mail on the thread so that everyone gets to know that I dont expect any commercial returns from this system.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





This belongs to the world its free!! even if you cant completely run an engine on this it can give you increased fuel efficiencies to the range of 50%.....like it did to someone in one of the videos posted in this thread....the improvement is from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal....this is an increase of almost 60% !!....I cant vouch for his claims....I havent tried this and I dont intend to aswell....

But please do post your results incase you try this system.....This would be the smallest gratitude that I expect for my effort.

Even if the efficiency improvement is 20 to 30% depending on the driving conditions.....it would be a huge favor we are doing to the world we live in....and we are saving that much percentage of pollution that our children and the future generations don't need to live with.


RAVI
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 28, 2007, 08:24:59 AM
...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: nada on August 28, 2007, 08:44:01 AM
f
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tinu on August 28, 2007, 08:45:43 AM
Hi Ravi,

Why is it so hard to give a real measurement of the power used?
There are already many posts dealing with the same issue and you seem to give a lot of lateral explanations instead of doing the simplest thing: to answer directly to these concerns.

What is that difficult in placing a DC ammeter immediately after the 12V power source and then an electrolytic capacitor in parallel with the freq generator and also a DC voltmeter on the capacitor and do a close-to-real real power estimate?!

If the input power is only about 6W, a capacitor of 30-50 miliF should do. It should keep the voltage and current fluctuations in a relatively small range, thus ensuring a reasonable error in power computation.

Beat me if I understand you!   ???
Electrolytics are cheap and you can go up to 1F at 12V if you want lower the errors and to really prove your point?
You already have at least two ammeters?
I can do the multiplication, if needed?  ;D

(By the way: those wires were not burn at 1A. Not a chance! Maybe at 8-10A is possible as it is possible that you had current nodes along the wires.)

Tx,
Tinu
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on August 28, 2007, 10:35:02 AM
ppl i have a prob ...cnat post any more

good luck
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 28, 2007, 10:46:02 AM
...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 28, 2007, 01:33:28 PM
Uh oh, I feel I should be sarcastic at this point, but since the nature of the problem has not been specified then I will go along with suspicion, the voltage was asked for and suddenly you cannot post here anymore, come on!, really what is so hard about saying it is such and such volts at such and such amps?

ppl i have a prob ...cnat post any more

good luck
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 28, 2007, 01:45:08 PM
If the circuit used is the one on page 7 of D14.pdf, then those coils will produce considerable EMF when fed with a square wave, that means considerably high voltage spikes, so for a few milliamps you will certainly get a good reaction within the chamber, but lets take a guess at the voltage figure, lets assume that the average voltage spikes are 100 volts, the current drawn is .5 amps, that 100x.5 = 50 watts! dissipation for each spike.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: NerzhDishual on August 28, 2007, 01:45:57 PM

Good moaning Roaring Bard  ;D!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on August 28, 2007, 03:00:23 PM
ppl i have a prob ...cnat post any more

good luck

hi just thought i would say check ravzz last post at

http://www.oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1602&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120 (http://www.oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1602&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 28, 2007, 07:30:00 PM
What you all need to know is, The story below is ABOUT Ravi himself...

So, don't go jumping on the guy about not posting Volts/Amps,etc... For all those doubters thinking he stopped posting because he was asked about volts/amps measurements, the story below COULD be fake, but it was written MONTHS ago, and Ravi himself never wanted to post on the forums until many people convinced him to release all of his information, and that is what he has been doing for the last 2 weeks online via videos and the two forum threads. So, knowing what he has already been through... It is reasonable to believe 'they' might have re-contacted him in some way...




February 5, 2007:
In the country of India an inventor had just secretly replicated Stan Meyer's success. He called a friend to report his success.  The next day 9 "suits" showed up at his business demanding an immediate audit of all his business records.  While rummaging through his business files, one of the MIB's told the inventor he had to stop working on hydrogen, but gave no reason. The men then took his computers and numerous business records.  The inventor was then told to come down to a government office to pick up his records the following week.  When he arrived at the appointed time, he recognized 6 or the original 9 men.  3 were missing.  The man who told him to stop working on hydrogen was one of the 3 missing.  The inventor asked of that person's whereabouts.  The manager of the tax office said he had never seen them before, just that they came down from a "higher office" and informed that tax branch they had to do an immediate audit on the inventor's business.  No explanation given.  No one fitting that description cold be located at the "higher office."


From http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html:
Recent Harassment on a Stan Meyer Cell Builder in India 2-1-07
We are familiar with the suppression of free-energy devices. In the USA there have been literally thousands of cases - for example, Bill Williams for running his truck on a Joe Cell, T Henry Moray for pulling kilowatts out of the environment and Ed Gray for daring to have a power tube with an output power 100 times the input power.

In Australia there is intense opposition to anyone using the Nitro Cell on any engine. In New Zealand, to the magnetic motor of Robert Adams which is 700% efficient. In the UK, to devices for water-splitting and permanent magnet motors. In Japan to Teruo Kawai?s patented magnetic motor which is 160% efficient.

But in the last week there has been an instance of it in India, in spite of the fact that the bus service in Mumbai has been run on hydrogen for some years now. A man, who wishes to remain anonymous in order not to aggravate the current situation, has just been picked on. He has been running a business for the last 23 years and has a good relationship with his local Commercial Taxation Office staff.

He became interested in Dave Lawton?s replication and decided to try it for himself. The seven pictures which I have placed in the Files section of the Group in the folder ?RAVZZ? show his high standard of workmanship. He encountered a minor problem with his implementation of the electronic driving circuit, and so contacted Dave Lawton for technical advice. This was given and the problem solved. He then e-mailed Dave some pictures showing his progress.

Within 8 hours, his premises were raided by nine people supposedly from the local Tax Office. In actual fact, six of them were from the local office and the other three were unknown to the locals who had been ordered to take them along. During their search of the place, the man was told that he would be well advised to discontinue all work connected to hydrogen. That shows clearly that the ?raid? had nothing whatsoever to do with taxation and the Tax Office was just being used as an excuse to invade the privacy of an individual.

They spent six hours checking everything eventually left, taking commercial records with them, and subsequently requested that our friend attend their local office on Wednesday (the day before yesterday). He attended, sensibly taking people from his business as witnesses. The six local officials were there and they returned the records taken, stating that there was nothing wrong with the records or the tax position. They also said that they were bewildered by the whole affair. He asked them about the other three men, and they said that the Commissioners office had asked them to take them along....and they have no idea who they were!

He then had a long conversation with the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who had came over to his place. He also seemed confused as to why they were hurried up to go over to his place from the Commissioners office. He said that the Commissioners office received a complaint from some higher authorities and these people were given written instructions (an unusual thing in itself) to go to his office and make some checks, usually this happens but the visits are done after 3-4 days of the receipt of the letter from the Commissioners office based on the time allotment, but in this case there were 4 calls directly from the Commissioners office to go over to his place immediately !!

This is a typical case of deliberate intimidation and it is unusual only because it is in India. It also shows that Dave Lawton?s e-mails are being intercepted and read as this man did not mention his hydrogen work to anyone else. Dave once made the mistake of applying for a development grant from his Local Authority. The grant was to help develop one of his inventions. He was visited by two unpleasant individuals who took away his written proposal. Nothing ever came of it and when Dave asked for his documents back, they lied, saying that they has posted them. When he pressured them, they did eventually send the documents back, and the date stamp on the envelope shows that the documents were posted long after they originally claimed that they had been sent. It turns out that these men have no connection with the Local Authority Grants section and it seems clear that they fall into the same category as the three ?unknown? men in India who carried out the raid.
presumably, Dave?s phone calls and e-mails have been intercepted and monitored ever since and that is what triggered the raid in India.

The raid in India is very interesting in that it shows clearly that the opposition are very much afraid of Stan Meyer?s Water Fuel Cell. This implies that the cell is capable of producing serious amounts of free-energy and can break our dependency on fossil fuels.

February 2, 2007
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on August 29, 2007, 03:28:24 AM
Very interesting topic and makes sense to me. I have spent many years tinkering with RF circuits and the concept of inducing high voltage and high frequency sounds correct but im not fortunate enough to have access to lab materials to test this stuff. To apply only DC is just brute force. It appears to me the rods act as an antenna rather than a capacitor. In fact the rods or plates are akin to an end fed dipole. In an RF circuit when the circuit is untuned the current input to the circuit is very high i.e. the 10 amp range we typically see on these experiments. Like wise as the Plate and Load capacitor is adjusted in a Pi Tank circuit feeding an antenna or tube system in our case we find the resonance of the system. This is coupled with low standing waves and very high voltages when fed with pulse width modulation. I would be interested to know if anyone tested pure sine wave instead of PWM as PWM creates massive harmonics.  I am in no doubt you will know when you have found the "sweet spot" because the input current will drop dramatically while gas produced will peak when the system becomes resonant. The choke and capacitor values will also be critical to system performance because once this works I would expect to see at least 500-700 volts on the tubes and it not impossible to see a blue glow followed by a ton of gas emitted. Be careful because I would not discount producing soft X-rays and staring at the blue glows is not a good idea!

While on the subject of input power its very hard to accurately measure power on the pulsed side of the circuit. Most cheap digital meters are designed to read DC or AC current at 50/60 HZ with equal duty cycle and could read anything at 3 kHz with tiny pulse width. So measure everything on the DC input side and this is better anyway as then you take into account all switching and control equipment when calculating efficiency.

Of course this application is not just limited to vehicles. In many 3rd world countries many hours of blackouts are common and running generators for electricity is very expensive to keep basic needs such as fridge, lights and water pump going and even 30% fuel saving is huge.

Anway, very exciting and i wish you all the best of luck.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 29, 2007, 03:29:10 AM
Is this forum infiltrated with oil company men, if so, Im sure Stefan will have a field day with you. Ill be watching.

Ravi has stopped due to the spooks attempting suppression.
Please post this in as many forums publicly as possible do you part to protect yourselfs.

It Seems the spooks are trying to scare Ravi again,

Quote from an email last night

"I have just received a call about 5 mins ago on my land line asking me to stop posting on the forums and youtube. If I still do they said that someone will have to visit me personally to take care of it. I dont have a caller ID on the line. This person had a British accent.

 
Please try and save all the posting till now on I dont know if I can post anymore...but i'll try keep in touch.-end

Do not be afraid to replicate Ravi's and Lawtons results and post your results, to be afraid is exactly what they want, Bill Williams took a shot gun to them, they have not been back, the more we replicate Ravi's and Lawtons findings the more the meek will by natural selection be quelled.

I will be reporting this incident to the mainstream news, and disclosing it with our replication results which are under way ATM.

I pity the spooks if they come after us, i have arranged 20 people to be waiting for them,  I know they are reading this, and wanted to set a trap, i hope they think im joking and just come after us.

I look forward to seeing you guys soon.

Ravi and any one experiencing this is to file a complaint with the local police so that it is on record and give them all details. Send us (panacea-bocaf.org) the address of the police station and the name of the officer and the time he logged the report.

If there is any one in India we know and trust also get them to contact US first. The other thing is to get Ravi the find out the names of the people who visited him from the Tax Office and the positions they hold. Give the names to us and the name of the person in charge.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm

We have many volunteers in our Non profit org and even a volunteer private investigator.

The good news is it works if they are trying to spook Ravi.
So start replicating.

regards
ashtweth



 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ewok on August 29, 2007, 06:55:15 AM
this is what everyone should know

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 29, 2007, 07:41:37 AM
That about 10% of this
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EnergySuppression.htm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: antomarki on August 29, 2007, 12:05:19 PM


Dear Ravi,

why haven't you made a "package" of all your replication's information and send it everywhere in just one time?
 
Why have you, like others, distilled some incomplete revelation ? You knew it was risky.
Now, see what's happening again and again... another MIB episode.

Is it a remake of the Neverending Story????

In the movies, each heros knows that to protect himself from the villains the best is to reveal the whole secret throughout the medias.

Why haven't you sent the whole secret to the whole community in a single file? A simple click was sufficient...


??????????????????????...................


Why always repeating the same error ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on August 29, 2007, 12:23:11 PM
do you honestly reckon http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf (http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf) isnt good enough?> well?  ???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on August 29, 2007, 12:25:47 PM
I think Ravi has done enough already having released several vids on youtube and several posts on here to let us and "them" know how far his project as progressed. There is certainly enough information to allow others to reproduce his findings if they wanted too. The concept is fairly straight forward. Just hit the cell with the right frequency and input power will drop dramatically as gas production seemingly soars over unity. Clearly anyone attempting this kind of stuff should forget about marketing it and use it for their own use only and tell NO ONE.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with SURPRESSING ?
Post by: pese on August 29, 2007, 01:06:20 PM
SOME INTERESTED RECEIVED MAILS ....



Hi all, I found this in the bulk folder, wonder why
hm?

This is from ashtweth:

--- ashtweth_nihilistic <ashtweth@gmail.com> wrote:

> To: radianth2o@yahoogroups.com
> From: "ashtweth_nihilistic" <ashtweth@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:29:00 -0000
> Subject: [radianth2o] Scare Tactics used to try and
> discourage a Meyers replicaiton
>
> Please post this in as many forums publicly as
> possible do you part to
> protect yourselfs.
>
> It Seems the spooks are trying to scare Ravi again,
>
> Quote from an email last night
>
> "I have just received a call about 5 mins ago on my
> land line asking
> me to stop posting on the forums and youtube. If I
> still do they said
> that someone will have to visit me personally to
> take care of it. I
> dont have a caller ID on the line. This person had a
> British accent.
>
>
> Please try and save all the posting till now on I
> dont know if I can
> post anymore...but i'll try keep in touch.-end
>
> Do not be afraid to replicate Ravi's and Lawtons
> results and post your
> results, to be afraid is exactly what they want,
> Bill Williams took a
> shot gun to them, they have not been back, the more
> we replicate
> Ravi's and Lawtons findings the more the meek will
> by natural
> selection be quelled.
>
> I will be reporting this incident to the mainstream
> news, and
> disclosing it with our replication results which are
> under way ATM.
>
> I pity the spooks if they come after us, i have
> arranged 20 people to
> be waiting for them, I know they are reading this,
> and wanted to set
> a trap, i hope they think im joking and just come
> after us.
>
> I look forward to seeing you guys soon.
>
> Ravi and any one experiencing this is to file a
> complaint with the
> local police so that it is on record and give them
> all details. Send
> us (panacea-bocaf.org) the address of the police
> station and the name
> of the officer and the time he logged the report.
>
> If there is any one in India we know and trust also
> get them to
> contact US first. The other thing is to get Ravi the
> find out the
> names of the people who visited him from the Tax
> Office and the
> positions they hold. Give the names to us and the
> name of the person
> in charge.
> http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm
>
> We have many volunteers in our Non profit org and
> even a volunteer
> private investigator.
>
> The good news is it works if they are trying to
> spook Ravi.
> So start replicating.
>
> regards
> ashtweth
>
----------------------------------------------------
other  infos now:

 
 Stan Meyers bifilar choke design - taking a look at it with references:
http://www.youtube.com/v/ozpRNpM6FqM
---------------------------

see an very good LINK collection here: www.pese.cjb.net
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on August 29, 2007, 01:43:36 PM
There is no reason For Ravi to Compile anykinda List and txt's etc for you, Ravi Came out into the open with his findings, and if you where listening you'd know how to do it,.

He said, Anneal your pipes, he said condition them, i'm not posting the instruction because they're findable on the forums, he said do not use any resistance when conditioning. he said use the lawton schematic thats been updated. He said the conditioning of the tubes Is time consuming, you want get rid of the brown muck in 2 days!

It took him 3 months to condition his tubes based on what you see in the video.
He said Sand the inside and out of the tube after anealing, also to anneal in N type of gas.

The inside is Negative, The out Positive. Change water after every cycle, Dont leave muck, Change water TIll you think you're about to fall over dead.

The .50 amp high hydrogen output can be achieved with the lawton circuit alone. he just bettered it.

Now, i say. Condition your tubes, you'll notice a White haz look to the Negative electrode over a periode of time, you'll prolley notice the water looking orange, and also that the positive electrode is ugly, and has no white haze. you should then Switch  polaritys for a while to get the positive tube to match the negative one, when you have gotton this for you'll notice the water is still orange, and you can look into the container and wow yourself with how much hydrogen it's producing. The goal is to get the orange out of the water.

he has instructions for how to condition after being annealed. i have them to, so add this to his instuctions because their totaly different.

Start with 3 amps if you can handle it, if not then 2, run the shit out of it till you see about an half inch of muck, change water and repeat for 2 days.

after everything apears to be normal, take the tubes and run them under water, looking threw them to make sure they're not clogged, if they're then dissasemble, clean with detergant and start over. dont worry, you can clean without removing the white haze.

repeat repeat repeat

if you would have noticed he did take the time to tell you the volts and amps used, and when you are farting around with phisics and making water glow orange anythnig is possible.

Take this, save it, don't loose it, spread it,  GOOD LUCK, I hope you'll listen to this post rather than obviously not reading his post, thats why i know what you dont.

Good luck with the conditioning and don't pull all your hair out.

Oh, my opinion is when you start getting cleaner water you can start droping the amps to condition, but he also has a diy condition instruction guide, i havent tried it. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 29, 2007, 03:26:25 PM
My apologies to Ravi, I've since found all his information, I'm in the process of getting together the things needed for replication, I'm not one to take things on face value and videos are easily faked as I've already shown, but Ravi's replication looks very promising, I've already performed extremely simple tests with materials and its looking good, I cannot wait to get my hands on the needed materials to construct the chamber.

To Ravi if your still reading this, again I apologize and thank you very much for all your efforts, I hope whoever is threatening you get whats coming to them!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lltfdaniel1 on August 29, 2007, 05:59:21 PM
Hmm Interesting, hope he keeps going with the tests and all.

As for people on to ravi,

I Have a suggestion, get a tracking web cam, and make it online,and people could take screen shots from webcam you know and record, it will be very interesting,

yippe to big brother,

although business man see money as life in millions in selling oil,

and money buys oil,

and oil shortens the natual food production,

and if a carrot gets to a cost of 1 million,

you surely get poor to bankrupt very soon , unless you order alot of food at 2007.

and that will happen.

well you could eat paper.

its fear really.
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on August 29, 2007, 06:15:20 PM
Just a thought but each tube maybe much better fired from 8 different controllers. Yes this is loads of work but assuming each tube is an end fed dipole waveguide then they may all require a slightly different frequency and/or sequence of firing.  Maybe like 1,8,4,3,6,5,7,2 is standard V8 timing LOL
Well you never know the collapse of each field between the tubes may greatly enhance the system. I noticed some want to leave out the diode in the output circuit. Im not sure thats a good idea for a start the way it works in theory at least as pulses across of the choke see the voltage increasing rapidly, the diode syphones this off and is held on the tubes capitance. At each cycle coming from the controlling the leading edge of the back EMF is tapped off by the diode which prevents the voltage from collapsing thus producing the very high tube voltages otherwise unlikely to get higher then the PSU supply at 12 volts. I notice some designs have a bleed resistor across the tube to help slam down the voltage after but i would not thought this would make a practical difference.  Once the current of the system is low and fully tweaked the only other way to get more performance i can see is to either build bigger tubes or get the voltage up on the tubes. This means using perhaps switch mode power supply inductors with transformer taps and really get that 12 volt chop cranked up to 1000+ volts to the tubes. I think the pratical limitation is when the thing starts literally arcing across the tubes which is not good but then we found the breakdown voltage of the system if one gets this high.

Anyway, perhaps see first if building two controllers and running 4 * 4 is better then one controller and adjusting each set of 4 independently. If there is no noticable gain with 2 controllers it may not be worth the hassle of running eight.

Just ideas..........

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 30, 2007, 03:09:10 AM
antomarki Ravi followed D14, the the plans are there, we will be publishing ours here too
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on August 30, 2007, 04:24:07 AM
Yeah, mramos, but there be nuthin' like a good mystery <grin>

Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 30, 2007, 06:16:01 AM
mramos the magic is not in what you stated, you don't have a unit working like dave lawton and Ravi, i have spoken to Dave lawton and Ravi, i am in a position to know.

Thats a very large generalization i care not to refute.

You have nothing working or you would get a visit, i advise the skeptics and oil men, to stay out of this, and for genuine replicators to ASK, and or contribute. Replicate.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on August 30, 2007, 09:33:20 AM
@Mramos
If you are trying again, please use SS tubes. I can not remember who but one of the experts in Meyer technology stressed that for this to work you must use seamless SS tubes.



@Ashweth,
Well if I met Dave or Ravi I would ask them to tell me exactly what they did and with it being such a ground breaking achievement I would go home, build one and once verified I would post it on the net to several places at the same time. The construction is simple enough and does not take long. So, how long will it be before you get a visitation?

I am not being funny but the story said: 9 suits went to raid Ravi's place Now, in India, 9 men wearing black suits would definitely look out of place!

AM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 30, 2007, 09:56:48 AM
@AhuraMazda

Exactly what they did is already posted in threads and in D14
I See you haven't heeded my advice.
i advise the skeptics and oil men, to stay out of this, and for genuine replicators to ASK, and or contribute. Replicate.

I will now look upon suspicion to all who don't and only answer genuine replicators.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 10:52:24 AM
Heres a thought, the threats are genuine but not by MiB per'se, there are enough bully boys out there that like nothing better than to intimidate and they have the ideal targets in this group, they know we're all a bit nervous because of the information we have read on suppression of similar technology, the thing is, when you have a family to consider it does not matter where the source of the threats comes from, your first instinct is to protect your family, I tend to go along with the information given by peswiki on this one, these are not official people, I think they are more rogue bullies.

I remember operating 27 mhz CB here in the UK before it became legal, there were some people going around posing as officials confiscating the CB equipment, some people felt intimidated and allowed the equipment to be removed without checking the validity of the supposed officials.

Personally I'm going to continue with my experiments in low energy HH0, and I give a one finger salute to the MiB who/whatever you are.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/The_gesture02.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: zero on August 30, 2007, 11:00:57 AM

 Its a known FACT that the select secret society of bankers
OWN just about everything.  Especially big OIL and business.

 Look up 'Rockefeller'. (funny how the spell checker knew to correct my
spelling error on his name...)

 Rothschild's is another major name, in the European side.   And there
are many others.

  If anything, Id say that You  Runningbare are a minion working
with them.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 11:09:46 AM


  If anything, Id say that You  Runningbare are a minion working
with them.




Well, I'm flattered that you would place so much importance on me  ;)

It would also mean they have been taking me for a sucker and not paying me!  :o

I am curious however, why would I put effort into replication if I were a minion?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 11:23:05 AM

   If anything, Id say that You  Runningbare are a minion working
with them.




Btw, I ride a pedalec, do you drive a gasoline driven car?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: zero on August 30, 2007, 12:10:37 PM
 Hydrogen is still a system in which a form of control can be instituted.
As you will still need water fill up points.   They simply have to
increase the cost of the water.

 Also, these HHO machines are not nearly complete.   They are
not 'On the fly'  solutions  AFAIK,  Unlike Myers final version.
Myers was killed only after completing the final version,
which required no gas storage.

 HHO gas storage is a dangerous thing..  and do you really think
that the controlled corrupt GOVT will allow people to have
machines with unregulated potentially unsafe equipment? Not.
Weather safe or not, they will not allow it. 

 Do you all think you can get an investor to sink money into
a full out sellable version?  Think again.  The major businesses
and investment people are all on a leash owned by the
Illuminati.   The only way you will do it, is if you have some
sort of partnership with them.  Where they make the money..
and have the control.    Which is why Myers is buried.  He
wouldnt be party to such corruptions.


 HHO can also be used to create massive explosions in the hands
of the wicked or rebellious minded... which is another reason
this wont be allowed.

 AS for you personally...

 Ive seen many post of yours as bashing and mockery, as well
as trying to direct attention in an opposing or misleading directions.

 Breaking the will of the inspired, or causing
confusing disinformations. Such a post as above is evidence,
or complete naivety (which I find difficult to believe).

 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 12:17:32 PM
Many posts?

I've not created many posts, at least not here, and my misleading as you call it is to bring people like you back down to earth, my goal is more research and less conspiracy stuff, lets concentrate on whats important, clean energy for us and this planet.

I'm contributing, are you?

http://hh0.no-ip.info (http://hh0.no-ip.info)








 Ive seen many post of yours as bashing and mockery, as well
as trying to direct attention in an opposing or misleading directions.

 Breaking the will of the inspired, or causing
confusing disinformations. Such a post as above is evidence,
or complete naivety (which I find difficult to believe).

 

 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: zero on August 30, 2007, 12:24:45 PM
Disinformation again.

 Its not conspiracy.  Its factual knowledge and tons of evidence.

 Your IGNORance is very great.

 A simple example is that very fact that  Rockefeller wrote in his
own book that he was proud of forcing a New World Order.

 And thats only the tip of the Huge Glacier of non admitted evidences.

 It would seem that YOU are in the fluffy white clouds zone.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 12:30:31 PM
I have a tendancy to think that people like you are the actual minions, your goal to make us all look like crazy nuts  ;)


Disinformation again.

 Its not conspiracy.  Its factual knowledge and tons of evidence.

 Your IGNORance is very great.

 A simple example is that very fact that  Rockefeller wrote in his
own book that he was proud of forcing a New World Order.

 And thats only the tip of the Huge Glacier of non admitted evidences.

 It would seem that YOU are in the fluffy white clouds zone.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: zero on August 30, 2007, 01:08:20 PM
Well Bareass,

  Your country was the first to fall.. so if I were you, I wouldnt
be so proud.

 The Rothschild's own Europe.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: zero on August 30, 2007, 01:19:53 PM

Lets see if RB is as good at reading at he is at flinging insults..


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rothschild_bloodline.htm

(doubt it)
Title: FAST FOOD PART 1
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 02:26:43 PM
This is gonna help yall
FAST FOOD being served!!

Important Info from OUPower.com posted by RAVI as user ravzz:

THERE COULD BE THINGS YOU MISSED OUT OR LOOKED OVER







Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:57 am    Post subject: Ravi's Meyer Replication- Tap Water to H2   

The input to the Water Fuel Cell (WFC) was 0.51 Amps only. Just made the videos and uploaded. Its totally Pulse Voltage and Frequency based...


Video 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vzTzqpp-Uk

This video shows the innards of the WFC without water.


Video 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJ_vjuO_ME

This video shows Freshly filled Tap Water. No other impurities (Read no Salts or Acids or anything at all...just plain tap water and not distilled water) added.


Video 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lScTsHBkQ

This video is after the top is sealed and with an input of 0.5 Amps
from the Frequency Generator.


NOW THE OUTPUTS:


Presently the approximate volumetric gas discharge by an inverted
measuring flask is given below:


INPUT--H2+O2 cc/sec---H2 only cc/sec---H2 Lit/hr

0.5 A-----7.00--------------4.66-------------16.776
1.0 A-----8.66--------------5.78-------------20.808
1.5 A-----11.66-------------7.78-------------28.008
2.0 A-----14.00-------------9.33-------------33.588
3.0 A-----16.36------------10.91-------------39.276
4.0 A-----18.00------------12.00-------------43.200

*H2+O2 was calculated on an average basis for collection time of 30
secs. I'm not very sure of H2 and O2 volumes as I've calculated H2 as
2/3rd the volume of the total and O2 as 1/3rd the volume. Incase im wrong please do let me know how to calculate these.






Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:31 am    Post subject: Hi again   
For Kumaran:

I'm not very sure if you are well versed with Stanley Meyer Technology.

I would be for one thing very impressed if you could generate anywhere close to the outputs mentioned with pulsed 12 Volts and HALF an AMP!!

Please donot confuse this with the regular high ampearage electrolysis. This is low ampearage high volage pulsed electrolysis!! wherein you use the voltage potential to break down the covalent bonds and by the way the water doesnt heat up as in the regular electrolysis. The temperature rise is at the most 3 - 4 deg above ambient after about half hour of working!!

If you take a closer look at the third video you would see large bubbles of the range of 4mmto 10mm+leaving the tubes, so dont go by the more visible slow moving smaller bubbles.





To SeaMonkey and MarkinAustralia :


I initially started off with Dave's circuit.....was in touch with him to sort out a few issues with the circuits the went on to make a few improvements. You could say that Dave's circuit was the skeleton where i started off but had to make some changes. Of the original circuit i had a few burnt/blown out components and low gas generation as my setup is with 9 tubes of 9 inch lengths and his was 6 tubes of 5 inch lengths so the exposed surface areas are comparitively higher. From what I presumed Stan used tubes of 18 inches so I went for half his length but the same number as in his video.

Material used is 316L seamless pipes. Annealed for 3 hours in inert amosphere of Argon to remove all residual magnetism and cold work stresses before they are assemled. Leads used are 316L 1.2mm dia wires to all 18 pipes individually spot welded. The inner pipe is 1/2 inch longer than the outer at the bottom for the setup for connections.

You need to be very patient with the conditioning of the pipes.....it took me months to get the generation you see.

Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts the generation is around 7 cc/sec


which coverts to 16.776 Lits / hour

16.776 x 2.4 watts (Faraday/lit/hour generation) = 40.262 Watts


Well I seem to be generating the equivalent of 40.2 watts as per Faraday with just 6.12 Watts.........I hope this answers Kumaran's question aswell.

I dont know if im right but I seem to be generating 550% excess

as the above works out to 40.2/6.12 x 100 = 656.86%

656.86 - 100 (Faraday) = 556.86% OU !!

Correct me if im wrong with the calculations.



Alright now to the crux of the situ... I dont know how long i'll be allowed to post this stuff over the net as initialy when I was in touch with Dave I had sent some pics to him and my place was raided within a few hours after the mail to him. I was kind of helped out during this time by Dave and Patrick Kelly.Though ive had success a few months ago I had not come out in the open but now Ashtweth of Panaces Bocaf has convinced me to go public as this could save me any more future harassment.....Im taking a huge chance by posting this right now.... you can see more details of the problem at

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm

The above writeup is on a few other sites aswell. This had happened some time in Jan this year.

I'll try and post a few more videos using 12 Volts 1 amp 1.5 amp.... at the earliest and post the links. Try and save the vids incase theyre removed.






 Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:36 am    Post subject:
   
Generation of H2 + O2 was 7CC per sec

the H2 generation was 4.66 CC/sec and this works out to 16.776 lits of H2/hr





Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:20 am    Post subject: Hi again   
Posted new video a while ago.

Its almost 1 amp and look at the way the leads to the WFC get heated up and burn the protective tubing. The tubing is in place so that the leads dont get shorted out. I have individual leads coming out of the WFC for each of the pipes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyfwWuA9gA



A closeup video of the burnt out leads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nto66FTfdTg

I have no clue as yet why this is happening. The setup probably needs more pipes I guess.

I'll post info if I figure out something.






Big-bubbles:

The conditioning would take time...just keep lugging and you would end up with bubbles like the ones I get.

The lights are pulse timing circuit visual indicators.




Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject:   
For Markin:

I think the suface area for higher amps needs to be increased to get similar outputs as that of 0.5 Amps......so more number of pipe sets should inrease the efficiency at higher ameparages. Its a presumption but could be given a try in the future....any more ideas on increasing eff. at higher amps??




Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject:   
I would firstly advice you to go through all of stan's patents to have better understanding of the process.

There is a lot of important stuff in the US and International patents wherein in one of the patents he mentions higher efficiency of a tube setup compared to a plate setup for his proces (so I just didnt want to experiment with the plate setup on his process but I guess it works better with Bob's process). This answers your question Simon.

I could just give you everything but it could work for some and not work for some as the voltages and frequencies vary as per the WFC build and the impurities in tap water. I'm saying this coz till I made the changes when the components blew up on Dave's circuit i didnot get the right combo. The exposed surface area of my setup is much larger as compared to Dave's. He has 6 tubes of 5" lengths and mine is 9 tubes of 9" length so there had to be variations and the thickness of his pipes is different from mine...I have a gap of 1 mm between the pipes the outer tube thickness varies this gap. The gap used by stan meyer was 1.587mm (1/16").. As per stan the lesser the gap higher the efficiency.

Incase you are thinking of this gap youll have to use use three spacers of flexible foam on either end at 120 degree angles in the gap.I say fexible because you would not want any vibrations induced to be restricted as these vibrations help dissipate the bubbles from the surface. If you are not that well versed with mechanical skills, I would advice you to go for a higher gap as the space is very restricted and you might end up shorting the pipes. In longer lengths you should look for slight bends in the pipes as the pipes may get shorted. 1.5mm or 2mm gaps are also OK.

Points to note:

Check the new update of D14.pdf...theres an inductor added inbetween...its a must.

Patents show a variable resistor on the -ve side in between the WFC and the freq generator which everyone seems to have missed out (incl dave) in the '996 patent. This I had asked Dave about and he said it restricts the current going to the WFC.

My setup compared to Dave's has individual connections going to each of the 18 pipes.

Conditioning of the tubes takes a long time....SeaMonkey's explanatin stands good. Once you stop forming the brown muck you know you've conditioned the pipes and the gas generation increases at this point.

Kumaran I had subtracted 100% Faraday efficiency from the total and what you get then is the OU %. Your figure is for total efficiency of the WFC.



Kevin...Instead of trying to convert this to a plasma electrolysis reactor there is this Japanese Hokkaido University experiment which achieved some mind boggling results and was also replicated by JL Naudin...

These guys went OU with the generation of Hydrogen. Their experiment and results link

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTgeneration.pdf

As per their conclusions: 'current efficiency' is 8000% to the input!!!

I'm nowhere close to where they are!!




Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:39 am    Post subject:   
You could always build Dave's setup without making any changes including the pipe thickness, height and diameters and achieve the same results as Dave did. His circuit should work for his WFC build size. Conditioning is the key to his generation.




Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:49 am    Post subject:   
DONOT USE 316L AS LEAD WIRE THEY HAVE TOO HIGH A SPECIFIC RESISTANCE TO BE USED AS LEADS

approxmately 46.8 times that of copper...incase you want to introduce a resistance you could always used a wire wound variable reistance.

This seems to have been the problem of leads heating up.


Specific Resistances:

Copper : 1.63 MICROHM-cm
316 : 75 MICROHM-cm




Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:33 am    Post subject:   
I'm realy sorry about the patent number.

its 4,798,661 and the variable resistance I was talking about is in Figure 1 with numbers 60a...to....60n on the inner tube.

I dont use a blocking diode. No there no dramatic increase when you vary upuntil you condition the tubes.

When I initially started off I could hardly see any bubbles emerging. But as the conditioning proceeds over a period of time you see the gas generation gradually increase. At a point where i was generating a lot of small bubbles I thought I reached the peak but I just wanted to see what would happen if I condition a little more and what I ended up with was making these large 10mm sized bubbles. Its not that the small bubbles accumulate to a bigger bubble but the moment the gen is switched on the large bubbles come rushing out, you can see this in the vids. I wonder if I condition some more I might endup with large bubbles only. Lets see how it goes.

The key to the whole process in my point of view is conditioning and this should go on for a while even after you stop making the brown muck and you end up with large bubbles like mine. It will take time but at the end of the day its worth it!

The dramatic gas increase happens in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 Amps in my WFC but above that you just need to keep checking as to where you get the highest efficiency for that particular WFC and it would be less than an Amp in any case. Look at my outputs the efficiency decreases as you increase the ampearage to the freq generator.









Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:46 am    Post subject: CONDITIONING OF TUBES!!!!!   
Alright guys make a note of this and save it some place

The conditioning process below was given to me by Dave Lawton and its what I followed religiously for months to reach the outputs. Consider this as the holy grail like I did and still do...

1. Donot use any resistance on the negative side when conditioning the pipes.

2. Start at 0.5 Amps on freq gen and switch off after 25 mins for 30 mins

3. Goto 1.0 Amps for 20 min and stop for 30 min

4. Goto 1.5 Amps for 15 min and stop for 20 min

5. Goto 2.0 Amps for 10 min and stop for 20 min

6. Goto 2.5 Amps for 5 min and stop for 15 min

7. Goto 3.0 Amps for 120 to 150 secs. need to check if WFC getting hot...if it does you need to reduce the time.

AFTER THE 7 STEPS ABOVE LET THE WFC STAND FOR ATLEAST AN HOUR BEFORE YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN. I used tap water for conditioning and no vinegar or any additives.... I donot know if adding something might work or not.

You would hardly see any gas generation at the beginning but it makes a lot of brown muck.....change the water after every cycle initially. DONOT touch the tubes with bare hands if the tube ends need to be cleaned of muck use a brush but donot touch!! As per my experience the brown muck if left in water for the next cycle heats up the water and you need to avoid this.

Then you see the reduction in generation of the brown stuff over a period of time and at a point the pipes dont make any brown stuff atall. You would have had very good generation of gas by now. You get a whitish powdery coat on the surfaces. Never touch the pipes with bare hands once this comes on.

DO THE CONDITIONING IN A WELL VENTILATED AREA OR PREFERRABLY CLOSE THE TOP AND VENT THE GAS OUT IN THE OPEN.

AS THE WFC IS LEFT ON FOR QUITE SOMETIME EVEN SMALL AMOUNT OF GENERATION CAN GET ACCUMULATED IN A CONSTRICTED SPACE AND COULD BE A HAZARD.



The above process to be done after annealing the pipes....see to it that no oxide formation is left on the pipes...use a detergent to wash off the pipes and rinse them thoroughly with fresh water.....assemble the setup including the leads and base.....finally flush the pipes with lots of fresh water......donot touch the pipes with bare hands after this.......


Good Luck and happy conditioning......RAVI 



I'll be away for a day or two....will get to more explaining after that.




Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:57 am    Post subject:   
Thanks Bob been an avid silent follower of your work for a long time now....you have a great thing going keep up the good work!!

Bob its time we did something about the environmental mess the world is in.....its accelerating by the year and it wouldnt be long before that the powers be would realize that most of these changes are irreversible ......Vanishing Glaciers......melting polar caps.....Europe has seen the hottest summers in living memory.......and now Asia is going through the worst floods in the living memory.......we are heading for a disaster and have already reached a point of no return with the fossil fuel addiction.......time we make ourselves count....by helping others to make this technology feasible and easy to replicate......whatever small contribution.....no matter how much ever small to improve the air we breathe would go a long way for our childrens future......


We need people to know this side of science before its too late.......look at the change in the environment in the last 100 years......in the garb of development were ruining the world we live in for the future generations and we are shown a picture of development as prosperity.....actual fact being more the prosperity more we ruin the environment for our creature comforts......its a vicious cycle....we could introduce the alternate science at places where its hurting the environment the most atleast in a small way....

Bob lets see how they take this experiment and what they make of it...I wouldnt be surprised if some hooter comes onto the forum and starts rubbishing the work to make atleast a few people stay away from experimenting this setup....

I'm just hoping that the risk im taking in teaching people how to make this expt work wouldnt be for nothing!! I've been through some harassment before and can go through some more if its for the greater good.

Its time!! like you said Bob!




Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am    Post subject:   
A lot of people have been asking me for the circuit I used on the youtube mails.


The link to the circuit is below:

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf


The circuit given on page 7 with the inductors is what gives the highest efficiencies. The inductor on both positive and negative is a must.

Once youve built the circuit...it would be best to make the WFC as per the pipe sizes mentioned in D14 to avoid any setbacks.





Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:18 am    Post subject:   
Hi Weggl,

I know about the passivation of stainless steels.


Like I said before I dont know if it would work for this process.......even if it does I dont know if you could get the same efficiencies.


Its a short time process so you need to passivate the pipes once they are assembled so that you dont disturb the layer formed which is usually less than a micron thick. If this doesnt work you could always revert back to the regular conditioning process but you will have to disassemble the whole setup and sand paper the outside of the inner tube and the inside of the outer tube to get rid of the passivated surface and expose a fresh surface then reassemble and start.


Let me know if this works.


PLEASE NOTE THAT POLISHED TUBES ARE NOT TO BE USED IN MAKING THE WFC


If they are the only ones you can find make sure they are not Nickel plated or Hard Chrome plated pipes and if they are Plain SS 304L or 316L but polished you could always use a sand paper.


You can use most of the 300 series Nickel-Chromium Steels but 316L would be the most preferrable and next would be 304L.......never go for 310 as this has the highest resistivity among the 300 series. Avoid Inconel grade pipes aswell.


Use ONLY SEAMLESS PIPES and not seam welded.






Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:02 am    Post subject:   
I remember watching on one of Stan Meyer Videos where they mention the Output to be over 1700% faradays....I guess there's more work needed to be done in this direction.

Dave's unit was 250% OU mine looks a little higher....one of the reasons I think is because my unit is comparitively bigger 9" length 9 tubes compared to Dave's 5" length 6 tubes. Stans was 18"length 9 tubes...double the size of my WFC.

Is there a possibility that some thing like the Joe's Cell aether stuff is happening here?? Even Joe's cell takes a long time to condition and even that produces brown muck and doesnt do so after a while.....both have concentric tubes.. Needs very low amps...there are similarities....

Is there a possibility that the extra work is being done by Aether?

Is joe's cell conditioning similar to the one mentioned above??






Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:53 am    Post subject:   
There is another difference that needs to be noted compared to Dave's Replication. I didnt remember the exact gap between the pipes till patrick just asked me what were the differences between my setup....sat down and calculated....

The gap in between the pipes was:

Outer Pipe OD : 25.317 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Outer Pipe ID : 25.317 - (2.032 x2) = 21.253mm


Inner Pipe OD : 19.930 mm
Thickness : 14 SWG or 2.032 mm

Gap is 1.323mm ( 21.253 - 19.930 )

and this adjusted to both the sides as the inside pipe is centered is

1.323/2 = 0.6615 mm on either sides of the inner tube.

So effectively the gap between the pipes is less than 0.670 mm

I went for a lesser gap by increasing the thickness of the outer tube.
If you go through Stans Canadian Patent he mentions that the lesser
the gap between the pipes more the efficiency

I had a lot of difficulty in the alignment of pipe as they were
shorting. Had to get them straightened on pipe alignment machine.
Wouldnt advice people without engineering skills to go for this small
a gap.

The higher output of my setup could be due to the smaller gap aswell.








Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:32 am    Post subject:   
Hi everyone

Sometime ago Patick Kelley had suggested on shortening the 316L leads to the WFC so im onto it.....i've already changed about 6 leads and now two of them have started to leak water from the WFC.....need to change the rest of them and see how many of them start leaking.......seal them up and test the WFC.......should take me a few days for this whole process.......will keep you all updated.

I havent seen any postings about people saying that they are replicating this...or anything of the sort...

c'mon guys.....even I need some feedback if someone is trying to do something with my postings....or theres no point in going through all this for no reason but just for the archives sake....I need some pepping aswell...






Continued to part 2

Title: FAST FOOD PART 2
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 02:38:29 PM
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:12 am    Post subject:   
Hi Kevin :

As per the videos of Stan's WFC his pipes were around 18 inches long.....as per his patents the optimum spacing was 1/16th of an inch or 1.587 mm...so I thought whynot try a closer gap than that and see what happens...I dont know if thats what caused the increase in efficiency or the pipe lengths or both. When i ordered the pipes I was looking at 1mm spacing but the pipes I got brought down thw spacing even more....so it wasnt by intension that I was looking at 0.670mm spacing.

If you havent worked on this process before I would advice you to take a step at a time....go for the proven D14 setup...it works.

watkykjy ha s answered the reason for a closer spacing so if you have the mechanical skills go for it but be careful if the pipes get shorted its a mess....and theres every chance of this happening when you go for a closer spacing...it took me over four weeks to sort out these hassles...do the shorting test before you spot weld the wires.



Hi Somon:

Atleast you have the intension of making this whenever you can...thats half the job done. Good luck



Hi Maintenanceman:


http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

The circuit given on page 7 with the inductors is what gives the highest efficiencies. The inductor on both positive and negative is a must. Why would you want to build one with the alternator? from what I can remember the page 7 circuit doesnt have an alternator and you can power the circuit with a DC 10A coverter like I did or use a plain heavy duty battery for getting the output. If you want to experiment with the other circuits in the document then its ok.... Good luck!!




Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:44 am    Post subject:   
I,ve posted the video of the changes of the leads im doing right now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqSyTiPu8VI









Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:04 am    Post subject:   
Hi watkykjy & glenn_aircooled :

I havent spoken to Dave about the variations concerning the inductors....as for me I've made it on a Ferrite rod of 25 mm length 100 turns of Double Enamelled Electrolytic Copper (99.99%) of 22 SWG (0.711mm dia) which was what Dave suggested.

You could try the above till you are successful to an extent and then start experimenting with the variations and let everyone know if youre getting better outputs.

Ravi



Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:05 am    Post subject:   
Bob any suggestions on the inductor variations that could be tried?



Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:21 am    Post subject:   
I dont know what the inductance was/is.

Yes i did use the BUZ 350.

Are you running your pipes on Dave's circuit? In the D14 3/4 inch is the outer dia of the inner tube....what is the outer dia of the outer tube and the thickness....with this you get the gap exactly (see my calculations on top for this)....If the gap is correct you should see a lot of bubbles once the conditioning process progresses....one tube with the inductors and 4 Amp pulsed should cloud the water cell completely.

Do you still get the brown muck? If yes then go on conditioning the pipes you'll get there!!

Good luck......Ravi





Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:06 am    Post subject:   
Which tubes have you ordered?

316 or 316L.....the L stands for low carbon...which supposedly works better.....this is the surgical grade SS they use for implants.

O rings are a definite no no!! you will end up trapping some of the gas within the tubes if you restrict the outflow....effectively this would end up reducing the exposed tube surfaces to water in between the pipes and when you cut slots youre again reducing the surface area !! small flexible foam cut to a length of 5 to 6 mm and a width of 3mm.....insert the length inside the tube so the 3mm width is what you see from the top...this way you can increase the gap for the gases to leave the pipe end.

insert three foam pieces at 120 degree angles on both ends.


Ravi





osted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:42 am    Post subject:   
No way they'd work.....you would have brown much forever.....galvanized are basically zinc dipped or plated! over iron core to avoid corosion....they'll start rusting in no time.

You'll need some nickel and chromium alloyed to iron to resist corrosion not zinc and become non-magnetic.

You could try it but I feel it would be a waste of time.






Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:19 am    Post subject:   
Hi Kevin,

The sonic plugs are for IC engine use.....im not sure if they can actully fire under water inside the WFC....you would have to coonet the to a coil.....The sonic plugs are for the proper mixing and reduction of fuel droplets to smaller sizes.

Just wondering how and where would you connect the plugs?





Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:39 am    Post subject:   
Hydrocars:

I do remeber Dave mentioning something about coils in the icubenetwork but whe I asked him he said it was one of the variations he tried after the cell went OU to increase the output.....his inductors update was much after the coil thing....if it had worked it would have been on the update. Coils were being used in other patents awell to make parahydrogen

Try to find BUZ350...it works for me




DEK:

I had my tubes annealed to get rid the crystal lattice imperfections due to cold work.....and any traces of magnetism. They have to be in bright finish only you dont want oxidesof nickel / chromium or iron on the surface.




Nova:

I havent built the VIC yet....I'll probably do that next....will post the results once done.




Hydrocars:

You need to get the tubes annealed once there cut and fininshed to legths befor being assembled. Its done in a separate inert amosphere funace of N2 or Argon. You have people who do heat treatment for metals....they'll give you the procedure if you tell them the grade youre using.









Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:23 am    Post subject:   
Hi everyone,

Panacea-Bocaf is in the process of independently replicating what Dave and I have replicated with our inputs.

Will keep you posted on this.

The intention being to simplify and get a better understanding of the whole process for everyone to easily replicate the system.

Ravi

Kevin pl. keep us posted of any interesting developments on the sonic plugs.









Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:12 am    Post subject:   
There seems to be someone else who's replicated Dave's setup....

I saved the video from youtube or google recently......I dont remember who this was or where I found the video but he seems to be tuning the Freq Gen with an AM radio sound. Please do let me know if you find the original poster of this video....converted and saved the video and finally got time to watch it last night.

His method seems to work!! and he's connected it to his car aswell.....he claims to have gotten an increase from 28 miles/gal to 45 miles/gal!! Thats an increase of 17 miles to a gallon!!

Check the video on how he tunes his WFC and his claims.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


Hydrocars:

The purple arcing seems to be showing in the flash converted videos on youtube....my original video on the cell phone shows a black mark around the place...looks like a shadow of the lead wires in the transparent plastic pipes. I checked the card board on which the WFC was placed and looks like it has a small tear around that place.....actually theres nothing there other than the leads....these are the ones that got burnt. So probably there was some discoloration on the plastic pipes from previous heating which I didnt notice at that time.


You were asking me about the resistance on the inside tube sometime ago......as per stans Patent each inside tube is connected to an individual variable resistance.....you cant make those connections with two leads coming out of the WFC. I have 18 leads ( 9 +ve and 9 -ve) coming out of the WFC. This way you can do all sorts of variations you need without opening the WFC.


The transformer thing you're talking about are diode heat sinks of previous WFC trials and experiments....but the diode setup is defunct ....im using the connectors at the bottom of that setup which connects to the WFC there.....most of them are all old wirings from previous trials....I was trying a lot of combinations and almost all of them failed except the one recently posted....its all a mess up there.....Dont look too much into it hydro....its as simple as it was in the updated D14.....conditioning is what helped me get higher efficiencies and now check the link on top as to how this guy tunes it and he talks about the white powdery coat he has!!.....this comes only after conditioning!!


Ravi









Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:39 am    Post subject:   
I should thank Aaron for posting the video on conditioning of tubes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRMVZWrgSk


I had followed his postings and videos for a long time now....actually he's been one of the inspiring factors for me to build my system....thanks again Aaron.

He goes by the names Aaron Murakami / a1c3m / Qiman13 on the net


He has his forum postings on the WFC:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy

If youre looking for the exact technical language and the process...he's the man!!


Regards,
Ravi







osted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:19 am    Post subject:   
hydrocars

Have you removed your videos from youtube?

I saw one of them early today but cant access it anymore....it sayes 'removed by user'

Ravi







Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:46 am    Post subject: Important conditioning info   
Another thing I remembered after watching Aaron's conditioning video was,


when the power is switched on you see bubble formation on the external surfaces of the outer tubes just like in the video.....this happens all along during the conditioning process.

I remember Dave saying that you know the tubes are conditioned when these bubbles stop forming on the external tube surfaces and you see a white powdery coat on the tubes.

I went on conditioning even after that and ended up with larger bubbles.


Ravi





Continued to part 3







Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on August 30, 2007, 02:47:28 PM
@gheller j
im pretty sure most of the info you are putting up is already in this thread???????
Title: FAST FOOD PART 3
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 02:48:11 PM
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:23 pm    Post subject:   
Hi Kevin,

You could use the inner tube as a neutral electrode...by not connecting it with anything at all and connect the inner rod to the negative and the outer most pipe to the positive. From what i've read and seen neutral electrodes work...Joe's cell is a prime example of this.

Has anyone seen someone using neutral electrodes with voltage potential? well I havent.... looks like you have a new idea Kevin.... Definitely worth a try.

Ravi









Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:02 am    Post subject:   
Hi Hydrocars,

Well youre almost spot on! the resistance wire restricts the current draw into the WFC. Try it before the inductor and after the inductor...see which gives the highest output. You dont need the resistance wire during the conditioning of the tubes its only for reducing the current draw.

Even I didnt know what this was for.....Dave told me that it would reduce the current draw when used.

Tell them that you need a bright anneal in nitrogen or argon atmosphere. Annealing is done after every cold work operation and at the finishing stage to reset the lattice structure. As we are cutting the pipes and slightly finishing the surfaces with sand paper to remove any imbedded impurities during tube drawing....its all cold working....so you need to relieve these induces stresses in the lattice through annealing. Im a metallurgist Hydro so you can stay assured about this. Its normal manufacturing procedure.

Which grade of SS are you using?
What are thicknesses of the tubes?
Are they seam welded or seamless pipes?


Ravi









Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject:   
Let me mention this again:


The best grade of SS to use is 316L

Next preference is 316,304L and 304.

L stands for Low Carbon in the SS alloy.


316L composition: %

Carbon : 0.03
Manganese: 2.0
Phosphorous : <0.45
Sulphur : 0.03 max
Silicon : 1.0
Chromium : 16 to 18
Nickel : 12 to 14
Molybdenum : 2.0 to 3.0

316 SS nickel range is 10 to 14% and carbon being 0.08%

304 SS has lesser % of Nickel and Chromium and doesn't have Molybdenum at all.


so judge for yourself which grade you would want to use.








Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:34 am    Post subject:   
Hi Hydro,

If you had told them to anneal in inert / nitrogen / Argon atmosphere it would be a bright finish.

Well if bright finish wasn't a criteria you could just use a gas torch to heat it up till red hot and let it cool off slowly...but you would end up with a blackish bluish discoloration. This is due to the oxide layer formation on the surfaces. I dont know if oxidised pipes work better but they do have high corrosion resistance. For all we know you might end up getting better outputs than any of us or the other way round but definitely worth a try.

If it doesnt work that well you could disassemble the pipes and use sand paper to remove the oxidised layers. They are usually a few microns thick.

Your spacing would be 1.585mm or almost 1/16 inch (1.5875mm).


Ravi









Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:07 am    Post subject:   
Hydrocars:

If you had told him that it was to be annealed in one of those gases then you would get a bright finish on the annealed pipes.



Chemelec:

Every metal or alloy when cold formed or cold worked has to go through a heat treatment process to relieve the internal stresses. Its finished and supplied in annealed form. I have my own industry and we work on stainless steels, inconels, cupronickels,....... and precious metals like gold aswell for the semiconductor industry and we need to anneal not just at the finishing stage but in the intermediate stages as well for further cold work. Annealing is a compulsory procedure in every metal working process unless you require high temper and uneven stresses within the work piece. By the way High Carbon Steels go through another heat treatment process called patenting....these are high tensile strength steels and widely used in spring making.

Please stay assured that we do anneal Stainless Steels at our plant. If you didnt know even the copper wires you use everywhere are annealed....this is done on the wire drawing machines itself.


Kevin:

I'm sorry I didnt notice that you had mentioned Stephen F. Meyer's 2005 patent application..... i have gone through this some time ago.

I think its definitely worth a try. I'll see if I can do something aswell....thanks for reminding me..



Ravi







Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:03 am    Post subject:   
Hi everyone,

I've uploaded two more videos with the new leads connected up until the bottom of the WFC.

A lot of small bubble generation this time around. WFC gets fogged up. Need to check if there's any improvement in the outputs. The leads dont get hot....but need to check with prolonged use.

WFC leaking...so cant do the gas output test right now. This thing will take time I guess.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsKOdxLIJU


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw


Let me know if anything else need to be done.


Ravi





Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:12 am    Post subject:   
I,ve switched on and switched off the Freq. Gen twice in the second video to clear up any doubts some might have that there could be a another source than the freq gen input.

Ravi







Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:45 am    Post subject:   
A few people might be confused why im posting the below...actually its a respose to hydrocars mail on youtube


Dont worry about anything Hydro once you get your tubes i'll guide you through. The higher output is all to do with the inductors in the D14 circuit and conditioning mainly and slightly through the resistance wire to reduce the current draw. Even without the resistance you can get the same output but another 0.3 to 0.6 amps extra but I feel this could be offset by making a bigger inductor. Just go on conditioning and keep reducing the Amp draw to the WFC gradually and the generation would kind of remain the same even at very low Amps. Once you condition the tubes your generation will dramatically increase and the current required will fall by leaps....this took me almost 3 months approximately to reach these outputs.


Incase any one tries to stop me its point less as everything I did and I know ive already posted on this forum. Its just following them and you'll be successful!! I want as many people possible to replicate what I did.....this truly belongs to the world!!!


I'll see if I can post pictures of how much I was generating when I was conditioning...I had videos as well.. let me check...I think i'll post them as soon as I find them...this might help.


Ravi








Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:20 am    Post subject:   
I'm Posting the video of Dave's aswell......this was the new updated WFC with inductors added to the old D14. This is to remove any misconceptions that his D14.pdf doesnt work that well.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxiwgVTy88


Ravi







Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:42 am    Post subject:   
I've tried posting Dave's video twice but both the times it got corrupted. So I just searched an alternate posting link.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiA4z_Kpgg4



Ravi






Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:38 am    Post subject:   
Hi Everyone,

I've posted a few pictures taken some months ago when I was conditioning the WFC. You'll be able to see the kind of generation I was getting and the amount of brown muck being produced. Couldn't find the videos...but the pics tell you the whole story.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3079.0.html

I had to post the pics on www.overunity.com as I couldn't in this forum. There's a parallel forum running on the same topic there. the above link is direct to the topic page. Incase that doesn't work please goto the link below and the topic there is 'Stanley Meyer Replication with low input power'


http://www.overunity.com/index.php/board,8.0.html


Ravi






Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:08 am    Post subject:   
Hi Chris / Kevin / Bob,

Someone has posted a few pics of what looks like Meyer setup in the projects under the name Dave.

This person seems to have used three tubes for each pipe set. This was the neutral plate setup I was talking about a few posts ago.

Can someone dig some info on this. The link is


http://oupower.com/index.php?dir=_Other_Peoples_Projects/DAVE


Ravi







Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:21 am    Post subject:   
I havent been able to connect to oupower for the last few hours...is something happening??

I've posted a few pictures of WFC under construction and the progress thereon progress.... on overunity com....these were old pictures some in Oct / Nov '06.... incase it helps...


http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3079.30/topicseen.html


This could keep you engrossed for a while Hydro..

Ravi








Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:53 am    Post subject:   
I use the 555....never checked if it was heating up!

Your spacing would be the same as Dave's and Stan's.... i.e., 1.5875mm or 1/16 ".

My outer tube thickness was 14 SWG or 2.032mm so thats the reason why the spacing was lesser. The inner tube should've been 19.05mm but you can see in the pics that its 19.930mm.

Goto page 3 of this thread i've posted the calculations for the spacing.





You need to make changes as per the updated D14! the older one doesnt work that well !

EVERYONE PLEASE USE THE UPDATED D14 CIRCUITS ONLY NOT THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS.

Patrick had updated these on June 2nd 2007.

Incase you have doubts please got to the following link and carify to the page 7 circuit:

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf





Hydro, if you are going for a bigger setup than Dave's. Then,

Change the 100 ohm 0.25 watt resistors to 0.5 / 1.0 watt resistors depending on the increase in exposed surface area. I use 1 watt.

Ravi





Continued to part 4













Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 02:51:53 PM
Not everything mate like the conditioning and stuff. Its all consolidated posts of ravzz from oupower so you dont need to find that thread.

There r people here finding out if it was Seamless or Seamwelded....its all in here.

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 02:53:43 PM
I was not aware that I was flinging any insults, but I notice that you chose to, mind you, I do not mind Bareass, I find it funny, though I'm sure you did not mean it to be funny  ;)


Lets see if RB is as good at reading at he is at flinging insults..


http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_rothschild_bloodline.htm

(doubt it)

Title: FAST FOOD PART 4
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 02:59:19 PM
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject:   
Alright people there's something really weird happening in the WFC.

Dave had mentioned some time ago that there's some glow in the dark.


I just checked it in pitch dark..... theres some kind of orange glow coming from the bottom of the WFC but cant make out exactly from where... tried taking pics but didnt work they got all pixulated.


Any idea what this could be??

Will get back in a day or two.


Ravi






Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject:   
Rich SAS:

I have no idea what it was. It was an orangish glow and comes intermittently for two or three secs then goes off for a while, you cant see any glow on top of the tubes but only at the bottom....cant be the leads as theyre enclosed in plastic piping and the point where the wires are spot welded is also covered with silicone sealant....you can see this in the pics I posted. Could be Radiant Ener but thats what was happening....this couldve been happening all along but I never noticed it as I was always concentrating on the generation at the top of the tubes.


There's a theory that they could be HV discharges....possible


Chemelec says it could be contamination...possible...as its plain tap water and not filtered for particulates aswell.

Any other possibilities?



You're the man Kevin!! Do let us know if it works.



Hydro:

I havent changed the resistances at all but only increased the wattages of the ones which got burnt out.....

Being a Mechanical Engineer I dont know too much about electronics. i got my circuit made by somebody and when ever there were problems I got them rectified by the same person and kept track of what changes he made and I've told you what the changes were.

I'll check if the circuit is generating any heat. I havent till now.

I think you should mail your variations to Patrick at

engpjk@yahoo.co.uk

he could discuss these with Dave and get back to you.


Ravi








Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 1:08 am    Post subject:   
Check this post for the same thread in overunity.com ....this could be of help!! Im pasting it here for reference:








Ravi,

Do you know the approximate frequency at which you are applying the square wave pulses to your WFC?



The reason why is related to some research I did with a well known 'water as a fuel' research group.....


Here was the crux of my interesting finding:

The findings are based on this youtube video from Dave Lawton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwbvsya3Ek , WATCH IT!


[4/1/2007 3:40:25 PM] Tao says:
Just doing a simple calculation a tube in plain fresh water, the equation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance shows f=(n*v)/(2*L) where n corresponds to the harmonic, v is the speed of sound in the water, and L is the length of the tube....

So, lets simplify this equation, n can be always 1, v is 1435 m/s in fresh water according to Wikipedia.

So, f = (1*1435)/(2*L) = 717.5 / L = f , Just for fun, lets take the frequency Dave was producing Hydroxy at in his latest video on Youtube: 3425.781Hz

So, 3425.781 = 717.5 / L , L = 717.5 / 3425.781 = 0.21 meters , So that would be 8.27 inches long.... So, how long in inches are Dave's tubes? Just curious........


[4/2/2007 11:26:20 PM] Tao says:
So, I asked how long Dave's tubes were, well, I looked up how long they were from an old post Dave did on the original forum back in 2004...


[4/2/2007 11:26:44 PM] Tao says:
Dave said that his tubes were about 12.5-13cm (which is about 5 inches long)


[4/2/2007 11:27:39 PM] Tao says:
so, calculating that into the equation: 717.5 / L = f , we have 717.5 / 0.1275 = f , so f = about 5650Hz


[4/2/2007 11:28:21 PM] Tao says:
So, based on what it says at the END of that video on youtube, it says that the hydroxy was being produced at 3425.78Hz


[4/2/2007 11:29:00 PM] Tao says:
BUT, they acoustic frequency came out to be 5650Hz, so I said, 'oh, too bad' seems there isn't much of a connection, I guess I need to
do more research'


[4/2/2007 11:29:10 PM] Tao says:
UNTIL, I just watched that video again..........


[4/2/2007 11:29:50 PM] Tao says:
Look at what Dave was pulsing his DC at in the video: 5714Hz!!!!
At 1:11 in the video you can see what he was pulsing at.......


[4/2/2007 11:30:58 PM] Tao says:
Based on the equation for acoustic resonance, Dave was pulsing his tubes at the EXACT frequency at which those tubes will resonate ACOUSTICALLY in FRESH WATER...



So, my finding was basically this:

Dave found the BEST gas production at the VERY SAME frequency that just so happens to be where his tubes resonate ACOUSTICALLY IN WATER... HMMM...

Maybe it is nothing at all but a coincidence, but maybe there is just something to it........................
? Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 09:02:47 PM by tao ?







Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject:   
Alright People some have been very skeptical about the volumes I mentioned....so this video is for especially for them!!



Sorry about the bad quality....the natural light wasnt there like in the videos 7 & 8......so you need to adjust with this till I make a fresh one with better lighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMSUe76PZLQ

Well Hydro looks like you were right the WFC seems to be producing more!!
1.31min into the video the gas collection was started and stopped at 1.51min of the video......20 secs to be exact.

The gas collected was over 150CC could be 160 / 165CC....
As some might say that there could be Steam / Vapour / Mist......lets just take the output as 150CC in 20 Secs.

This comes to 7.5CC of HHO/Sec at 0.48A - 0.50A.

Last I checked with the old leads was 7.0 CC HHO without any thing removed from the generation.

I'll catch up in a day.


Ravi









Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:37 am    Post subject:   
Hi

I've posted another video showing the Input voltage....the input current on both analogue and digital meters.

I've switched off the left part of the circuit with the switch on the pin 3 of the 555 and you can see that the current draw increases over fourfold and you cant see any pulsing on the right LED. The left LED is connected before the switch on pin 3.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFrw3xxDow



Please check the posting on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFrw3xxDow
aswell as there might be something I answered on that thread that might not be here.


Ravi









Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:53 am    Post subject:   
The thread link mentioned above is

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3079.0.html


Ravi






Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:21 am    Post subject:   
RadiantEnrG:

Evrything needed for the replication is already in both the threads....including some pics of WFC under construction and conditioning and the muck generation.

Dave's circuit works fine for the pipe sizes he mentions in the D14 with the same spacing!

Eric:

Maybe try on a single tube and see if it works....the space is a major constraint....its around 0.670mm.....i'll see if something can be done.


Opmeyer:

The resistance depends on the impurities in the water and my leads are 316L...so even they give you a resistance....but it looks like the generation has increased when I reduced the length of the leads both +ve and -ve.

Uneven lengths are fine when the variations are in mm. See to it that the outer pipe is shorter than the inner for the circulation.

Conditioning is the most important aspect of the whole build. See the pics of my conditioning I posted in overunity.com....I was hardly generating any gas....but it keeps increasing as you progress.

There are exposed 316L leads outside the WFC in the red insulation tape. If they heat up the tapes would burnup before it gets hot inside the WFC with water in it. If the wires got hot inside the WFC the water should have been boiling! or it should atleast warm up like the regular electrolysis. It doesnt.


Ravi










Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:37 am    Post subject:   
I dont think i can post anymore.

Pl be careful about what you say on the forums

Good luck









------------------------------------------------------------E N D of Posts-------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 30, 2007, 03:33:54 PM
Actually, I made this yesterday and was going to compile more into the document, but I will just post it now. I edited the HTML and combined all Ravi's OUpower posts into one html file.
Title: Re: FAST FOOD PART 4
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 03:56:24 PM
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject:------------------------------------------------------------E N D of Posts-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your efforts in compiling the information Gheller, I took the liberty of copying it all to my website http://hh0.no-ip.info (http://hh0.no-ip.info), it can be found just below the videos, I figured if it's on a webpage of it's own then it will not get pushed by other postings.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 03:58:27 PM
Actually, I made this yesterday and was going to compile more into the document, but I will just post it now. I edited the HTML and combined all Ravi's OUpower posts into one html file.

Good going, the more the merrier, lets get this information passed to as many people as possible!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 04:04:27 PM
Thats BRILLIANT Tao
Can you make one of this site and post?

I posted coz no one did and questions questions!!! all answered before!

Runn B
Saw ur site >>>> http://hh0.no-ip.info/
keep it up mate   U should post Taos zip file there 

http://www.icubenetwork.com/
where Dave originally posted his findings brought down by spam   

>Devil at work??    >the page says>

" The forum has been taken down due to spam, poor moderation, spam, lack of time, spam and other various reasons. "

Other Various Reasons???
what could those be?       hmmm       let me think

Save all this on zips & distribute

Gh J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on August 30, 2007, 04:49:14 PM
That Danial Dingles guy is interesting i watched the vid a couple of times. One thing he said got me thinking.  He ONLY uses the hydrogen side to pass into the air intake. He said there is enough air already without adding the oxygen. He still uses the ox but he appears to go somewhere else and not fed in as brown gas. He is not the first to point out this fact there is another guy that stated only the hydrogen is the useful bit as far as the engine is concerned. In both cases these guys are using splitters and feeding off the hydro via what appears to be very spaced apart anode cathode plates with mechanical separator in rectangle box design. Each node then has the collection pipe tapping off the hydro and ox separatly.

Likewise its fairly clear Dingle says he is using advanced electronics (meyers?) to give extremely low current split.  The hard part is trying to realise if he is really able to generate in excess of 15 litres a min just to get an engine to run. Compared to Ravi which is fantastic BTW but we need to get 20 or 30 times more gas out then currently producing to make it viable. Of course 10 or even 20 amps is no problem if the cell is making buckets of gas a second if we are already well over unity. For that the circuit needs to be driven very hard while keeping effiency up. I wish i had access to this rig as i try Push Pull power MOS FETS through large torroidials step ups then  to drive the current input really hard from clock pulses, output use qaud voltage stack and get tube voltage hundreds maybe 1000's out then see what happens.:)

BTW Dingle says he is using splitting one litre of water an hour. Any math guys here can work out how much gas he is producing?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 30, 2007, 05:10:45 PM
Thats BRILLIANT Tao
Can you make one of this site and post?

I posted coz no one did and questions questions!!! all answered before!

Runn B
Saw ur site >>>> http://hh0.no-ip.info/
keep it up mate   U should post Taos zip file there 

http://www.icubenetwork.com/
where Dave originally posted his findings brought down by spam   

>Devil at work??    >the page says>

" The forum has been taken down due to spam, poor moderation, spam, lack of time, spam and other various reasons. "

Other Various Reasons???
what could those be?       hmmm       let me think

Save all this on zips & distribute

Gh J.


I ripped all the posts from the old icubenetwork because I was there when Dave made his WFC, and there when qiman13 and I started the offshoot 'radianth2o' yahoo group...

I will post those icubenetwork files soon enough...

For now, here is the entire overunity.com Ravi thread in a zip file, all manually edited html files, enjoy.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on August 30, 2007, 05:14:43 PM
one other point i forgot. Need to prove if the conditioning part of the process actually required more raw power than unity. If so Ravi may not get over unity as he spent months conditioning on high current. In otherwords the performance may actually be only a chemical reation to the conditioned tubes that only require the 0.5 amp we see now to trigger the conversion that may not last without reverting back to high current. I do hope this is not the case but needs to be proven. There is little point achieving 500% this week but next week requires a conditioning costing 5% next week.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 05:16:07 PM
Here's two brilliant links I just found as an attachment to a video

Courtesy: Srawofni


pdf of RAVI by srawofni:

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/301096_fo68p/RAVI_STANLEY_MEYER_REPLICATION_WATER_FUEL_CELL_Updated_30_August_2007.pdf



Another large zip folder @ 10MB  wow!!  by srawofni:

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/287015_7m73q/RAVI_STANLEY_MEYER_REPLICATION_WATER_FUEL_CELL_AUGUST_2007.zip


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on August 30, 2007, 05:24:22 PM
Below are all the PDFs I hand-made in 2005.

Each PDF is a complete recreation of a different thread that was at ICUBENETWORK when it was active. The PDF's titles are the same as the titles that each of their respective threads had at icubenetwork.

It was the origin of Dave Lawton's release of his replication of Meyer's system. It was also the origin for the radianth2o yahoo group and qiman13 ( http://youtube.com/qiman13 ) who has also been releasing videos just recently along with Ravi's..............

Have a good read guys, this is the GENESIS material to all these Meyer replications!

Enjoy folks!!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 05:59:36 PM
I've just about completed two tubes, both stainless steel, they will be placed in distilled white vinegar for the next couple of days to degrease and remove any other muck.
I'm in the process of constructing the pulse circuit at the moment.

Really, if there is anything to what Ravi says(and I do believe him) then I should be able to do a comparison test between straight DC and pulsed DC, even without full conditioning if it works as I think, an improvement should be seen.

one other point i forgot. Need to prove if the conditioning part of the process actually required more raw power than unity. If so Ravi may not get over unity as he spent months conditioning on high current. In otherwords the performance may actually be only a chemical reation to the conditioned tubes that only require the 0.5 amp we see now to trigger the conversion that may not last without reverting back to high current. I do hope this is not the case but needs to be proven. There is little point achieving 500% this week but next week requires a conditioning costing 5% next week.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 06:02:13 PM
Where have you been all along Tao??

Youre a god send!

Thanks a ton mate!!

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 30, 2007, 06:08:36 PM
Hey from ravis pics i don think you could see any kinda generation before the tubes were conditioned

even D14 says d same thing bud   u dont get it initially :-[

so presumably you might get better gen from strt DC at that point.

just a passin thought ;)

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 07:05:33 PM
Just reading up on it, I noticed your comment about the energy needed to condition the tubes, perhaps solar technology can be used for that process?


Hey from ravis pics i don think you could see any kinda generation before the tubes were conditioned

even D14 says d same thing bud   u dont get it initially :-[

so presumably you might get better gen from strt DC at that point.

just a passin thought ;)

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on August 30, 2007, 09:21:50 PM
@runningbare and anyone else continuing with this replication, take a look at

http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=15173#15173




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 30, 2007, 09:47:41 PM
Thanks AhuraMazda, I read it earlier today.




@runningbare and anyone else continuing with this replication, take a look at

http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=15173#15173







Something has just occured to me regarding the tubes...
Quote
After long enough a thick enough layer of high dielectric oxides build up
Would it be cheaper to use the new nano tube technology now being employed in ultracapacitors for the tubes?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on August 30, 2007, 10:58:58 PM
I would stick to SS tubes as not to introduce more un-knowns and once you've got it working you can improve your rig.
By the way, oxygen is very corrosive so, I don't know how long graphite/carbon would last.

AM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 02:34:11 AM
Lets closes the issue on this and get to replications guys time is short, People like Ravi and Dave lawton are heroes, and have paved the way for you all. This is the last we will speak of the issue and get back into the lab!

"I am not being funny but the story said: 9 suits went to raid Ravi's place Now, in India, 9 men wearing black suits would definitely look out of place!" by AhuraMazda

Even in   

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm   

there's nothing about any suits mentioned!!

Nor in this link:

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Where in the world did they get this into it from??? We dont care, back into the LAB.
Our result are coming, also Patrick Kelly is going to publish

how the d14 cell produces COLD CURRENT  electricity stay tuned.
Why do you think they are trying to scare Ravi and Dave? Grow up gentle men
I have instructed Ravi to inform us (Panacea) if any more interferance happens we will pounce on them.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on August 31, 2007, 03:08:13 AM
MY GOD, THIS is one big blob of shit, you guy's take something so simple and complicate it so bad, now the forums is filled with stuff just to confuse other people

IF you're a newbie to the wfc replication by dave or ravi please don't think you have to read all that jibber jabber, just anneal your seamless tubes and condition them, you will be on your road to success.

I would like to point out, Conditioning can be done with a battery charger, you can add chokes to the charger after you condition the pipes if you'd like.

There is not yet any proof that The lawton schematic is any better than a battery charger set to a 2 amp setting, and with chokes added will also drop the amps.
("if you have proof, show it")

("However there is PROOF that Properly Conditioning the Tubes is what Gets you the Good hydrogen output") Not the Frequency used.

CONDITION YOUR TUBES,

This is for the people that don't have the lawton circuit, or don't want to fool with one.

When you see the output, if you want to take it further, then build you the lawton schematic if you feel it will get you better gas production, someone needs to confirm that the circuit is better than a battery charger anyhow.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Super God on August 31, 2007, 03:15:38 AM
I think the pulse is key in restricting the amps, along with the chokes.  This is truly amazing, it uses NO ELECTROLYTE.  That in itself is amazing!  Conditioning is the key, and following intructions is too.  Get to it! :)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on August 31, 2007, 03:25:20 AM
Picked up a 12 volt automatic battery charger today, got it for 3 pound sterling, started to condition one of my tubes earier on today as a test, I'm getting the same results as Ravi, as in the scum is rising, so looking good so far.


I would like to point out, Conditioning can be done with a battery charger, you can add chokes to the charger after you condition the pipes if you'd like.

There is not yet any proof that The lawton schematic is any better than a battery charger set to a 2 amp setting, and with chokes added will also drop the amps.
("if you have proof, show it")

("However there is PROOF that Properly Conditioning the Tubes is what Gets you the Good hydrogen output") Not the Frequency used.

CONDITION YOUR TUBES,

This is for the people that don't have the lawton circuit, or don't want to fool with one.

When you see the output, if you want to take it further, then build you the lawton schematic if you feel it will get you better gas production, someone needs to confirm that the circuit is better than a battery charger anyhow.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 04:05:00 AM
Quote-the D14 report is on something which works well in practice, not on something which might work.The circuit in the first issue of D14.pdf works very well with the cell.  The circuit in the current issue of D14 (http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf) has been altered to give independent Mark/Space adjustment.  There will be a very interesting further update next week.-End quote.

Some of my enginerers (panacea) will be sticking to Ravi and Daves, and will report for the group.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 31, 2007, 05:24:20 AM
Yes mramos, and the RV is the most efficient  .8-1HP electric motor in the world and MANY other things, if your 3/4 horse power drill can beat the RV i would like to see it. The RV does not buckle when loaded
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8060034688864982719&hl=en-AU

The RV will significantly help Ravi's/Daves replication, as Dave used a single phase motor to turn the alt, the RV can do that more efficiently.

If you stuck to the guide line and instructions your RV will do the same
I have found a commojn them here, which i look upon in suspicion why people alter and change things, if you are to replicate the RV it will work, if you change things, (Ravi didnt) Do not expect them to do the same things.

regards
ashtweth
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 31, 2007, 07:24:39 AM
Spewing: Dis is from pg 7 of dis thread





? Reply #66 on: August 28, 2007, 05:25:20 AM ?
Hi Stefan,

I do have an analogue DC Amp meter fixed in the Freq Gen. The digital meter I have was read on the range of 0 to 20A and the analogue shows almost the same but you can see that it keeps fluctuating with the pulse.....even thats at around 0.5A.

The voltage is straight DC from the AC to DC converter. Is there any thing else I might be missing?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taFrw3xxDow



Hydro the LED on the left part of the circuit is placed before the switch and you can see that when the switch is turned off the right LED doesn't blink and the current draw increases by more than four fold! The right LED is on pin 3 of the second 555. I hope this clears what you had in mind Hydro.

Ravi





Read the last para      >> when only a one part (left 555 in D14) of the frequency circuit is switched off the current draw increases by more than four fold    >> if you switch off the pulsing completely the draw could be more than eight fold

 >>pulsing IS important to reduce the current draw.....check video to confirm


Missing out on posted stuff again   :-\


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on August 31, 2007, 09:28:30 AM
yup yup, but it is difficult to read with an amp meter.

what you have is a frequency within a frequency, the circuit on the right is the higher frequency, the circuit on the left is the lower.

when the frequency on the right is set, then the frequency on the left can also be set, so the pulses will be applied at 2 frequency's at the same time, if you can understand.

The Faster Frequency is being Pulsed "Threw" a Slower Frequency.

xogen patented some crazy frequency, much like lawtons, accept it apeared that they hooked a Triangle wave generator to Lawtons Circuit, thats as good as i can explain it.

Now, I have cleaned my tubes 3 times, GRUUU, i'm now going to try Ravis instructions from lawton on conditioning, it's a very time consuming process. i think i said something about reversing the polarity in the past, i don't think you should now that i understand a little more about it. 

and i have been doing a little more reading, it seems that if you try to condition to fast it wont work either, it is important to condition slow just as in ravis instructions. so that means that the guys with the battery chargers would need to have more amp settings, sorry guys but it looks like you'll need that lawton circuit for conditioning.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 31, 2007, 10:07:15 AM


Probable reason why  RAVI    stressed on 316L Stainless Steel:


>>  316L has Molybdenum in its composition :o


The SS grade makes sense now.

Gh. J.



(picked from a parallel thread on this site)




Re: Linnard?s hydrogen on demand system without electricity !
? Reply #633 on: August 30, 2007, 02:17:10 AM ?


For those that are interested, nickel and stainless electrodes that are high in Molybdenum content reportly produce more hydroxy than normal 316 stainless. Maybe these metals have some natural endothermic properties?

The chemical gallium and titanium oxide have been linked to solar hydrogen production. Pehaps these need further research as catalysts. 

Zinc has been known to produce hydrogen when exposed to extreme heat, so perhaps any reaction can be inproved through te use of hot electolyte?

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/new-catalysts-t.html

Note the section in this article that says:

The gallium is a critical component because it hinders the formation of an aluminum oxide skin normally created on aluminum's surface after bonding with oxygen, a process called oxidation. This skin usually acts as a barrier and prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070827174310.htm

Thought this may be relevent to those attempting to prevent degradation of effect over time.

regards,

Runningbear
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication -> alternating Current IS reqired
Post by: TheCell on August 31, 2007, 02:46:30 PM
@Spewing

The chokes will surely do nothing (except they limit the current) , if you do not apply an alternating current to them.
This 'alternating current' will induct high voltage peeks into the chokes, which are known to improove the efficiency of the electrolysis.

In a youtube video someone has compared the straight current und pulsed current methods.
The pulsed current method was the better one.

If I could find the link ....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheCell on August 31, 2007, 03:22:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wlGm0zQmkk
From:  mozon1967
CONCLUSION? DC- NEEDED 6 TIMES THE POWER TO PRODUCE ONLY 4 TIME THE GAS AS THE PWM. BUT WAS THE PWM REALY MORE EFFICIENT? WAS THE EXCESIVE POWER USED BY THE DC CIRCUIT JUST LOST IN HEAT? MAYBE ONE MORE TEST IS NEEDED,DC @ 9AMPS, TO BE FAIR.
ALSO, WHAT KIND OF GAS WAS PRODUCED?
DID THE PWM PRODUCE H1 (MONATOMIC HYDROGEN) AS APOSED TO JUST PLAIN H2,
LIKE SOME PEOPLE SUGGEST? SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER TEST!  (less)
__________________________________________________________

So one is for sure : increasing the current will decrease the efficiency, you will only get more heat output.

The both methods will be only comparable , if you choose the same input power, not the same voltage.

Regarding the high efficiency-level that has been achieved (thisThread) , I can't imagine that it could be done without the use of any pulsing method.
People like John Aarons are building one cell after another and allways use straight current, with a lots of amps,without progress regarding efficiency.

This methods got to be compared.
Who is able to do it should post the result.
If there is'nt any advantage using the pulsed method compared to the straight current method, then the gain in HHO output would depend only upon the conditioning of the cell
(and thats joe cell related, which I can'nt believe)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on August 31, 2007, 04:42:43 PM
i'm aware of what inductors or chokes do, you apply a voltage across the inductor, the field coil will then create a magnetic field around it, once the "pulse" is removed from the inductor the magnetic field collapses. This leads to the inductor reversing Polarity,almost as if you raked a magnet across it. So this way there's never a neutral time between the pulsed source and wfc, it's always a positive potential when you're using a inductor.

The inductor also acts as a diode, since it reverses polarity when the voltage pulse is removed it blocks, when the blocking is taken place it can be better understood by looking at 2 AA batterys in parellel, Thats why it is important to have 2 chokes on both sides of the water fuel cell, when both inductors L1 and L2 Break Magnetic Fields is when T1 L1 and L2 Combine a parallel Series Form of whop ass to the wfc with the ability to source back not consuming amps.

They're also used as filters, To filter out Small Unwanted Frequencys, This could be why stan used a wiper arm inductor, he may wanted to tune in a particular frequency generated by the pulse generator.

The second that the pulsed dc arrives at the transformer its secondary output is a sine wave with ripples. that's what i was talking about in my other post, a fast frequency riding on top of a slower one, this would mean you have a transformer outputting a sine wave with ripples, where the sine wave output would be created by the primary lawton circuit, and the ripples created by the secondary lawton circuit.

Now you have a sine wave with ripples, and you're are going to add chokes that will Filter those ripples out!

So now you have to get technical and add a Variable Choke to the VIC so that you can now tune in the Desired Ripples Created by the secondary lawton circuit.

it's a very Flusterating task, i'm really confused about how stan figured all this out all by himself.

i do understand your concern TheCell, we all have them, right now we really need to get our conditioned tubes together and put our heads together. i'm very sorry for misleading people about the battery charger, i simply didn't know that you had to limit the speed at which you condition the tubes, but there is one guy over at the energetic forum who has an available circuit that claims to condition them faster. ? hrmmm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 01, 2007, 02:44:08 AM
I've just been thinking about the tube conditioning, correct me if I'm wrong, but what about immersing the tubes in sulphuric acid, hang them to dry then repeat the process a few times, this would build up an oxide layer on stainless steel tubes?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 01, 2007, 04:23:50 AM
I've just been thinking about the tube conditioning, correct me if I'm wrong, but what about immersing the tubes in sulphuric acid, hang them to dry then repeat the process a few times, this would build up an oxide layer on stainless steel tubes?

i really don't know, i noticed that water drying itself on the stainless causes a hard water spot, and it turns white, i've also learned that only the negative tube gets the coating not the positive one.

we really need to get to the bottom of this type of pasivating and learn how to speed it up. To condition like this is very hard.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 01, 2007, 05:26:45 AM
Don't you mean the positive tube?
The negative only gives hydrogen, it's the positive that produces oxygen hence the oxide layer would appear on the positive.



i really don't know, i noticed that water drying itself on the stainless causes a hard water spot, and it turns white, i've also learned that only the negative tube gets the coating not the positive one.

we really need to get to the bottom of this type of pasivating and learn how to speed it up. To condition like this is very hard.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 01, 2007, 05:28:17 AM
Hey Stef, over doing it a bit with these sponsored ads huh?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 01, 2007, 05:45:34 AM
Here is another idea for oxidising...

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_oxide)
Aluminium oxide is a good thermal insulator and electrical insulator. In its most commonly occurring crystalline form, called corundum or α-aluminum oxide, its hardness makes it suitable for use as an abrasive and as a component in cutting tools.

Aluminium oxide is responsible for metallic aluminium's resistance to weathering. Metallic aluminium is very reactive with atmospheric oxygen, and a thin passivation layer of alumina quickly forms on any exposed aluminium surface. This layer protects the metal from further oxidation.



I started an experiment earlier on today, with a piece of stainless steel connected to the negative and aluminum connected to the positive, I want to see if an aluminum oxide layer will form on the stainless steel.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 01, 2007, 06:08:16 AM
i'm pretty sure the white coating forms on the negative lead and not the positive one.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on September 02, 2007, 09:11:19 AM
@ runningbare-

Someone, or something, has gots to pay the freight.

I'm jes profoundly thankful this forum even exists- I'd never make it thru without all this information to digest.

Back to the heatlamp to metabolise...

Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 03, 2007, 03:43:19 PM

                                         RUMOR ON SOME OF THE FORUMS??>>>>NOPE!





received info from some very reliable sources!!! onto personal mail.


              New updated D14 is going to be released within the next few days!!

      ::)


>>>Keep your eyes wide open  :o   I'll post it over here the minute I get my hands on to it   




>>>Some ppl hv been talking about bi-filar windings in other threads
>>>Check what Qiman13 / Aaron posted on youtube recently for Meyers WFC



LINK>>>                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozpRNpM6FqM



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: bolt on September 03, 2007, 04:43:48 PM
Get the TPU working first and this water split will be solved in 2 seconds flat:)

There are of course great similarities between TPU SSG and making stanley meyer system work. In each case remarkable outputs can only be achieved when RE is captured. I thought at first just effecient DC chop was the answer to this but its NOT. The meyers system is only half way there and the Steven Mark TPU ideology is the answer. The TPU is described as using 3 frequencies but careful reading suggest 2 frequencies are actually involved with the 3rd as a second harmonic of the first.  Ravi had quite good results as an effective PWM controller but i bet he still did not really tap into RE. If all this technology comes together i am sure in this hydro tap the coil construction, frequencies used will be perfected to provide RE. The choke construction is therefore as critical as TPU thoery  Its certainly a lot more then a few turns wrapped around a dowel:) Why? Because the energy of the system will be tapping into the earths magnetic energies and THATS where there extreme COP will come from.  Like the TPU the hydro system requires 2 induced frequencies. But actually it relies on 3 to provide to constructive wave forms to be setup in the choke. The construction of the 3rd frequency is vital to get the massive induction to occur within the choke and i don't believe its been done yet in this thread. although tube conditioning plays a part in this i dont believe its the final answer. The amount of brown gas we need must increase hundreds or even thousands percent for the same 500 mA input to run a vehicle and im sure when the hydro unit works properly the amount of gas released will just be unbelievable as virtually all the water would be converted to gas within hours. Again in theory at least the DC input should run in the milli amps range but the RE collector will be tapping into 50 80 amps at 100 volts to provide the electrolysis and thats the hidden secret that i am in no doubt has been reproduced before and squashed by the big boys.

Suddenly the tube cell design becomes far less important because of the FREE power is there to run it. A car battery size cell with rectangle plates becomes far more pratical with outputs of many litres of brown gas per minute.

just thoughts........
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 03, 2007, 09:03:09 PM
Construction of HH0 generator chamber almost complete...

http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm (http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm)

Getting there slowly but surely!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pofuk on September 03, 2007, 10:31:33 PM
This is My first post on this forum so I want to apologize for writing mistakes because I'm from Croatia and was playing cards on English class for last 4 years.

I'm not so good at physic actually i was disappointed because Tesla didn't give us free energy. Three nights ago I accidentally wrote Car on water on You tube and after watching couple of videos i found link to this page. I red all 11 pages on this topic and I'm so excited about making Stanley Meyer's electrolyzer that when I came home from school I, for the first time in my life, studied Physic (Today was the first day of School). So I haven't understood most of the things here so I'll be boring you for couple of months with questions,I hope there is someone to help me.

First question is did anybody made Stanley Meyer's electrolyser  that can produce enough gas to run mowing machine?

And second question, and a problem is where to get stainless steal tubes and the question is how much would they cost?

All thanks to ZeroFossilFuel for guiding me to this page! (I remembered that when I Watched his new video)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 03, 2007, 11:54:40 PM
Construction of HH0 generator chamber almost complete...

http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm (http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm)

Getting there slowly but surely!

hi i think i remember earlier in the thread ravzz said not to use o-rings because not all the bubbles will be able to escape?? Unless you cut the o-ring up a little?

Anyways its looking good!!

---------------------------------------

Nvm my above comment i just noticed you used 4 rings squashed up to do it, i was thinking
an oring around the smaller tube but what you did is good!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 04, 2007, 01:06:11 AM
The O rings are cut in half across their diameter because I did not have enough of them, they are inserted curve side down so no bubbles can collect, I've taken every precaution I possibly can to stop the build up of bubbles, including plenty of holes in the tubes supporting base.


hi i think i remember earlier in the thread ravzz said not to use o-rings because not all the bubbles will be able to escape?? Unless you cut the o-ring up a little?

Anyways its looking good!!

---------------------------------------

Nvm my above comment i just noticed you used 4 rings squashed up to do it, i was thinking
an oring around the smaller tube but what you did is good!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 04, 2007, 05:48:52 AM
how much gas HHO needs to be created to run a car engine?

i mean what volume in cc/s or cc/min needs to be generated to run
say a 2.5L engine?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 11:19:39 AM
Runningbare>>>

Looks like you have quite a gap between the pipes

>>Could be over 2mm or 4mm aswell >>this could reduce the efficiency bhiiig tiiiime ! >>>>> check stans canadian patent Ravi mentioned for eff calcs before you proceed :o

What r d pipe sizes (Outer DIAMETER of outer and inner pipe) n the thickness of outer pipe

the spacer placement's made one of the inner tubes get close to one side of the outer tube...check. :o



Gh. J.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 11:24:56 AM
Siantpoida>>>

HHO    &     H2 n O2 cannot b compared     >>>> reason >>>>>

This cud be of interest 2 u:







HOH in combustions:

So let's say now that we are working with the correct gas HOH, how much of this gas is required to see efficiency gains when combusted. The answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on the fuel system being used, it depends on the total volume of fuel being used, i.e. 2 litre engine verses a 6 litre engine, it depends on the condition of the motor, it depends on the driving conditions and it depends on how the existing fuel system is managed, ie. Carbureted verses Electronic Fuel Injection and so on.

Let's continue by having a look at some of the unique properties of HOH and why it is so good at what it does and then we'll explore how to achieve significant efficiency gains.

HOH, the perfect gas, as nature intended!

It is made in perfect stoichiometric ratio two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom.
It has a flame speed of 8160 ft/per second Mach 7.5 (H2 is only 680 ft/per second).
It will combust with an air fuel ratio of up to 95:1 (95 parts air to 1 part hydrogen).
It has catalytic characteristics, adjusting its flame temperature based on the substance contact.
HOH when combusted recombines into a tiny water molecule, creating no pollution.
When combusted in the absence of any other gases, it creates a perfect vacuum.
Engines run quieter, smoother and cooler with a HOH supplement.
Things you need to know when using this gas in a Internal Combustion Engine.

Due to the flame speed of HOH and the chain reaction that occurs with the hydrocarbons (existing fuel system) you may need to retard your timing, causing the ignition to occur later in the piston stroke, the amount of this timing change is determined by the total gas volume and is arrived at empirically when or if additional tuning is required. In computer managed vehicles this may happen automatically.
 
Our tests have shown a slight increase (5%) in brake horse power in the upper rev range.
 
O2 sensors in EFI engines in some instances detect this reduction in air fuel ratios and increase fuel input, therefore negating any gains. Some vehicle computer systems will recalibrate and make the necessary adjustments overtime, others may need small electronic device installed to overcome this.
In relation to how much gas do I need? We have established a benchmark of 1 litre of (HOH) gas per minute at an energy footprint of between 170-200 Watts for our commercially available cells. Higher efficiency results have been achieved during lab testing, though developing a robust and suitable cell for commercial release has required some compromises.

Depending on your engine size and the outlined adjustments required, your mileage (combustion efficiency), will improve on 1 litre of HOH gas per minute, to what exact extent in your circumstances can not be fully elucidated.

What is known is the smallest amount makes a difference be it a small one, there are consistent anomalies where small amounts have made big differences, but there are also some consistent baselines.




Gh. J. ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 04, 2007, 11:53:58 AM
so what gas exactly is generated directly from tap water? HHO?

So 1L of that a minute will give better milage but not enough to run
the vehicle?

So does anyone know how much HHO is required? Or would it be better
to try and extract just the hydrogen from the system and put that in?

Im just trying to work out what would be enough to try and run an engine
lets say for example an EFI 2L engine...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: albert on September 04, 2007, 12:14:02 PM
Hello out there,
I have been following this for some time - I come from the Bedini side- built a Bedini motor some time ago. Here are some of my thoughts.
I think the solution to all this might be to find the common points between the Bedini process and the WFC circuit. The water cell is just the dipole for capturing the radiant energy. As such it is not so much a capacitor but a resistor. The real magic seems to be in the circuit.This has to have its output impedance matched to the load for a maximum transfer of energy into the water cell. I have asked Patrick Kelly to do one of his excellent tutorials on impedance matching. Hope he will find the time for it.The same basic problems seem to crop up in all these OU devices.
From reading the Meyer patents he seems to have used laser light to pump more energy into the water. Perhaps this could also be done by using a "pond fogger"- a simple membrane driven with ultrasonic frequencies. adding this at the bottom of the cell  might improve the results dramatically.
Also the gas bubbles might be shaken off the tubes for better performance.
this water cell process is anything but simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with classical electrolysis. This is why outside the box thinking is really necessary.
I will try to replicate the circuit and keep you posted. Keep up the good work and dont get discouraged. If this can be made to work it would be a revolution that cannot be stopped anymore.

Albert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
Saintpoida>>>>>

WFC generates HHO!!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 04, 2007, 01:13:15 PM

                                         RUMOR ON SOME OF THE FORUMS??>>>>NOPE!





received info from some very reliable sources!!! onto personal mail.


              New updated D14 is going to be released within the next few days!!

      ::)


>>>Keep your eyes wide open  :o   I'll post it over here the minute I get my hands on to it   




>>>Some ppl hv been talking about bi-filar windings in other threads
>>>Check what Qiman13 / Aaron posted on youtube recently for Meyers WFC



LINK>>>                   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozpRNpM6FqM



Gh. J.


Hi Gheller,

Just had a quick look at it and it seems to make a lot of sense. If i understand it right the fields block each other inhibiting electron flow for a large part.

Everyone:

I'm still looking for a good and cheap source for stainless steal seamless tubing (304L or better 316L). Preferably shipping international....
Anyone any good suggestions?

Thanx,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 04, 2007, 01:16:35 PM
Saintpoida>>>>>

WFC generates HHO!!


Gh. J.

yeah thats what i thought so how much is required for what i said above if anyone knows...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 01:28:55 PM
Saintpoida>>>>

Stan Meyer seems 2 have run on the demo WFC check the vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmB6-wZSh8


See the WFC next 2 his buggy. 1700% OU over faraday as per Ravi in some vid of stans.

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 04, 2007, 01:58:00 PM
I have some rough observation

Digital multimeter is wired in so...
+ ----------------------------|              |----inductor------
                11000uf cap    pulse circuit              tubes
- -----A----------------------|              |----inductor------
"A" is the meter, and the capacitor is connected directly across the lines, the supply is a 12 volt sealed lead acid battery reading 12.8 volts presently.

I first tried straight DC, current shown on the meter was 1.38 amps, good bubble flow.
Then I tried with the pulse circuit, got slightly less bubble flow but meter reading never went much above 400milliamp.

More to come later.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 04, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
I have some rough observation

Digital multimeter is wired in so...
+ ----------------------------|              |----inductor------
                11000uf cap    pulse circuit              tubes
- -----A----------------------|              |----inductor------
"A" is the meter, and the capacitor is connected directly across the lines, the supply is a 12 volt sealed lead acid battery reading 12.8 volts presently.

I first tried straight DC, current shown on the meter was 1.38 amps, good bubble flow.
Then I tried with the pulse circuit, got slightly less bubble flow but meter reading never went much above 400milliamp.

More to come later.

Hi RunningBare,

I guess you haven't adjusted the pulse frequency to the optimum value yet? Maybe you could use the calculations supplied by Tao at some point (based on acoustic resonance frequency for a given length)
What are the dimensions of your tubes?

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 04, 2007, 04:39:46 PM
Hi dutchy, I'm in the proccess of sealing the sharp edges of the tubes at the moment, I noted the electrolysis had just started eating away at one edge of one tube, only extremely slightly but enough to motivate some protection, as soon as the seal is cured I will try another few tests.

btw, I agree that I need to find resonance, but it also must be remembered that the inductors will also be effected, if the frequency is too low they will just pass more current, if the frequency is too high then the current will fall below an acceptable level not allowing electrolysis to take place.

I've basically built everything to a smaller scale, these tubes would certainly need a higher frequency than Ravi's to reach resonance.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 06:12:12 PM





 Ã‚                NEW     D14  -  04 Sept. 2007    UPDATE   POSTED


                        on radianth2o  group  a few minutes ago!!







                                                               :o          :o            :o

Gh. J.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 04, 2007, 06:30:51 PM





                  COLD ELECTRICITY!!!!!  >>>doing all the extra work??  :o

                                                    WOW!



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pese on September 04, 2007, 06:34:39 PM





                 NEW     D14  -  04 Sept. 2007    UPDATE   POSTED


                        on radianth2o  group  a few minutes ago!!







                                                               :o          :o            :o

Gh. J.





This version fron yahoo , is since days in panacea
 
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

G.Pese

 www.pese.cjb.net
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 04, 2007, 06:37:32 PM
Gheller J,

Thanks for the updated D14 !!!  Matches very well with the electron extraction Stanley was using.....
It seems this WFC is gonna be totally uncovered soon.....

Regards,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 04, 2007, 08:48:26 PM
I have a high res picture of Dave's light bulb that he is lighting with his Electron Extraction Circuit.

I will post it in some hours, when I get to my other computer, and attach it to this post.

Just to let you guys SEE it working too ;)...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 04, 2007, 09:07:52 PM
Regarding the "slots" that are supposed to be on the tubes in Meyer's demo WFC....

I posted this some months back, but felt the need to do so again regarding the recent update of the d14.pdf

Here is an image I made showing why there are NO SLOTS CUT in Meyer's SS tubes...

They appear to be merely spacers that are easily removable.
Think of a a U-shaped plastic clip.
It just an 'easy to remove' spacer, that is all. The evidence is in the picture...

Click the image to zoom in.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 04, 2007, 10:22:08 PM
While I have used the pulse circuit from D14 and it does work, it does have a flaw in it, the way the mark/space controls are wired also cause a change in frequency when adjusting mark/space.
The circuit below is very similar to D14 with a couple of acceptions, firstly the mark/space controls VR1 and VR3 are rewired so that they have negligable effect on the frequency, secondly instead of the frequency controls VR2 and VR4 being connected to the 555 timers pin 3 output they are instead taken straight to the positive line, I've not completed the circuit because the rest is basically the same as D14, if you have any questions please ask.

Edit to add, the multiple timing capacitors can be wired as per D14, I just put a single timing capacitor on each timer for drawing simplicity.

(http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/pulse_circuit_revised.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on September 04, 2007, 10:29:38 PM

Is the tube in the middle of the arrangement larger than the rest?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 12:40:35 AM
I have a high res picture of Dave's light bulb that he is lighting with his Electron Extraction Circuit.

I will post it in some hours, when I get to my other computer, and attach it to this post.

Just to let you guys SEE it working too ;)...


Here is the high res picture of Dave's actual setup with his light bulb being powered by the Electron Extraction Circuit...

The EEC works folks, believe that... One more vindicating action that supports Meyer...........
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 01:17:17 AM
tao, are you sure the capacitors are 83,000 mfd 50 volt? the one I see in that picture is approx the same physical size as my 11,000 mfd 25 volt capacitors.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 05, 2007, 01:56:02 AM
looks cool!!

i have been trying to look up and research bifilar winding for past couple days now and most of them that i see
are wind with 2 wires have the 2 wires connected together at one end, but when looking at
stans stuff and d14 it looks more as if the 2 wires are wound together but then one is used for + and one
is used for -

is this correct? or am i reading the diagram incorrectly? (cause they sit so close together)


On another note looking at that "cold electricity" setup, if ravzz or daves for that matter system has a draw of
10v at 0.5 amps = 5 watts then would they not be able to run another 2 WFC from the extra current and so
on and so forth??

Sorry if that is a stupid question!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 03:34:17 AM
tao, are you sure the capacitors are 83,000 mfd 50 volt? the one I see in that picture is approx the same physical size as my 11,000 mfd 25 volt capacitors.

That image was made some months ago, so his circuit values and/or the circuit layout could have been a bit different than what is in the new D14.pdf , but I would think that they are basically the same.

Still though, the process works, and that is Dave's actual setup, which lead to that changed circuit in the D14.pdf

:)


PS - I was just looking up similar 83,000uF 50V caps to see what they could look like, and they look very similar to the one in Dave's pic there...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 03:52:17 AM
To test the volume of gas created over time I used a disposable plastic beaker that fitted over both tubes, I do not have the capacity so I drew a line on it with an indelible marker which sits around a centimeter below the water line, then I timed how long it took for the line to reach the water line.

Straight DC at 400ma falling to a steady 380ma - 10 minutes
Pulsed DC with circuit adjusted till multimeter showed 380ma - 8 minutes 30

It also must be born in mind that I have two leds drawing about 5ma each connected to both 555 timers outputs.

I ran the test twice, same result give or take a few seconds.
btw, I'm not using the low frequency pulser during these tests, just the high frequency, so I get a steady reading on the digital multimeter, I've got plenty of capacitor decoupling throughout the circuit to reduce noise.

Anyway, back to the lab.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 05, 2007, 05:14:48 AM
Guys another [lawton-Ravi] replication was sent to me
Plus a guy on Hydroxy just posted he has one too.

Quote on the attached

"Paul estimates that he is getting the same output as Dave.  He intends to improve substantially on that, but he has to fix a leak in the base of the cell before he continues development.  His web site is http://greenwand.net"

Hydroxy post

"I am using a meyer cell with a Dave Lawton circuit. I increased my gas milage in my ford escort to 45 MPG from 28 MPG. The Lawton circuit fryed my alternator. My solution was a $20 dollar boat battery charger that plugs into a car cigarette lighter. I use that to power my Lawton circuit now.



Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hydroxy/"
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 05, 2007, 05:26:24 AM
Guys, as you may know Dave has reported Cold current electricity from the cell, Patrick just sent me this, im not sure if he has uploaded the new 'cold current' circuit to the cell, but rest assured the plans wil be in there

"I'm afraid that papers of that nature just leave me cold (no pun intended) as I gain nothing from them.  I don't think in mathematical structures.

The subject of radiant, or "cold" energy is not well defined at this time.  Our familiar conventional electricity appears to be a transverse oscillation while the "cold" component appears to be a longitudinal oscillation.  Consequently, none of our instruments react to cold electricity and while it can power lights, motors, heaters, etc., the only way to actually measure it appears to be to charge a lead-acid battery using it and then measure the power stored in the battery by discharging it.  John Bedini remarks that after forty years of searching, that is the only mechanism which he has found.

Electromagnetic pulsing appears to be the main way of accessing this energy.  Bob Boyce's electrolyzer gets 10 x Faraday's supposed maximum, through magnetic pulsing of a hundred stainless steel plates in a row.  This is effectively pulsing a hundred capacitors in series as the electrolyte is essentially a dielectric.  Bob gets a major power gain by pulsing windings on a toroid, which is definitely a significant shape for cold electricity.  The power gain can be 10,000 amps of hot electricity, and as that is effectively the "losses" where cold electricity is concerned, the real "cold" power is so much greater that it can trigger a ground feeder leading to a lightning strike.  Bob found that out the hard way and was very lucky to survive being hit by that lightning strike.

The toroid is at the heart of many different COP>1 devices and its effect can be simulated by generating a rotating magnetic field without a toroid (devices like the Adams Motor for example).  That of course, is not the whole picture, as Thomas Henry Moray achieved massive power input without anything like that, so how do you explain input from an aerial as that appears fairly passive?

So, the bottom line is, that while I know that cold electricity can be tapped with rotating magnetic fields, strong dipoles (including sharp DC pulses and permanent magnets) and passive devices like aerials, Coler devices and the Joe Cell, it is clear that I really don't understand anything significant about it.
"
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 05:28:02 AM
Here are some more pics of Paul's setup.

He had this setup running many months ago, but there was a blowback and the cell got ruptured (as Ash mentioned)...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 05, 2007, 06:34:56 AM
pese>>>>>


There r additions mate   >>>like detailed conditioning process posted by Ravi    >>>its an udate to d link you posted >>>check  :o



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 05, 2007, 08:11:47 AM
Just in from a friend

('bigfatpothead' on youtube) running his car on Dave's setup and his mileage gain was around 17 miles/gallon which works out to 62% increase in mileage!! (by far better than any available off the shelf).....the video is (  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw ).....this system was the same size as Dave's , wouldn't be surprised if the mileage gain is over 120% as my unit is much bigger

Calculation: (Both setups have same tube diameters)

Dave's WFC: 6 tube of 5 inch length

Just considering the gas generating heights........ 6 tubes x 5 inches  = 30 inches in length/height

Ravi's WFC: 9 tubes of 9 inch length

Just considering the gas generating heights........ 9 tubes x 9 inches  = 81 inches in length/height


Thats an increased reactive surface area of over 150% than Dave's.....so theoretically from above increase in mileage it should be 62% x 2.5 = 155% gain for the same car that he uses....if the 9 inch 9 tube setup is connected then the gain is 42.5 miles/gallon (17 x 2.5) and the overall mileage should be
@70.5 miles/gallon (28 + 42.5)....thats huge!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 05, 2007, 11:26:57 AM
Hi everyone,

Seeing as ther is such a big difference in the price between seamless and welded 316L tubing, can anyone explain why it is better to have seamless tubing?
For a first test rig can we not use 316L welded tube?

thanks.

Robert 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 05, 2007, 11:30:30 AM
im just guessing but i would say its because of the smoothness inside/outside the seamless tube as there is no weld bead or whatever

but i dont actually know im just guessing lol

if i am right you can probably use a welded one anyway just make the gap bigger between the tubes
so no arcing can occur where the weld bead is??
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 05, 2007, 11:54:50 AM
im just guessing but i would say its because of the smoothness inside/outside the seamless tube as there is no weld bead or whatever

but i dont actually know im just guessing lol

if i am right you can probably use a welded one anyway just make the gap bigger between the tubes
so no arcing can occur where the weld bead is??

Hmm, you might be right. I just presumed they would remove the excess bead after welding, but maybe not....

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 05, 2007, 12:02:30 PM
yeah beats me

looks cool!!

i have been trying to look up and research bifilar winding for past couple days now and most of them that i see
are wound with 2 wires and have the 2 wires connected together at one end, but when looking at
stans stuff and d14 it looks more as if the 2 wires are wound together but then one is used for positive and one
is used for negative

so in simple terms when you bifilar wind the coil will you have 4 wires coming out of it or 2?

is this correct? or am i reading the diagram incorrectly? (cause they sit so close together)


anyone know the answer to the above quoted question?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 05, 2007, 12:10:29 PM
yeah beats me

looks cool!!

i have been trying to look up and research bifilar winding for past couple days now and most of them that i see
are wound with 2 wires and have the 2 wires connected together at one end, but when looking at
stans stuff and d14 it looks more as if the 2 wires are wound together but then one is used for positive and one
is used for negative

so in simple terms when you bifilar wind the coil will you have 4 wires coming out of it or 2?

is this correct? or am i reading the diagram incorrectly? (cause they sit so close together)


anyone know the answer to the above quoted question?

You will have four wires coming out (2 on each side). How you connect those wires together depends on your specific situation. In the Stan Meyer case it seems like the pulse sent down one strand will be blocked by the induction in the other strand. (and therefore reduce current flow further)

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 05, 2007, 02:16:56 PM
yeah i understand it depends on your specific situation thats why i was asking in relation to the diagram but thanks for answering!!

thats what i wanted to know
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 04:20:49 PM
Meyer's EEC circuit layouts compared to Lawton's recently posted EEC circuit that he is using to power that light bulb, among other loads...


In the first image, Meyer's simple EEC is shown. In this setup, the 'amp consuming device' is analogous to Lawton's light bulb. When the water in the WFC is being split, electrons are dislodged from the water and as successive positive pulses happen the electrons are effectively 'sucked up' by the amp consuming device. So, there are electrons in the water free, and when a positive pulse comes, the electrons move to the right electrode and move through the 'amp consuming device'.

In the second image, Meyer upgraded his setup and included a triggering mechanism whereby he can choose when he applies the positive pulses to the 'amp consuming device'. So Meyer could send some pulses to the WFC plates and split up the water, then he could trigger the switch and send pulses to the 'amp consuming device' whereby the electrons from the water would flow through it.


Lawton on the other hand, has modified Meyer's EEC a bit with the addition of those extra high capacity caps. These caps would, by thinking about it, charge up via the continued HV pulses that are being applied to the WFC, analogous to a Bedini type setup. The electrons would then move to and from the caps and cause fluctuating current to hit the bridge rectifier and power his load.


All in all, it seems there can be many different ways to implement the EEC...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 05, 2007, 04:36:13 PM
Hi Tao,

I think the second EEC must work a lot better than the first. IN the first picture you can see the electron extraction is probably also limited by the chokes. In the second one the amp consuming device (bulb) bypasses the chokes to extract more electron from the circuit. (and therefore stopping Hydrogen and oxygen atoms from recombining)

Are you planning on building one of these cells too?

regards,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 04:49:42 PM
Hi Tao,

I think the second EEC must work a lot better than the first. IN the first picture you can see the electron extraction is probably also limited by the chokes. In the second one the amp consuming device (bulb) bypasses the chokes to extract more electron from the circuit. (and therefore stopping Hydrogen and oxygen atoms from recombining)

Are you planning on building one of these cells too?

regards,

Robert


I agree with you, the second one is much better and for the reasons you mentioned.

y e s
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 05, 2007, 05:11:41 PM


Thanks Tao  :)

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 05, 2007, 05:19:07 PM
Tao>>>

Why not power d EEC from d free electrons in the water of WFC instead of powerin it from the WFC pipe input lead??

Any ideas how dis cud b done??


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 05:23:35 PM
A quick dirty video of my fizz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux5txPQjilg) chamber.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 05, 2007, 05:24:38 PM
Tao>>>

Why not power d EEC from d free electrons in the water of WFC instead of powerin it from the WFC pipe input lead??

Any ideas how dis cud b done??


Gh. J.


The WFC pipe is IN the water, and hence, when there is a positive pulse on the one side of the 'amp consuming device'(light bulb, etc), the electrons come FROM the water. So you ARE powering the EEC from the free electrons in the water, that is what it is doing.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 05, 2007, 05:27:40 PM
Tao>>>

Is ther a possibility that pancake bifilar cud work better on a WFC than the 1 in new D14?


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 05, 2007, 05:33:53 PM
Tao>>>

So thers a possibility of another WFC bein connected instead of d lamp right? n dis can go on from one WFC to another?

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 05, 2007, 06:41:03 PM
Regarding the "slots" that are supposed to be on the tubes in Meyer's demo WFC....

I posted this some months back, but felt the need to do so again regarding the recent update of the d14.pdf

Here is an image I made showing why there are NO SLOTS CUT in Meyer's SS tubes...

They appear to be merely spacers that are easily removable.
Think of a a U-shaped plastic clip.
It just an 'easy to remove' spacer, that is all. The evidence is in the picture...

Click the image to zoom in.

That seems to be an easy way to manipulate the tuning of the pipes. By putting a dampening clip it might be possible to tune the outside pipe to the inside. It might also just be removable U-cell spacers with an outside grip to them.... Beats using a flat tip screw driver to remove them to clean the cell....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 05, 2007, 07:02:57 PM
Tao>>>

So thers a possibility of another WFC bein connected instead of d lamp right? n dis can go on from one WFC to another?

Gh. J.

It seems like you might be able to close the loop if we take the output of the EEC and use that power to replace the 6 watts of input power.....

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 07:26:18 PM
Tao>>>

So thers a possibility of another WFC bein connected instead of d lamp right? n dis can go on from one WFC to another?

Gh. J.

It seems like you might be able to close the loop if we take the output of the EEC and use that power to replace the 6 watts of input power.....

Robert

Do not be too misled, a 12 volt 10watt lamp can glow quite brightly with just 6 watts of input, give it a try, get a 12 volt battery, 12 volt 10 watt lamp, in order to get the lamp to dissipate 6 watts instead of 10 you will need a resistor in series to dissipate the other 4 watts.

12 volts at 10 watts is .833ma therefore lamp resistance is 12/.833 = 14.4 ohms, a resistor is chosen to dissipate 4 watts, a 1 ohm resistor is close enough giving a total circuit dissipation of 9.33 watts, the resistor must be rated 5 watts or higher, you will see their is not a great deal of difference in lamp brightness.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on September 05, 2007, 07:27:35 PM

@any one with a working cell,

Is it true that you get a kind of glow ( or may be some kind of sparks ) in the bottom of the cell?
If this is so, perhaps the intensity or fluctuations of this can be used as a feedback machanism.
I thought I get this in before someone thinks of patenting the idea!

AM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 05, 2007, 07:29:25 PM
Tao>>>

So thers a possibility of another WFC bein connected instead of d lamp right? n dis can go on from one WFC to another?

Gh. J.

It seems like you might be able to close the loop if we take the output of the EEC and use that power to replace the 6 watts of input power.....

Robert

It has to stay an open system, meaning you cannot close the loop by using it to power itself. It is just like Bedinis work. Once you close the loop on itself you get no gain. Now the idea of using that power and storing it in a battery to power another WFC is very possible.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 07:34:09 PM

It has to stay an open system, meaning you cannot close the loop by using it to power itself. It is just like Bedinis work. Once you close the loop on itself you get no gain. Now the idea of using that power and storing it in a battery to power another WFC is very possible.

You see, now I find this very odd, if it is capable of charging batteries then it is capable of charging capacitors, in which case if the output is higher than the input then you should be able to close the loop, its simple logic.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 05, 2007, 07:45:31 PM
Well I'll take a wild guess that we are not working with your ordinary everyday energy souce here...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 07:58:56 PM
Well I'll take a wild guess that we are not working with your ordinary everyday energy souce here...

Uh huh, thats one road I'm not going down.....yet.

If this device is tapping from an unknown source such ZPE, you should know thats the lowest energy state that can be varified, the vacuum void between the atoms is just that as far as we know, so nothing there, squat.

But I'll be extremely happy to proved wrong!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 05, 2007, 08:20:11 PM
Are these tpus working at all or is it a wild goose chase?  Was Steven Mark a fraud?  Are the videos on YouTube a scam?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 05, 2007, 08:20:48 PM
Oops posted in the wrong section.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 05, 2007, 09:59:57 PM
 i have found nothing of this water fuel cell replication, could you give some source to it? i would really like to see what this guy, or guy's are doing!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 05, 2007, 10:24:19 PM
i have found nothing of this water fuel cell replication, could you give some source to it? i would really like to see what this guy, or guy's are doing!

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf (http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 05, 2007, 10:57:39 PM
i have found nothing of this water fuel cell replication, could you give some source to it? i would really like to see what this guy, or guy's are doing!


More information (http://hh0.no-ip.info) including links to Stan Meyers information.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pofuk on September 06, 2007, 12:52:37 AM
I'm planing to make replication as soon I'll have money for equipment. I'm going to make electronics first because it looks cheapest thing and I have friend working in electronic shop. I have one question an that would solve most of my dough's. My goal is to produce energy to heat my home. What i wanted to do and what I'm going to start doing this Saturday is to run lawn mower on HHO, I'm going to make some by using standard electrolysis, and connect it to generator(when i get one). The question is how to convert HHO into an 220V AC (50Hz) most efficiently?


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 06, 2007, 12:58:01 AM
I was thinking about the closing the loop idea also

if it can charge a battery could it not recharge its own power source??
so if you were using a 12v lead acid battery so a small motorbike one
could it be used to try and make back what its taking out?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 06, 2007, 01:03:49 AM
Also with tuning the pipes, wouldnt making the inner tube longer push it closer to the freq of the outer tube?

If so you would just need to calculate by how much longer it would need to be?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 06, 2007, 04:06:21 AM
Also with tuning the pipes, wouldnt making the inner tube longer push it closer to the freq of the outer tube?

If so you would just need to calculate by how much longer it would need to be?

I have done just that on my pipes... the extra lenght sits at the bottom and flush at the top. I calculated the surface area of the inside of the the outer pipe and adjusted the lenght of the inside pipe to have the same surface area. They sound identical when struck like a tuning fork..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 06, 2007, 04:46:29 AM
May we please have the dimensions you used for the tubes?, when it comes to maths I'm a bit of a lazy git  :-[



I have done just that on my pipes... the extra lenght sits at the bottom and flush at the top. I calculated the surface area of the inside of the the outer pipe and adjusted the lenght of the inside pipe to have the same surface area. They sound identical when struck like a tuning fork..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 06, 2007, 05:11:56 AM
Guys some one was talking about Bi-filar cols before a firend sent me this

Check what Tesla says below keeping the WFC and a bi-filar inductor in context:



Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO MAGNETS," patent #512,340  is a very special coil design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. In this patent Tesla explains that the double coil will store many times the energy of a conventional coil.[1] Measurements of two coils of the same size and with the same number of turns, one with a single, the other with a bifilar winding, show differences in voltage gain. These bifilar Tesla's coils can be explained solely on the basis of their electrical activity. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter - electromotive force ( e.m.f.) normal to coils, inductive reactance.

Because of the electrical activity, a bifilar coil does not work against itself in the form of a counter - e.m.f., the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value. The difference between the turns becomes great enough that the energy is practically all potential, at this point, the system becomes an electrostatic oscillator.

Minimal work is done in my radiant energy system due to the absence of wasted displacement currents. As small heat losses occur, oscillations are maintained by surplus charge generated by atomic catalytic reactions, energy is siphoned from the kinetic moments of these charges.. After an initial input of energy from an outside Very low energy expenditure allows power delivery to an electrical load over an extended time period without an external fuel supply source, the radiant energy electrical generator will operate as a very efficient device.


 

The parts highlighted in red seem very very relevant in WFC context. So bifilar inductors are worth a try.What do you think?? any ideas on how we should try it??

Also
Could you check up on the following link and see if it actually works for a WFC?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/parabifc.htm

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 06, 2007, 05:17:48 AM
Guys some one was talking about Bi-filar cols before a firend sent me this

Check what Tesla says below keeping the WFC and a bi-filar inductor in context:



Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO MAGNETS," patent #512,340  is a very special coil design because, unlike an ordinary coil made by turning wire on a tube form, this one uses two wires laid next to each other on a form but with the end of the first one connected to the beginning of the second one. In this patent Tesla explains that the double coil will store many times the energy of a conventional coil.[1] Measurements of two coils of the same size and with the same number of turns, one with a single, the other with a bifilar winding, show differences in voltage gain. These bifilar Tesla's coils can be explained solely on the basis of their electrical activity. A bifilar coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter - electromotive force ( e.m.f.) normal to coils, inductive reactance.

Because of the electrical activity, a bifilar coil does not work against itself in the form of a counter - e.m.f., the potential across the coil quickly builds to a high value. The difference between the turns becomes great enough that the energy is practically all potential, at this point, the system becomes an electrostatic oscillator.

Minimal work is done in my radiant energy system due to the absence of wasted displacement currents. As small heat losses occur, oscillations are maintained by surplus charge generated by atomic catalytic reactions, energy is siphoned from the kinetic moments of these charges.. After an initial input of energy from an outside Very low energy expenditure allows power delivery to an electrical load over an extended time period without an external fuel supply source, the radiant energy electrical generator will operate as a very efficient device.


 

The parts highlighted in red seem very very relevant in WFC context. So bifilar inductors are worth a try.What do you think?? any ideas on how we should try it??

Also
Could you check up on the following link and see if it actually works for a WFC?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/parabifc.htm




Much of this relates DIRECTLY to my thread I posted soon before RAVI's 'coming out'. It deals with all this directly.

"Stanley Meyer, please meet Stanislav Avramenko: Water as a fuel..."
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2967.0.html

In regard directly to the Tesla bifilar patent and setup itself, I mention in the above thread a Mr. Milan Manchich. He used a flat Tesla pancake coil, and applied a HF voltage to the inner or outer wire of the pancake coil, and on the opposite wire of the pancake coil, he placed an 'Avramenko's Plug'. http://www.keelynet.com/energy/milan.htm

Please see the thread directly for the links to Avramenko and the like.

Tesla was the KING of voltage POTENTIAL, so I think these paths of research are good to follow to potentially lead us to the best WFC control circuitry.

Peace...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 06, 2007, 05:49:46 AM
May we please have the dimensions you used for the tubes?, when it comes to maths I'm a bit of a lazy git  :-[


lol i typed out what i thought was the answer but umm yeah its not

its somehting to do with  2*pi*r(h+r)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 06, 2007, 06:24:57 AM
                                                                 How come no one seems to have noticed this!!




Looks like ashtweth_nihilistic has been posting very relevant stuff!



I would say look out n try 2 read between the lines. :o

There cud b info which we are gettin frm reliable sources.



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 06, 2007, 07:11:47 AM
BTW

Im posting a friend as certain people want to lay low for a while till the spook mess is sported out, hence it doesn't matter who my friends are, just know they want to remain behind the scenes.







Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 06, 2007, 07:44:50 AM


It just hurts when ppl ignore posts that make a lot of sense wit regards to what is being done here

Just trying to get their attn to where they should look for to make their replic work!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 06, 2007, 08:06:36 AM
post edited you can edit urs too if you want ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Unicron on September 06, 2007, 08:28:13 AM
Maybe something interesting.

This guy is using radiant energy to get the osscilation done..
en gets lots of radiant power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFHejjzQJek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ps4omGNU54

http://www.youtube.com/user/Jdub6d9

works quite strange, but maybe he is on to something.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 06, 2007, 09:27:44 AM
Maybe something interesting.

This guy is using radiant energy to get the osscilation done..
en gets lots of radiant power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFHejjzQJek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ps4omGNU54

http://www.youtube.com/user/Jdub6d9

works quite strange, but maybe he is on to something.



I sent him an email 4 days ago, but haven't received a reply yet.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: AhuraMazda on September 06, 2007, 02:15:25 PM
At only 22, cracked easy capture of cold electricity, no meter, no scope, no soldering iron, no nothing not even a theory.
This boy will go far.
I feel I have wasted my life.

AM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SwinG on September 06, 2007, 02:42:09 PM
Hi,

I have posted in the thread (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3161.msg47214.html#msg47214) about the circiut being sold on ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/PC-Interface-PWM-Control-Hydrogen-motors-and-More_W0QQitemZ280146686687QQihZ018QQcategoryZ78190QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem).

The circuit is not beeing sold anymore, and the seller woulden't ship to my country. (Anybody knows why the seller has stopped selling on ebay?)

If we could use this circuit, all talk about the Dawson/Ravii circuit's faults and errors would be gone.
This circuit can be controlled with or without a PC serial connection, and you can even control duty cycle.
The parts for it would even be cheaper that the Dawson/Ravii circuit. Only problem is that you need a programmer for the PIC.

Is there anybody who has the diagram and PIC SW for this circuit (Please)?

We are a couple of guys in Denmark who would like to start replicating, but we need som electronics.

Thanks
SwinG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 06, 2007, 03:09:22 PM
Hi,

I have posted in the thread (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3161.msg47214.html#msg47214) about the circiut being sold on ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/PC-Interface-PWM-Control-Hydrogen-motors-and-More_W0QQitemZ280146686687QQihZ018QQcategoryZ78190QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem).

The circuit is not beeing sold anymore, and the seller woulden't ship to my country. (Anybody knows why the seller has stopped selling on ebay?)

If we could use this circuit, all talk about the Dawson/Ravii circuit's faults and errors would be gone.
This circuit can be controlled with or without a PC serial connection, and you can even control duty cycle.
The parts for it would even be cheaper that the Dawson/Ravii circuit. Only problem is that you need a programmer for the PIC.

Is there anybody who has the diagram and PIC SW for this circuit (Please)?

We are a couple of guys in Denmark who would like to start replicating, but we need som electronics.

Thanks
SwinG

He has a store... Visit www.chapp.com.... anyways You need to integrate a gating 555 circuit to it to work as Stans wants.

@RunningBare

I have a miniature 3 pipe setup for experiments. The measurements are .625 inside of the outer pipe, and .475 outside of the inner pipe... The inside pipe is 2.645 in lenght and the outside is 2.010 in lenght. 3.946 surface area for both tubes...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 06, 2007, 03:27:25 PM
Duranza>>>>

ur gap in between d pipes is 1.905mm viz more than what stan or Dave used     Ravi's is 1/3rd of urs>>>less than 0.670mm this cud reduce ur efficiency compared to any of them. Check stans canadian patent spacing table ref for efficiency to ur size.



SwinG>>>>

Check if dis helps

http://www.edn.com/contents/images/101101di.pdf



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 06, 2007, 03:41:34 PM
Yeah i know gheller, but it's what i had in hand and i'm just testing different ways to condition them. once found i'll scale up to the right sizes. Now my question is Does it matter how big your water tank is? or is there a minimum number of pipes to make it work correctly? or for that matter a minimum lenght?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: maxc on September 06, 2007, 03:54:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/user/Jdub6d9
 About 5 years ago I had a green arc going in a small moter like that.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 06, 2007, 03:59:18 PM
Duranza:

The tank size doesnt matter as the leads go directly to d tubes.

No specifics for minimum pipes or lengths


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 06, 2007, 07:39:14 PM
Re conditioning of tubes

Would it be possible to speed up conditioning by first electrolyzing them, then remove to an oven for rapid drying before the oxygen has time to do damage?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 06, 2007, 09:55:33 PM
Btw, I calculated the input power to my cell at just under 5 watts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOi1Jj11fo4



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SwinG on September 07, 2007, 01:11:02 AM
He has a store... Visit www.chapp.com.... anyways You need to integrate a gating 555 circuit to it to work as Stans wants.

Thanks a lot for that link. I have been looking for his site (I expected him to have a site outside ebay). His got the whole shabang on the site, except the PIC qne PC software.
As far as I can see, the only thing you need more that chapp's circuit is a powersupply (or a battery), the powerdiode and the chokes. What would you need the 555 timer for? Is there something I miss here? The 555 circuit is just for fequency generation, right?


@Gheller J
Thanks for the link. Werry nice concept. But you still need some components and a FET circuit. With chapp's circuit, you get the whole package, with PC control.

@All
Anyone


SwinG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 07, 2007, 02:39:02 AM
Chapps one will only generate straight frequency like this _I_I_I_I_I_I_I_ and we want one with a gate like this :  _I_I_I_I_____I_I_I_I_____I_I_I_I_____I_I_I_I_ . that's the reason for the 555 timer circuit...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 07, 2007, 03:01:11 AM
Popping HHO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFPhnhN53A)

Well more like gun shots!, unfortunatly the automatic mic gain on my camera won't let you experience the same bangs that made me nearly jump out of my skin!  :o


Btw, I cannot access overunity.com via internet explorer, it pops up a box without specific error just saying it cannot access and is aborting.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 07, 2007, 10:05:29 AM
Popping HHO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgFPhnhN53A)

Well more like gun shots!, unfortunatly the automatic mic gain on my camera won't let you experience the same bangs that made me nearly jump out of my skin!  :o


Btw, I cannot access overunity.com via internet explorer, it pops up a box without specific error just saying it cannot access and is aborting.

Hi RunningBare,

To me it looks like you need to do some more cell conditioning. Seems like you still got loads of brown smug coming from the cell, as seen on top of the waterlevel....

@everyone

Does anyone already know what the conditioning is for exactly. At this time I see it as reducing the amp flow through the cell further AND increasing gas production.
Also I think it is beneficial for the gas production to have an EEC (electron extraction circuit) present all the time. Because electron deficiency stops the hydrogen and oxygen from rejoining into water during gas production.

Regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 07, 2007, 10:54:36 AM
                         WFC   WHITE  POWDERY  COAT  FROM  CONDITIONING



                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx2uEsbTt8Y



Aaron says its Calcium Oxide

>>>>>some ppl are tryin 2 use RO and distilled water for conditionin

>>>>>you don have calcium mineral in them

>>>>>so jus use TAP water ONLY or collect water from free flowing streams could work better than tap water!!!



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 07, 2007, 11:28:16 AM
                         WFC   WHITE  POWDERY  COAT  FROM  CONDITIONING



                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx2uEsbTt8Y



Aaron says its Calcium Oxide

>>>>>some ppl are tryin 2 use RO and distilled water for conditionin

>>>>>you don have calcium mineral in them

>>>>>so jus use TAP water ONLY or collect water from free flowing streams could work better than tap water!!!



Gh. J.

Seems logical to add EXTRA calcium to the water to speed up the layer forming. You can just buy it at the the pet shop. Used to add to RO water for fishtanks...

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 07, 2007, 01:26:48 PM
dutchy>>>>


Calcium Oxide coat is Aarons presumption/deduction and he says it cud be anythin!
>>>>>> It hasnt been analysed!

There r a lot of mineral salts present in natural water

>>>>>> could b any oxide or hydride or an exotic combination composition!

>>>>>> Also 2 note dat Aaron has conditioned at 10V 2 Amps for 2 hours straight n stops for an hour and not like d conditioning process which Ravi mentioned!


>>>>>>therz a possibility dat with the increasin Amp process mentioned by Ravi    there are diff kinda mineral / deposits layers formed on inner tube surface!

>>>>>> donno if Aaron used pulsed 10V 2Amp DC or straight>>>>>>>Ravi's was pulsed!

>>>>>> so jus b careful which process u follow!
                                             its not jus a layer dat you need 2 create but d RIGHT kinda layer!


This cud b proven if it works or not by Aaron himself if he checks for d difference in gas output>>>>before n after the conditionin!


Gh. J
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 08, 2007, 07:50:16 AM




SUCCESSFUL  CONDITIONING  NEWS!!!!!!




WFC Conditioning does reduce Amp draw with the same gas generation!!



So guys just build dis n you'll know it works!!  U have a replicated proof now!


Message:


There is increase in production for same input. Actually, I will post msg about it. The amps reduce over couple hours by couple hundred ma's meaning that there is more restriction and gas "appears" to be identical. Didn't measure gas but with amps reducing with dial on variac same...same production for less.


Aaron





Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 08, 2007, 05:27:55 PM


No Posts at all?????????????? ???


Cmon ppl has any1 got any tubes conditioned?? :-\





Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 08, 2007, 06:37:29 PM
Runningbare>>>>>>


Cant reach your site>>>>>> hope the spooks havent gotten it down!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 08, 2007, 06:42:56 PM
I might have something soon, but since the walls of my tubes are much thinner than Ravi's I have to proceed with conditioning at lower power levels, I need to get at least a couple of layers before increasing the power or the tubes are going to be eaten.

Btw, for anyone who wants to do a reaction process difference between straight DC and Pulsed DC, use a rheostat capable of handling 10 watts in series with the cells connected straight to the supply, adjust rheostat until current reads 0.5 amps then check the HHO flow, then remove the rheostat, and connect cells to the pulser and adjust it for the same current reading of 0.5, this way you can see if there is any discernible increase in HHO output for the same power input. 




No Posts at all?????????????? ???


Cmon ppl has any1 got any tubes conditioned?? :-\





Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 08, 2007, 06:58:51 PM
Runningbare>>>>

If d 300 series SS grade ur usin is SS 304L or 316L there wouldnt be corrosion>>>>>unless theres acidic impurity in d water which aids in pickling of SS

If its from 400 series of SS...... theres no nickel !  >>>>>  u'll corrode d tubes any which ways!


NEW VIDEOS by HYDROCARS posted on oupower thread:


Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:36 am    Post subject:   
i think i hot these in the right order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Lcyp8X75g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf7uaPylkgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBAk6xlcOYg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdCLdv9Nhfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x62E-ZjnUD8

youtube is doing a sorry job, this was over 8 hours ago i uploaded this.
still not in the search box!

i dont know how to make the videos public?
_________________
316L 1" OD outside tube, 3/4 OD inside Tube, 5 1/2 Tall Seamless and annealed




"LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ANOTHER SUCCESS!!"  Check d vids urself!!




Gh. J.       ;D

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 09, 2007, 01:59:09 AM
Hey guys, regarding the bifilar wound inductor coil, I did a little research into Tesla's bifilar wound coil...
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil#Description_and_applications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil#Description_and_applications)
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.

Now it seemed to me that Tesla's method of the coil connection would work better, so I constructed a bifilar on the ferrite rod as per instructions, only this time I tied one output to the input of the other like so...
(http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/tesla_coil1.jpg)

The reason being is that apparantly the magnetic field is stronger, so in theory the collapsing magnetic field would create a greater voltage spike, I tried my construction and there is a noticeable increase in reaction for the same voltage/current used, do not take my word for it, give it a try, I've only constructed one bifilar so far, the other tube lead has the single winding coil on it, the bifilar is constructed with 100 turns.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power - Tube Slots
Post by: srawofni on September 09, 2007, 11:44:34 AM
RE: tao

I read your post regarding the slots in the tubes of the Stanley Meyer water fuel cell.
The removable spacer idea does have a lot of merit, but is not the case here.
The attached picture clearly shows there are slots in the tubes, light can be seen though
the slots eliminating the possibility of it being a spacer.

I refer to these as termination slots.

Cheers
srawofni
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 09, 2007, 03:14:50 PM
Hey guys, regarding the bifilar wound inductor coil, I did a little research into Tesla's bifilar wound coil...

Now it seemed to me that Tesla's method of the coil connection would work better, so I constructed a bifilar on the ferrite rod as per instructions, only this time I tied one output to the input of the other like so...
(http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/tesla_coil1.jpg)

The reason being is that apparantly the magnetic field is stronger, so in theory the collapsing magnetic field would create a greater voltage spike, I tried my construction and there is a noticeable increase in reaction for the same voltage/current used, do not take my word for it, give it a try, I've only constructed one bifilar so far, the other tube lead has the single winding coil on it, the bifilar is constructed with 100 turns.

Hi Runningbare,

Yes that coil arrangement definately seems like a good idea and I was thinking of using it too. If these tesla style coils are attached on both sides of the tubes it must indeed make quite a difference. What i was wondering though, in the latest D14 file they are wound on ONE ferrite core (so the magnetic fields cancel i guess??)  Maybe we can take it even a step further and have two tesla style coils on the same core and therfore increase the effect further.

I'm still well behind to you but will start replicating this week. I have located most of the parts and going to order them.

Keep us informed and good luck !!

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 09, 2007, 03:25:28 PM


Hi Runningbare,

Yes that coil arrangement definately seems like a good idea and I was thinking of using it too. If these tesla style coils are attached on both sides of the tubes it must indeed make quite a difference. What i was wondering though, in the latest D14 file they are wound on ONE ferrite core (so the magnetic fields cancel i guess??)  Maybe we can take it even a step further and have two tesla style coils on the same core and therfore increase the effect further.

I'm still well behind to you but will start replicating this week. I have located most of the parts and going to order them.

Keep us informed and good luck !!

regards

Robert

Hi dutchy, my theory is based on the idea that we need that back spike to overcome the oxide layers on the tubes, I'm still researching Tesla's bifilar wound coil because in the wiki article it is unclear wether the magnetic field is multiplied by say for example a factor of 4 for the same input power or is it just 1+1? , if the field is being multiplied greater than 1+1 then obviously the collapsing field is going to be greater and hence the voltage spike greater.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 09, 2007, 03:41:12 PM
Hi runningbare,

I haven't got the exact despriction at hand right now but i do remember the coil works so much better because the voltage potential between two loops is so much higher. Normally the voltage is increasing evenly over the length of the coil. Say you had a 50 turn coil then each turn would have one volt differnce to the next. But when you do as tesla did then you suddenly get 50 Volts difference between turns and therfore the magnetic field is much stronger.  The energy stored in the coil as a whole will now be two hundred and fifty thousand as great.

I'll have a look for the exact explanation .....

Robert

Nikola Tesla explains that a standard coil of 1000 turns with a potential of 100 volts across it will have a difference of 0.1 volt between turns. A similar BIFILAR coil will have a potential of 50 volts between turns.
In that the stored energy is a function of the square of the voltages the energy in the BIFILAR will be ...


50 squared / .1 squared   =   2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil

edit: FOUND IT..... http://www.magnetricity.com/NeoG/Bifilar.php
Title: Auto conditioning
Post by: RunningBare on September 09, 2007, 05:11:06 PM
This idea is just in the test phase presently

I have added an additional capacitor of 3300mfd to the low frequency section of the pulse circuit and adjusted timing for approx 10 seconds on, 70 seconds off, the 10 seconds on gives enough time for the flow to start, the 70 seconds gives enough time for the oxide to settle onto the tubes.

Well thats the theory, I will be leaving this over night and will check the results in around 24 hours, but during my waking hours I will change the water hourly.

If I'd had it setup in the right place I would have had a continuous flow of tap water during this, but alas I will need to do the foot work  ::)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 09, 2007, 10:12:51 PM

50 squared / .1 squared   =   2500 / .01   =   250,000  times greater than the standard coil

edit: FOUND IT..... http://www.magnetricity.com/NeoG/Bifilar.php

Thanks dutchy, thats very interesting!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 09, 2007, 10:17:56 PM
Ok guys I have confirmed through my experiments that you need to take the tubes out of the water to speed up the oxide layer to form. My tubes are completely covered with a thin layer already with 2 water changes and 12v@ 1A pulsed. I put my tubes in front of a fan in between water changes.  I change it approximately every 20 mins. I'll post some pics later once i have it thick enough. I am having problems with the positive tube rusting though. It gets a gold color that appears to be rust.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 10, 2007, 12:01:02 AM
I've been placing my tubes between sessions above the open door of an oven set to 75 degrees c.


Ok guys I have confirmed through my experiments that you need to take the tubes out of the water to speed up the oxide layer to form. My tubes are completely covered with a thin layer already with 2 water changes and 12v@ 1A pulsed. I put my tubes in front of a fan in between water changes.  I change it approximately every 20 mins. I'll post some pics later once i have it thick enough. I am having problems with the positive tube rusting though. It gets a gold color that appears to be rust.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 10, 2007, 12:07:48 AM
Ok guys I have confirmed through my experiments that you need to take the tubes out of the water to speed up the oxide layer to form. My tubes are completely covered with a thin layer already with 2 water changes and 12v@ 1A pulsed. I put my tubes in front of a fan in between water changes.  I change it approximately every 20 mins. I'll post some pics later once i have it thick enough. I am having problems with the positive tube rusting though. It gets a gold color that appears to be rust.

There's more information about conditioning your tubes on arrons forum to...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 10, 2007, 06:15:14 AM
ravzz

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:04 am



I'm sorry about not being able to post out here!!

You guys are doing good!


Please follow the overunity forum aswell........there seems to have been a success with the conditioning reducing the Amp draw with the same gas production!!!


http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3079.0.html



The same questions are still being answered as to why this can happen!!

Just build it follow the conditioning procedure and youre on!!........it works people....dont think too much about how or why it works.........IT JUST WORKS!!


we can ascertain whys or hows after you have a working prototype....the science can follow later.

Please check the new updated Sept 4th D14 for the conditioning process I posted on this forum.


I've taken enough risk again posting on this forum.....dont let this technology die again!



RAVI RAJU
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 10, 2007, 06:42:14 AM
Please check the new updated Sept 4th D14 for the conditioning process I posted on this forum.

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf (http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: IronHead on September 10, 2007, 05:58:29 PM




Thank you
IronHead
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 10, 2007, 06:05:14 PM


Check d link below

Pl donot discuss names on d vid below for safety reasons.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC778MXdosc


""  This was one of my initial trials a few months ago with the Alternator setup......Doesn't produce much gas even though tubes were conditioned....its 12V, 2 Amps Pulsed D14 circuit.....the present replication is leaps ahead.....so you can avoid this trial ! according to me its a waste of time & effort.  ""



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 11, 2007, 07:16:33 AM
Hi ppl,


I'm posting the  pdf  of    BIFILAR chokes info on Aarons ideas of how it could be working on the WFC!!

Dis is bein posted with permission from Aaron             


link to the forum:

http://www.energeticforum.com/energy/972-stan-meyer-bifilar-chokes.html


Pl. register there to find more info on dis topic


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 11, 2007, 08:53:09 AM
I have registered and can access the other parts but not the thread you specify, help!

Hi ppl,


I'm posting the  pdf  of    BIFILAR chokes info on Aarons ideas of how it could be working on the WFC!!

Dis is bein posted with permission from Aaron             


link to the forum:

http://www.energeticforum.com/energy/972-stan-meyer-bifilar-chokes.html


Pl. register there to find more info on dis topic


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 11, 2007, 03:08:01 PM
Runningbare>>>>>

Check d pdf link right under my previous posting



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: coolwater on September 11, 2007, 04:50:19 PM
HI all, Well first i am a newby to this and i am fairly electrically minded have 15yrs in IT&T and have grasped the basics but would greatly appreciate some help fillin in the gaps with some construction issues namely the coils i have some 23AWG heavy build teflon coated wired would this be sufficient for the coils and will effect the field at all make it stronger or weaker and vehicle adaptation etc i am friggin stoked at this techology but pissed weve had it repressed for so long as im of the opinion that it would solve so many international issues the enviroment is concern if the planet is f**kd then wots the point,
If I dicoverd this technology an perfectd the technology and frequencies i would just tell every if evry one knows then no point in harassing a few of us so newayz
Ne way would appreciate some help to fill my gaps my email listed Oh yeah keep up the great work every one,(would like nothing more to roll into a gas station anb use the watering can ud usually use to wash the windscreen to fuel the car (outstanding concept) )

Troy
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 11, 2007, 06:56:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ4rKCPmYic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB9JwswBOB8
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 12, 2007, 06:56:10 AM
Gas being generated by the modified alternator setup.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC778MXdosc



Gh. J.





Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 12, 2007, 05:32:57 PM
 >:(
(http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/lawton/Inductors-Chokes-Ravi.jpg) ;D
the image was donated to Panacea-BOCAF.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 12, 2007, 05:38:02 PM
found these when doing some searches..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC778MXdosc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC778MXdosc)
"This was one of my initial trials a few months ago with the Alternator setup......Doesn't produce much gas even though tubes were conditioned....its 12V, 2 Amps Pulsed D14 circuit.....the present replication is leaps ahead.....so you can avoid this trial ! according to me its a waste of time & effort."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf_nFQBBzmc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf_nFQBBzmc)
"Just received this vid. from Patrick Kelly...according to him the WFC generates just as much gas as with the alternator or Inductors!!
Im sorry about not being able to post my updates.... pl be patient till things change. RAVI "


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on September 13, 2007, 04:24:14 AM
Some basic points:

-Reality does not exist, it is a complete fabrication of your non-existent imagination.

-there are no facts except for one: There are no facts.

-The laws of physics are not laws. They are agreed upon postulates that have been found to be true in most instances. Nothing more.

-The Laws of thermodynamics are the same. They are, in perfect exactitude: Postulates, or SUGGESTIONS. This was stated at their creation, that they were postulates.

In modern times, as like religion, the creators are long gone..and the followers only go through the motions, not knowing exactly what they say, or really mean. They only understand thre are 'rules' that they 'must follow'.

The second law of thermodynamics gets voilated all day, every day. If it was not, we would not exist. So yes, it's bull to believe that it cannot be violated. Absolute bull. It's not a frigging law. It never was. Even the creator of it NEVER called it a law. ONLY a 'postulate'.

Physics is CHANGE IN MOTION, not static beliefs cut in stone. All laws of physics are either changed, added to, or erased by new evidence. Always. I repeat...ALWAYS.

This has been the result of science and scientific work since long before the idea of science evolved. All things come...and they go. All.

It comes down to a few things. Are you religious about 'science' and 'physics', or are you adventerous? Are you rigid and dogmatic, or do you allow new things in?

Let it be known clearly.... acedemics, have, in the end, NEVER been right. The adventerous have been right, and have been so in the face of all adversity. (when I say acedemics, I refer to teachers, professors, etc-they are such because they don't have what it takes to invent)

We are working at the quantum level here, and everything breaks down at that level. Everything. At the quantum level..the second SUGGESTION of thermodynamics means little, if anything at all.

All human records show the above statements to be true.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on September 13, 2007, 04:42:01 AM
ravzz




The same questions are still being answered as to why this can happen!!

Just build it follow the conditioning procedure and youre on!!........it works people....dont think too much about how or why it works.........IT JUST WORKS!!


we can ascertain whys or hows after you have a working prototype....the science can follow later.


RAVI RAJU

This is exactly correct. Science will follow later. Newton was an asshole. He took over the Royal Society and when he did, he exacted his revenge for Boyle and Hooke not taking his mathematics on light and automatically calling it 'real'.

 He wanted them to make it real, without testing, as to him, the math was elegant and perfect. Until that time, theory was based on observation from thought experiments that were created and tested. The observation of phenomena was the KEY point. THEN the math and theory...followed.

Newton switched that around. Sinmply because of his egotistical and brutal self. Once again, Newton was an asshole.

And due to that change in 'scientific method', we've been screwed ever since. Why? because, according to the 'elegant' and 'perfect' models that have been mathematically derived on the components that these devices consist of  it must be impossible. The math and the formulas told them so!

This is the least of his crimes. To us, it might be the bigger. But, he was involved in the creation of the Bank of England, which is the arm of who and what is making your life difficult right now. He was also involved in the 'Royal Mint', (the bank connection) ie, the creation of the fiat currencies that both control and destoy the world today. He also enjoyed disgusing himself as a commoner, catching counterfieters..and loved to watch them scream ..as they were literally drawn and quartered. Newton was a terrible human being.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: trol on September 13, 2007, 05:34:35 AM
Prophmaji

Me saco el sombrero, rescato sus palabras.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 13, 2007, 06:53:44 AM
@Prophmaji  ;D ;D ;D

Guys ill have photos and Step by step of our Ravi replication on Saturday for the board. What do you recommend as a load for the hydrogen?



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 13, 2007, 10:04:59 AM
Hello all, not being capable of building the electronics myself, anybody know of anywhere in Aus l can send the info to and get back a box as per D14? Or anywhere l suppose. Have sourced pipe for replication, thanks
 Regards

Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 13, 2007, 11:59:04 PM
@Prophmaji  ;D ;D ;D

Guys ill have photos and Step by step of our Ravi replication on Saturday for the board. What do you recommend as a load for the hydrogen?





a car lol j/k

but you could try charging a flat battery so we know how much power is coming out of it?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 14, 2007, 03:12:55 AM
Problem is if oyu feed it directly into a manifold will that be legal to drive around?

I am actually interested in getting power generation, are you saying get a engine feed it through a car battery and us it to turn a generator?

Peter, where in oz are oyu mate? drop me an email i should be able to help.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 14, 2007, 04:46:12 AM
hey ash.... How about a mini torch and try to cut some metal with it?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 14, 2007, 04:46:53 AM
While I still work on my twin cell replication and cannot report anything of significance accept I like how well it fizzes at 12 volt 300ma  ;D

Has anyone manged to replicate Ravi's replication and results yet?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SwinG on September 14, 2007, 10:51:04 AM
Problem is if oyu feed it directly into a manifold will that be legal to drive around?

I am actually interested in getting power generation, are you saying get a engine feed it through a car battery and us it to turn a generator?

Peter, where in oz are oyu mate? drop me an email i should be able to help.

I still waiting for parts, but I have elaborated about my plans before: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3079.msg46159.html#msg46159

The more simple, the better, IMHO.

But, it all depends on what you aim for. If you aim for cheap personal transportation, you should obviosly go for a car engine, but I just wan't a proof of concept setup, so the lesser HHO I need, the better.

Wasn't there somone mentioning having a setup running with a IE engine and an alternator?

SwinG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gilles on September 14, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
                         WFC   WHITE  POWDERY  COAT  FROM  CONDITIONING



                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx2uEsbTt8Y



Aaron says its Calcium Oxide

>>>>>some ppl are tryin 2 use RO and distilled water for conditionin

>>>>>you don have calcium mineral in them

>>>>>so jus use TAP water ONLY or collect water from free flowing streams could work better than tap water!!!



Gh. J.


I think it is not Calcium Oxide in my case as I also have tried conditioning with distilled water and seeing the oxide layer forming within an hour. As most sources say, it is Magnesium oxide that forms as a protective layer on stainless steel. Then again I am not sure. might be different coating using different prcedures. When i used higher amps and tap water and water got hot, then the white calc formed was pretty nasty. It formed unevenly and at certain places even filled the whole gap between tubes. So i think it is Calcium from tap water when u overheat your tubes and effect is similar to the effect of usual water heater.

Anyways, had also a maybe silly thought of just making some test tubes and try to coat with different materials and see if the effect might be similar to conditioning.... havent put it into practice yet.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: srawofni on September 14, 2007, 02:02:47 PM

WATER FUEL CELL DOWNLOADS:

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/browse/waterfuel/42765
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 14, 2007, 07:34:12 PM
For the last couple of days I've been monitoring and adjusting the voltage and current while conditioning the tubes, always maintaining around 12.5 volts at 300ma, removing the tubes around every thirty minutes to dry them gently over a stove.
the oxide layer is now quite thick on the inner tubes and a greyish white, but whats interesting is that the more I condition the tubes the more frequent the larger hydrogen bubbles are becoming.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 14, 2007, 08:42:29 PM
Hey guys, I was bored so I decided to build the PWM in the updated d.14 pdf. I prototyped the circuit board and had it sent out to be fabricated, I figured while I was at it and put in so much time locating all the components I may as well build a few and offer a few as kits for the folks that would like one. I built 4 units, and have 4 units in a kit form. this is all I have available. If anyone is interested they are all listed on eBay and can be found with a search for "hydrogen PWM gated" , or user id djctek under advanced search. Please don't take this as spam. I am not in it for the money, I will not recover all the time and funds put into this project. I am just trying to help the people who do not have the knowledge, time or electronic experience to build there own. Thank you - djctek  ;D

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/back.jpg)

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/front.jpg)

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/inside.jpg)

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/kit.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 14, 2007, 08:57:11 PM
Damn dude, that is awesome looking. Good job.

Very clean and crisp...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 14, 2007, 09:17:25 PM
Oh WoW! that looks great... Does it include the BUZ350 with it? or the replacement?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 14, 2007, 09:31:18 PM
It uses a Fairchild Semiconductor 200V 28A N channel mosfet part #FQP32N20C. The BUZ350 is an obsolete part that has not been in production for years and are nearly impossible to find. This is a beefier version compatible mosfet. the BUZ350 is rated for 20A.

Glad you guys like the design!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 14, 2007, 10:29:12 PM
Virtually any n channel mosfet will do the job so long as can handle a drain current of a couple of amps, this assumes you do not want to draw more than a couple of amps of course.

Ravi's replication draws 0.5 amps, a mosfet with a drain current capability of 2 amps would be sufficient.

But what you really have to take into account is the voltage the mosfet can handle because of the back emf from the coils, certainly make sure your mosfet can handle more than 100 volts.

This is the mosfet I use and despite it's Vdss being only 60 volts, it works quite nicely in my setup...
http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irfz48v.pdf (http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irfz48v.pdf)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 14, 2007, 11:21:03 PM
Well said RunningBare, I think a lot of people over stress on the need for the BUZ350, Probably because the name sticks in your head and is easy to remember, There is nothing special about it compared to any other 200v N channel mosfet.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: chortly on September 14, 2007, 11:50:27 PM
Hi all.

i stumbled across this site a few days ago via youtube, and i must say, this is some pretty amazing stuff. i'd like to build a replication, but im not sure about a few things.

are all the 555 timer chips interchangeable, or is the NE555 imperative to use?
is the alternator in the d14 setup used to power the rig? What is its purpose? (i have a small engine i may want to play with)
is the input power controlled or just let the rig pull what it needs? i don't want to overpower while conditioning tubes.

i've built a number of pc's, but nothing like this. any help is most appreciated.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 15, 2007, 12:44:22 AM
Hi all.

i stumbled across this site a few days ago via youtube, and i must say, this is some pretty amazing stuff. i'd like to build a replication, but im not sure about a few things.

are all the 555 timer chips interchangeable, or is the NE555 imperative to use?
is the alternator in the d14 setup used to power the rig? What is its purpose? (i have a small engine i may want to play with)
is the input power controlled or just let the rig pull what it needs? i don't want to overpower while conditioning tubes.

i've built a number of pc's, but nothing like this. any help is most appreciated.

any 555 chip will do. the alternator is not necesary as you can use a battery or charger to power the circuit.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: chortly on September 15, 2007, 12:49:17 AM
ty much!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 15, 2007, 01:03:24 AM
I think the problem is with some folk seeing the mosfet as being part of the magic, when in fact the only true critical components are the coils and tubes, the rest is generic electronics, mosfets have extremely low gate current, but it would be possible to use a Darlington bipolar transistor in it's place so long as it has a fast switching time, as for the 555 timer circuitry, thats just convenience, you can provide a square wave at particular frequencies from a number of different sources.


Well said RunningBare, I think a lot of people over stress on the need for the BUZ350, Probably because the name sticks in your head and is easy to remember, There is nothing special about it compared to any other 200v N channel mosfet.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Big-bubbles on September 15, 2007, 02:30:33 AM
I do think the mosfet might matter....At least as far as the drain source diode goes.
I think your diode in the d-14   circuit needs to be faster than the mosfet blocking diode  so the back emf pulse will stay in the loop and not go to ground.
The buz-350 has a reverse recovery time of 180 ns and the 32n20c has a reverse recovery time of 265 ns witch is slower. This should work fine in this circuit.  Also, the 32n20 has half of the internal resistance .06 ohm so it should run even cooler than the buz-350..Looks like a good choice and it is cheap. Most ultra high speed diodes have a 50ns on time or less witch should work well in the d-14 circuit. The diode could somewhat effect the tuning of this circuit. :D
This is just my opinion, I could be wrong!  I will know soon after new my tubes get here.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 15, 2007, 03:11:02 AM
The back EMF from a coil of 100 turns on a ferrite core would be in microseconds to milliseconds, a delay of 180 ns would be insignificant.


I do think the mosfet might matter....At least as far as the drain source diode goes.
I think your diode in the d-14   circuit needs to be faster than the mosfet blocking diode  so the back emf pulse will stay in the loop and not go to ground.
The buz-350 has a reverse recovery time of 180 ns and the 32n20c has a reverse recovery time of 265 ns witch is slower. This should work fine in this circuit.  Also, the 32n20 has half of the internal resistance .06 ohm so it should run even cooler than the buz-350..Looks like a good choice and it is cheap. Most ultra high speed diodes have a 50ns on time or less witch should work well in the d-14 circuit. The diode could somewhat effect the tuning of this circuit. :D
This is just my opinion, I could be wrong!  I will know soon after new my tubes get here.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 15, 2007, 05:10:02 AM
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/back.jpg)
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/front.jpg)
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/inside.jpg)
(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/kit.jpg)

this isnt spam. this is encouragement. well done. they look splendid.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 15, 2007, 05:15:57 AM
message from ravi raju (via panacea-bocaf - which is one direction to send info to, anonymously or with your name):

"The main reason why I wanted to free source this process was to be used for vehicles as this unit cannot / would not be allowed to be sold commercially....as it can give you atleast 50% gain in mileage!....this would reduce the world automobile pollution problem drastically.....power generation through an ICE is not that feasible due to the high wear pertaining to automobile engines when used continuously for months together....as per my calculations the engine needs a re-bore every two months if used continuously!!....so the only viable alternative is to use in small Turbines. For backup gensets IC Engines could be OK.

When connecting to an ICE there are a lot of minor to major modifications and tuneups need to be done depending on the engine type and year of make. Once

Ask people on the forum to follow the Conditioning procedure that I gave as you get very uneven coat formation on the surface if you use High Amps for long periods....and when you go above 3 Amps theres a possibility of the coating flaking off...the bonding between layers would not be that strong....these layers form one over the other after every cycle of conditioning.......the small time high Amp conditioning gives you an uneven coat and the long time low Amp conditioning evens out this....more or less. The longer you use Low Amp conditioning the better the end outputs!

DONOT CONDITION ON A SINGLE HIGH AMP VALUE FOR LONG TIME.

You could end up blocking the space in between the tubes and you'll have to dismantle the pipes and start all over again. We dont yet know exactly as to what the coating comprises of! As there are some High Voltage discharges (Probably....reason...glow in the dark) they could be some  very exotic alloy compositions formed....as the temperatures for a fraction of a second at the point of discharge go into thousands of degrees C.

You could use my name and post this info on overunity.com....maybe then people would take the procedure seriously.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: trol on September 15, 2007, 06:07:25 AM
Sugerencia:
Considerando que Stanley, al momento de patentar su ?invento? necesit? ser lo suficientemente certero como para incluir en su patente aspectos que resultaran indiscutibles, pues de otra forma se invalida su derecho, recomiendo remitirse a  su trabajo; esto es , olvidarse del ?condicionamiento? y enfocar el esfuerzo en determinar la capacitancia e inductancia del circuito secundario. A partir de ello, y de la frecuencia natural de los cilindros (que deben ser la misma), hacer funcionar el sistema; creo que por ah? va la cosa.
Los intereses que hay tras la masificaci?n de un proyecto que implique obtener un output superior a un input son tan grandes, que no me llamar?a la atenci?n que ?ravy? estuviera al servicio de los petroleros.
Pi?nsenlo, y prueben conforme a lo descrito en la patente de Stanley
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 06:08:44 AM
I bought the above device.  I know next to nothing about electronics.  I am basically a dummy with a credit card...lmao.  Hopefully I can learn some of this stuff though.  I'll let you guys know my experience with the device outside of my own personal idiot factor.

Is there a way to separate the HHO into H and 0 and then use just the H in a fuel cell?  I wonder if by doing that you could achieve immediate overunity without an engine?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 15, 2007, 06:41:48 AM
Hello All, better to ask a silly question than make a silly mistake

Assembling tubes -as per D14- outer tubes welded to plate and singlely(?) wired up therefor arent they all live together because they are all welded together and so could'nt l have one connection or ss band around pipes all joined thus not needing to get RE annealed because of no heat stress in welding. Also the extra pipe hanging out of the inner pipe could it not be drilled and tapped for neg connection, thus not needing welding and Re annealing of pipes?
A bit like the connection on this site

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx2uEsbTt8Y

Even if they still need to be individual wires (for heat dissipation or current or?) could they not be individually attatched at point of contact on ss band? Seems a way to avoid some unnessesary steps or a bit easier in construction.

Also just got my 316L with 1mm gap alround and l found some useless zip ties (not strong enough if you put too much pressure on ) but are perfect to slide down as spacers with a little knob on top so you dont lose them down the pipe.

What else - cheap pipe cutter from Hardware cuts the tube nicely, take it easy cause there only meant for copper, no need for heat to cut so no need for RE annealing, l presume

Am also looking at above complete BLACK BOX

enough enough

Regards

peter

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 15, 2007, 06:53:35 AM
Was there a communications problem somewhere, because the two quotes below do NOT fit...


Quote
as it can give you atleast 50% gain in mileage!...


Quote

Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts the generation is around 7 cc/sec


which coverts to 16.776 Lits / hour

16.776 x 2.4 watts (Faraday/lit/hour generation) = 40.262 Watts


Well I seem to be generating the equivalent of 40.2 watts as per Faraday with just 6.12 Watts.........I hope this answers Kumaran's question aswell.

I dont know if im right but I seem to be generating 550% excess

as the above works out to 40.2/6.12 x 100 = 656.86%

656.86 - 100 (Faraday) = 556.86% OU !!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on September 15, 2007, 07:53:00 AM
Leeroy, I'm a-workin' om jes a separator, but it ain't done yet.   Not portable, more the garage based unit.

I ain't posting nuthin till I can prove it works.   If it does, ye can store and compress yer H for many uses.

If it don't, well, I'll jes know sumthin' else that don't work.


I gots a big file there...

Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 05:38:38 PM
I wish that more of you with advanced knowledge and understanding of this technology would start selling components of it, if not complete working models.  Perhaps if you don't have the ebay experience, etc. you could get with djctek.   There is nothing wrong with this, even if it doesn't work.  I mean you should definitely TRY to make functional models.  It would be nice if I could buy assembled components from you guys.  So it appears we have one major component already from djctek.  Can someone else build the other portions?  Perhaps if it were done this way, many people could get excited over it.  Post videos on YOUTUBE with links to where component parts can be purchased.

If all you smarties did a little toward this you could make some money (which of course you should) and help spread this technology.  You could also sell MEYERS/LAWTON/RAVI documentation for dummies.  Explaining the circuit/etc so even us maximus idiotus folks could understand it.

By the way djctek, if I can't get your part to work, I will not be discouraged.  Make some more components toward the end result and I will buy them and encourage others to do it too.  You should not feel bad for profiting.  Just don't make it ultimately cost me 3 bucks per gallon and it's a steal for me.    ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 06:03:28 PM
I know I post a lot for a newbie with nothing but interest to contribute.  I hope you guys forgive me. 

I have another question though.  Do you guys think this pulse system would work with plates instead of tubes? I have seen a wide variety of plate systems on Youtube and I was just curious.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on September 15, 2007, 06:26:55 PM
since the whole thing is a resonance system in operation, it is ulikely that any specific configuration numbers, like power, frequency, pulse shape, plate thickness, plate size, tube size, and or plate/tube separation distance.....it is unlikely that these are immediately translatable to another device. Even one that appears to be identical.

Tuning is likely to remain an individual task, in terms of getting the given unit to operate. This is likely to be true, until the exact operational parameters are well understood. At that point..it is likely that broad levels of 'repeatability' can be achieved.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 15, 2007, 06:29:27 PM
I know I post a lot for a newbie with nothing but interest to contribute.  I hope you guys forgive me. 

I have another question though.  Do you guys think this pulse system would work with plates instead of tubes? I have seen a wide variety of plate systems on Youtube and I was just curious.

Hi Leeroy,

According to Stanley Meyer it does work with a plate system aswell, BUT he chose tubes as they are more efficient. Again, I'm just telling you what HE said.

regards,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 09:58:12 PM
So with the unit I bought, it looks like all I need are the two inductors with 100 turns (optional) and the tubes/plates?  Correct?  Also can someone explain exactly what the adjustments do on the box gating versus oscillating adjustments?  I believe there are 7 adjustments.  Can someone explain each?  I would have said 8 but I feel confident I can operate the on/off switch.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 10:05:10 PM
Where can I get the latest D14?  If anyone wants to email me useful stuff, please do so at leeroyjenkinsii@yahoo.com. 

Thanks

I can't wait...I'm so excited to get this thing in.  I hope my insurance covers the plastic surgery if I blow my face off.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 10:24:50 PM
Crap...it looks like in my rush I may have bought the KIT instead of the preassembled unit.  Looks like its time to hit up a friend with soldering experience.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 15, 2007, 10:36:00 PM
Having just run a comparison test I at last have at least a little good news.

I ran a comparison on the HHO cells between straight DC at 12 volts 500ma and high frequency pulsed DC at 12 volts 500ma.

The way I did the straight DC test was to put a resistor in series with the cells directly from the battery setting the current to 500ma.

Then I did a visual check on both tests, there is definitely marked increase in the bubbles flowing from the tubes for high frequency pulsed DC compared to the straight DC.

I'll reiterate, both tests were done at 12 volts 500ma.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 15, 2007, 10:51:23 PM
Hey guys, Thanks for all the support, I never imagined that there were so many people interested in this. All the units are spoken for at this time. It took many many hours to produce this box, I put my heart and soul into it.... but I did not do it for profit, actually when it comes down to it, I made about $4.00 per hour. The money is not the important factor, It's the pride in knowing many more of you will be able to achieve your dream of building your own cell, If this thing gets replicated 2000 times over and everyone shares what they have learned, then maybe someday we wont have the MIB horror stories as there will be far too many of us to bother with. ;D

And as a side note, I am working on the inductors and make them available when I can, I encourage others to do as well.

And now for something else you may need..........

This all started with "I was bored", Well the last time I got bored I ended up building this......

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/cnc.jpg)

It is a 3 axis CNC router, the cool thing about it is it can make stuff like this....

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/6shooter.jpg)

With an accuracy of .0001 of an inch. so if anyone needs a part made send me an email, I would be happy to help.

-Corey
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 15, 2007, 11:01:44 PM
I don't know if this series on utube has been pointed to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofsxZfu9rW0

but the whole series is interesting with relation to this project
as a what to do next kind of thing, especially if anyone is thinking
of connecting up to a four stroke generator. From what I can gather
the fuel requirements would need to be between 2 to 10 PSI of gas through
a 1/16th diameter tube at the input manifold. He shows the conversion and
running of a 5HP 4 stroke engine on hydrogen that would have the potential
of running a 1.5 to 2 KW generator, that's a lot of amps to play with in
terms of pulsed HV hydrogen production. It's interesting.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 15, 2007, 11:27:29 PM
djctek is the freaking man for guys like me!!!!!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: keithturtle on September 16, 2007, 01:26:04 AM
Plates vs. tubes?   Xogen uses plates.  Proph is right, the be an individuality to these here cells.

But y'all gotta start somewheres.

I build both.

Turtle
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 16, 2007, 02:17:52 AM
My Newman motor which failed to give me OU and was about to chucked in my museum of unworkables has just got a new job  ;D

The back emf is great for gently condition my HHO tubes.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pofuk on September 16, 2007, 02:18:28 AM
. From what I can gather
the fuel requirements would need to be between 2 to 10 PSI of gas through
a 1/16th diameter tube at the input manifold.


How much Gas will get out of this tube for 1s (5 PSI)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: srawofni on September 16, 2007, 07:14:55 AM

Hydrogen Use In Car Engines.

See Attached.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 16, 2007, 08:28:33 PM
slightly off topic but, but pertinent non the less
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=481996&in_page_id=1965
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 16, 2007, 09:14:05 PM
G'day all'

Have a look at this fellows, new developments of a Stanley Meyer type cell in Australia.

http://www.takeaction.com.au/hoh/hohnews/HOH_NEWS_09_07.asp 

In fact the whole website should be of interest.

Have fun,

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 01:18:44 AM
I've created a comparison video for both straight DC and pulsed DC, the first half is straight DC.

Unfortunately the quality does not show what I see here in real, but since I took the time and effort to put this video together I'm going to bore you with it anyway, I've added some elevator music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7gf2k6tYRQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7gf2k6tYRQ)
Title: it works. now spread it. who got the $5000 prize?
Post by: 347890 on September 17, 2007, 04:36:43 AM
those that have made this system work should make more and spread it fast.

it would be good to start selling them for what ever you feel is the right price and spread this system around the world quickly.  send it to universities, get it working in many many other countries, friendly and unfriendly to the big oil man.   Brazil and North korea would be happy to get this working fast which will lead to the rest of the world getting it to work fast.  Send it to someone in a poor country use the power of the internet and DHL to get this around th world quickly please.

If i were a oil man, i would get the 10 people who have made one so far ,  so please spread it and make it hard for them to stop.

I highly encourage people to make more and get them on ebay and get them sold.

Think about what happened to the last guy who built one and do not make his same mistakes.  No patents, No greed for money.  Save the planet this time.  So we and our kids can be around to enjoy earth. 

if 100 people have this in their hands and it works, its much harder to stop.  so i hope everyone who made 1 that works will make 10 more that work and sell them.  13000 people read this message,  im sure some of them will just buy one and spread the word.  this is clean unlimited energy.   

send one to  a engineer at bmw,  they already have a hydrogen car. 

here are some people that need to know about this:

http://www.cruisecontrolradio.com/contact.cfm
talktous@autowriters.com
al gore
obama
oprah
bmw hydrogen team
bmw.pressclub@bmwna.com
dan rather  hd net
bill dube  killacycle 
motorweek
cerberus
chrysler
google
IMPA

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 05:19:13 AM
A short video of the tubes during the conditioning phase at 12 volts 0.05amp.

To give you a size reference those outer tubes are around 1 inch/2.5 cm diameter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gVjacJZl8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gVjacJZl8)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 17, 2007, 06:51:54 AM
Guys this is from you know who, a creditable source,

The main reason why I wanted to free source this process was to be used for vehicles as this unit cannot / would not be allowed to be sold commercially....as it can give you atleast 50% gain in mileage!....this would reduce the world automobile pollution problem drastically.....power generation through an ICE is not that feasible due to the high wear pertaining to automobile engines when used continuously for months together....as per my calculations the engine needs a re-bore every two months if used continuously!!....so the only viable alternative is to use in small Turbines. For backup gensets IC Engines could be OK.

 

When connecting to an ICE there are a lot of minor to major modifications and tuneups need to be done depending on the engine type and year of make. Once

Ask people on the forum to follow the Conditioning procedure that I gave as you get very uneven coat formation on the surface if you use High Amps for long periods....and when you go above 3 Amps theres a possibility of the coating flaking off...the bonding between layers would not be that strong....these layers form one over the other after every cycle of conditioning.......the small time high Amp conditioning gives you an uneven coat and the long time low Amp conditioning evens out this....more or less. The longer you use Low Amp conditioning the better the end outputs!

DONOT CONDITION ON A SINGLE HIGH AMP VALUE FOR LONG TIME.

You could end up blocking the space in between the tubes and you'll have to dismantle the pipes and start all over again. We dont yet know exactly as to what the coating comprises of! As there are some High Voltage discharges (Probably....reason...glow in the dark) they could be some  very exotic alloy compositions formed....as the temperatures for a fraction of a second at the point of discharge go into thousands of degrees C
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 17, 2007, 08:18:30 AM
Guys, here comes a step by step for beginners of daves and Ravi's.
more tests/snaps /videos coming, almost finished construction.


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 08:39:34 AM
I keep getting "unexpected end of file error" from winrar when I try to open the file

And how can over 600% efficiency equate to "just" 50% increase in mileage?
I know my maths suck, but not that bad!  :o

Guys, here comes a step by step for beginners of daves and Ravi's.
more tests/snaps /videos coming, almost finished construction.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 08:52:02 AM


Is someone supplying misleading information on the pulse circuit?
The top image has the amp consuming device in series with the tubes, the bottom image has the amp consuming device in parallel with the tubes.


(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12479;image)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 17, 2007, 09:09:30 AM
Runningbare>>>>>>


What Ravi cud've meant by 50% + was as per the vid he posted where someone's getting an increase of over 60%

VID Link >>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fFp3CJZMTw


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 17, 2007, 09:52:58 AM
Runningbare>>>>>

Has he claimed anywhere dat he's fixed it 2 an engine??
don think he did >>> he said he didn want 2  >>>  or did he somewhere? pl lemme kno if he did


D fig ure mentionin is for d cold current crkt on updated D14...where d amp draw reduces on pulse crt as u load on to d auto lamp!

it was jus a probable comparision of stan crt to dave update by Tao.



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 17, 2007, 10:44:51 AM
@ashtweth_nihilis

the zip file is corrupt, please upload again.

I'm going to build a testdevice this week, after I get back my switchboard, hopefully tomorrow evening. I'll use a single cell (17 cm long / 2 mm gap) to start, becourse I still have this and some other parts from the tests with the spirit of maat plans.


On more quest?on about conditioning: can this be done with a simple 12 v power supply or can I use the meyer circuite ?

@djctek

Do you think you could share your PCB layout ?


best regards from Germany

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 17, 2007, 12:31:36 PM
I'd release the layout but it would not help you much, it was designed with propritiatary software..... without the software it's useless unless you order the boards through the company who designed the software. I did manage to convert it to a PDF but it turned out very inacurate.

I'm currently working on HH0 HH0 HH0 V3.0 (the one you saw was HH0 HH0 HH0 2.0) (yea - as in merry Christmas)
Going for a complete revamp to make it easier and quicker to assemble. I should have it ready in 2 weeks if im not swamped at work.
2.0 works great but It takes 3-4 hours to assemble and test... Way too long to make it worthwhile.

Anyone up for a sixpack?

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/6pack.jpg)

They are on the way boys..... Have fun!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 17, 2007, 01:33:51 PM


Is someone supplying misleading information on the pulse circuit?
The top image has the amp consuming device in series with the tubes, the bottom image has the amp consuming device in parallel with the tubes.


(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12479;image)



Runningbare,

If you look in stan meyer tech brief document you'll he used two differnt mathods of electron extraction. The one you showed (in series with the cell) is the old method. It all boils down to extracting the electron from the water during the pulse off time.... it doesn't really matter how you do it. It stops the hydrogen and oxygen atoms from recombining before they leave the water bath.

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 17, 2007, 01:42:08 PM
Hi djctek,

thanks for your replay, in this case I think I'll create a own PCB, I'm using eagle cat. If the tests on the switchboard will be successfully, than I'll do so.

The main goal should be to replicate this device as many as possible and that from a huge amount of people NOW, not in some months, and I guess the main prob is the electronic part for the most people.

If someone has pictures from the chokes, then it would be great to post them.


best regards

atlantex

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 17, 2007, 01:57:27 PM


Is someone supplying misleading information on the pulse circuit?
The top image has the amp consuming device in series with the tubes, the bottom image has the amp consuming device in parallel with the tubes.


(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12479;image)



theres no need for a full wave bridge rectifier where they have it. bare an i both know that that is not alternating current going to that rectifier.

someone said that it was what dave lawton used to tune his circuit.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 17, 2007, 04:17:04 PM
n/m
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 05:59:03 PM
I'll tell you what, I'll be more convinced if someone here can come up with the term amp consuming device in mainstream electronics and electrical engineering and it's use, as an electronics engineer myself I've never heard the term.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 17, 2007, 06:07:27 PM
I'll tell you what, I'll be more convinced if someone here can come up with the term amp consuming device in mainstream electronics and electrical engineering and it's use, as an electronics engineer myself I've never heard the term.


Stanley reasoned that since his whole method is based on using ONLY VOLTAGE POTENTIAL, it would stand to reason to label one of his elements in his circuit an AMP CONSUMING DEVICE. Since he is seeing amps and voltage are separate things, and they MOST CERTAINLY can be separated, this explains the labeling.

Of course, the AMP CONSUMING DEVICE refers to any loads (preferably resistive loads) which use power in a normal fashion.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 17, 2007, 06:19:46 PM
In that case you could use the voltage potential from a line output transformer which can be in the 10s of KV range but with currents measured in microamps, around 40 microamps in the case of mine, yes I tried it, the output from the tubes was barely visible.


Stanley reasoned that since his whole method is based on using ONLY VOLTAGE POTENTIAL, it would stand to reason to label one of his elements in his circuit an AMP CONSUMING DEVICE. Since he is seeing amps and voltage are separate things, and they MOST CERTAINLY can be separated, this explains the labeling.

Of course, the AMP CONSUMING DEVICE refers to any loads (preferably resistive loads) which use power in a normal fashion.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 18, 2007, 12:18:41 AM
In that case you could use the voltage potential from a line output transformer which can be in the 10s of KV range but with currents measured in microamps, around 40 microamps in the case of mine, yes I tried it, the output from the tubes was barely visible.
was it DC ?
if not, the plates were constantly changing polarity and  only shaking the molecules

the task is not "breaking the dielectric barrier of water".
it is to apply a force to dissociate its molecules.

imo. at 10KV the distance between plates would need to be revised.

about the schematic, i suggest to replace the lamp by a battery.  ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 18, 2007, 12:46:28 AM
The output from a modern line output transformer is DC due to the fact it has a built in diode/capacitor voltage multiplier.


was it DC ?
if not, the plates were constantly changing polarity and  only shaking the molecules

the task is not "breaking the dielectric barrier of water".
it is to apply a force to dissociate its molecules.

imo. at 10KV the distance between plates would need to be revised.

about the schematic, i suggest to replace the lamp by a battery.  ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 18, 2007, 03:00:45 AM
 @ RunningBare

For me, "line output transformer"could mean, a conventional step up transformer, or a flyback transformer.
Sorry if i make a mistake here.
Blame it on the language barrier.  :D



BTW
If you try the sublimation of water way, i suggest that you reduce the size of your electrodes and use smaller quantity of water at a time.

At too high voltage, in Mayer's setup, the voltage will only arc from a specific point between two electrodes and will not build much differencial charges on the tubes.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 18, 2007, 03:01:20 AM
Hi all, okay sorry try this, ill ask my source for you about the figures  ;D

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 18, 2007, 03:12:02 AM
Ah, my bad, I should have said "television crt line output transformer" to be more accurate.


@ RunningBare

For me, "line output transformer"could mean, a conventional step up transformer, or a flyback transformer.
Sorry if i make a mistake here.
Blame it on the language barrier.  :D



BTW
If you try the sublimation of water way, i suggest that you reduce the size of your electrodes and use smaller quantity of water at a time.

At too high voltage, in Mayer's setup, the voltage will only arc from a specific point between two electrodes and will not build much differencial charges on the tubes.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 18, 2007, 03:13:27 AM
The output from a modern line output transformer is DC due to the fact it has a built in diode/capacitor voltage multiplier.

was it DC ?
if not, the plates were constantly changing polarity and  only shaking the molecules

the task is not "breaking the dielectric barrier of water".
it is to apply a force to dissociate its molecules.

imo. at 10KV the distance between plates would need to be revised.

about the schematic, i suggest to replace the lamp by a battery.  ;)



DC isn't what we want to use, we only want to use IMPULSES.

Ponder this profound example:

If you take a 1:1 transformer and put a 12V battery on the primary side of the transformer, and on the secondary side you place a bridge rectifier and a capacitor.

Now, on the primary side in series with the 12V battery and the primary of the transformer you place a simple switching device like a transistor or FETs.

Now, the start conditions are as such: The battery is at 12V, and the capacitor on the secondary is at 12V...

Having 12V on both sides of a transformer means no current flow, so if you were to apply a simple square wave to the primary of the transformer using the 12V from the battery, there is NO current flow in the secondary because the capacitor on the secondary is at 12V, UNTIL that magnetic field that was built up in the transformer collapses...

Now you have a VOLTAGE pulse (pure EMF) of anywhere from 50V-1000V, and since the primary is now an OPEN circuit, this voltage pulse moves onto the secondary, but now, since the voltage is greater than 12V, this voltage DOES ADD to what is stored in the capacitor. Capacitors are the best conversion devices for these TYPES of pure EMF pulses...


That is just one example...

So, we aren't using DC, that is Direct CURRENT, we are using improvised PULSED DC, such that we all but eliminate ALL CURRENT FLOW...

So, you CAN apply 10KV+ to stainless steel plates that are in water, and the distance wouldn't have to be revised, because we aren't ADDING electrons to the plates, only this VOLTAGE FIELD...

This is what Bedini calls his 'radiant energy'........
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 18, 2007, 04:08:30 AM
very interresting post.
thanks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 18, 2007, 04:35:50 AM
Guys, i just got given this idea for h20 loads on your WFC.

Ash, i have been research looking for the easiest and simplest and yet most efficient way to demonstrate h2 production doing work.

The way I see it, the practical solution will be to get a Sterling motor and use a flame from the gas production. Trouble is the costs for these motors and I am having trouble finding one that is not a toy but can do a reasonable amount of work.
 
http://www.stirlingengine.com/ecommerce/product.tcl?product_id=29
 
This one unfortunately is electronically heated but if we can find something like this where a direct flame can be used it would be ideal.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 18, 2007, 06:14:42 AM
I was just looking at Stan Meyer's explanation of one of his cells on YouTube and it got me to thinking.  He was discussing how a laser could be used to keep the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in an excited state so they could not recombine to form water.  This, he said, would give off extreme heat/energy.  This is what is done to gases to form plasma.  They are subjected to high energy fields, i.e. microwaves, lasers, radio waves so the electrons cannot naturally stay within the atoms.   Examples of this are the laser induced plasma channel and microwave plasma experiments on YouTube.

I think another example of what Stan Meyers is talking about is the Kanzius affect.  So the radio waves cause the water to split with the salt serving as a catalyst.  Once the water is turned into HHO and it is lit, it starts to attempt to combine back into water.  This would usually lead to a small explosion and the recreation of water but that does not happen in the Kanzius experiments.  Instead as the HHO attempts to form H2O it is unable to do this because the radio waves are exciting the gas and it is staying in a plasma state giving off 3000 degrees heat as Stan Meyer's said.

Is anyone working on a Kanzius recreation? 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 18, 2007, 07:17:55 AM
The output from a modern line output transformer is DC due to the fact it has a built in diode/capacitor voltage multiplier.

was it DC ?
if not, the plates were constantly changing polarity and  only shaking the molecules

the task is not "breaking the dielectric barrier of water".
it is to apply a force to dissociate its molecules.

imo. at 10KV the distance between plates would need to be revised.

about the schematic, i suggest to replace the lamp by a battery.  ;)



DC isn't what we want to use, we only want to use IMPULSES.

Ponder this profound example:

If you take a 1:1 transformer and put a 12V battery on the primary side of the transformer, and on the secondary side you place a bridge rectifier and a capacitor.

Now, on the primary side in series with the 12V battery and the primary of the transformer you place a simple switching device like a transistor or FETs.

Now, the start conditions are as such: The battery is at 12V, and the capacitor on the secondary is at 12V...

Having 12V on both sides of a transformer means no current flow, so if you were to apply a simple square wave to the primary of the transformer using the 12V from the battery, there is NO current flow in the secondary because the capacitor on the secondary is at 12V, UNTIL that magnetic field that was built up in the transformer collapses...

Now you have a VOLTAGE pulse (pure EMF) of anywhere from 50V-1000V, and since the primary is now an OPEN circuit, this voltage pulse moves onto the secondary, but now, since the voltage is greater than 12V, this voltage DOES ADD to what is stored in the capacitor. Capacitors are the best conversion devices for these TYPES of pure EMF pulses...


That is just one example...

So, we aren't using DC, that is Direct CURRENT, we are using improvised PULSED DC, such that we all but eliminate ALL CURRENT FLOW...

So, you CAN apply 10KV+ to stainless steel plates that are in water, and the distance wouldn't have to be revised, because we aren't ADDING electrons to the plates, only this VOLTAGE FIELD...

This is what Bedini calls his 'radiant energy'........

well put!

this picture is something that lerks in the back of me head...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 18, 2007, 07:55:36 AM
Tesla Impulse Technology based patent for creating Ozone by using "pulsed DC"
http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568177.pdf (http://keelynet.com/tesla/00568177.pdf)

now we are finally getting to the root of things, impulse tech. gerry vassilatos has written quite a bit about these fast interruptions of DC, pulsing them to a specific frequency, and what Tesla discovered he was able to accomplish.

funny tho, everytime we go back to tesla ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 18, 2007, 08:39:05 AM
I need a judgment call folks, I've just made a 15 second video of another conditioning process, but that seems like a lot of bubbles for less than a watt input, 13 volts 50ma, thats what the meter showed, but I'd say it was more like 60ma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbf0SSgrJV0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbf0SSgrJV0)

One day I'll get the bloody seal on this water tube to do a proper test!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 18, 2007, 10:36:14 AM
Runningbare>>>

thats 0.78 watts max >>>> not bad at all  >>>>  ure reachin there mate!






Check d followin vid of hydrocars @ 20.9 watts!!  >>>> 11V 1.9 Amps   >>>>and still reducing!

He seems 2 have done it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXzTtm-QwtI


Way 2 go mate! one winner >>> few more 2 come!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SwinG on September 18, 2007, 10:56:52 AM
In case someone should have missed it: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Video:David_Wenbert_on_Water_Fuel_Cells_and_Electromagnetic_Overunity_Similarities

Kind of interesting.

SwinG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 19, 2007, 04:31:01 AM
I thought for a moment the spooks had got overunity.com! ;-)

Copied from posts I made in another forum...


Who am I kidding!, it has taken 1 hour 25 minutes to inflate the latex glove to the point where it is standing upright with just a little under 6 watts, I can do better than that just eating a tin of beans!

Heres something interesting, I removed the two separate inductors that were feeding the tubes and replaced with my bifilar wound ferrite core transformer, the number of windings are the same in each case, where each of the ferrite inductors were fed one to the outer tube the other to the inner tube, I did the same with the transformer, each of the windings is open ended at the input and output, so I connected the input ones, one to the positive rail the other to the pulse output, the outputs were then connected one to the outer tube the other to the inner tube.

Original separate inductors, these were wound on separate ferrite cores
pulse ---ccccc-----  inner tube

pos   ---ccccc----- outer tube



bifilar wound transformer, these were wound on a single ferrite transformer core.
pulse ---ccccc---- inner tube
         =====
pos   ---ccccc---- outer tube
Both windings wound in same direction

It took 1 hour 15 minutes to fill the latex glove with the same power input but using the above transformer arrangement, thats a full 10 minutes less than the original setup.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 19, 2007, 05:47:25 AM
Due to the numerous requests I have had for it -

I just listed 10 more of the PWM "black box" on eBay as a preorder sale - Item number: 120163570832  - the pcb's are off to manufacturing and have a delivery eta of 9/24 unless they get them done quicker and the box will start shipping on 9/25/07

Thanks guys
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 19, 2007, 07:08:42 AM
I really wish some one would do up Kits and put all revenue back into this research.

I would consider doing this, I represent a non profit org, and dot need money but engineers (open sourced) do. Our circuit is 90% done Guys.

We are making a step by step of Ravi's replication and all processes he mentions, hopefully this will help beginners.



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hansvonlieven on September 19, 2007, 10:59:39 AM
G'day leeroyjenkinsii and all,


I think another example of what Stan Meyers is talking about is the Kanzius affect.  So the radio waves cause the water to split with the salt serving as a catalyst.  Once the water is turned into HHO and it is lit, it starts to attempt to combine back into water.  This would usually lead to a small explosion and the recreation of water but that does not happen in the Kanzius experiments.  Instead as the HHO attempts to form H2O it is unable to do this because the radio waves are exciting the gas and it is staying in a plasma state giving off 3000 degrees heat as Stan Meyer's said.

Is anyone working on a Kanzius recreation? 

Yes, I am. Both Stanley Meyer and Kanzius got their inspiration from Keely.

 If you want to have a closer look at what is involved a little background reading on Keely will not hurt. A good place to start is my website.   PLUG-PLUG :-)            http://www.keelytech.com

Together with a couple of guys I am at the moment attempting to design a device with the following parameters.

An AM transmitter that can be tuned to operate on a carrier frequency of between 40 and 45 KHz. Into this we feed an audio signal that is composed of certain chords a la Keely via the audio output port of a computer.

The resultant wave form is then fed into a quantity of water inside a resonant cavity.

If anyone is interested to help with this project please contact me through my website.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: PULSED)ReverseH/OfuelcelI on September 19, 2007, 03:21:52 PM
Hi everyone,

You are all doing well,

But let?s look at Stan?s main drawing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_fuel_cell_circuit.png,  here we have a power supply, a transformer (witch is not essential but dose help, so lets forget about that for now), a frequency generator, a diode, two chokes bifilar wound*, and a capacitor.

Now we know that 2a input 5v input that?s 10 watt?s, is all we need.

The frequency generator needs to produce pulsed DC and gated pulsed DC wave form, the gates are there so that the voltage fields don?t arch.

The pulses are to find resonance of the inductor and capacitor.

Ok.

The transformer is an unnecessary luxury; we will not go into that now.

Now we come to the [diode] this is here to keep the Water capacitor (Stainless steel plates/tubes) charged, it dose not let the high voltage wash out of the capacitor, It lets the voltage build up charge slowly.

Done,

Now we come to the inductor (choke), this is a very important part of this circuit. When a pulse hits the inductor, the inductor generates an electromagnetic field. This then waits for the second pulse and then lets out the first pulse; witch goes to the water capacitor and gets charged in there and gets times on it self each time.

Then it washes back out to the inductor, but not past because the High voltage diode dose not let it.
Then the momentum starts building with each pulse, the voltage is resonating up, down, up, down.

This is how the voltage gets to such high levels with 5v and 2a. and this is the role of the inductor.

Ok.

Now let?s look at the water capacitor, this is made up of a bunch of stainless steel plates/tubes, forming a capacitor, this is where the high voltage gets put, so that the tremendous voltage fields are made in the water between the plates in the capacitor.

That is how the LC resonance in the water fuel cell builds up high voltage fields.

The key is LC resonance,

LC resonance is a ?choke? (copper wire around a ferrite core) witch is L and a ?capacitor? (the stainless steel plates/tubes) witch is C.

When you put a pulse through an LC circuit you will not get much of a reaction, but if you slowly tune, or do some hard math, you can find the resonant frequency.

The right frequency will resonate with the capacitor and the inductor, but you need to find resonance.

Good,

Now let?s look at what is actually happening to the water molecule.

The conventional electrolysis method uses amperage. Lots of it, and the energy used is not recovered after the Hydrogen and the oxygen recombine.

Now that we are using high voltage fields and very little amperage we don?t use much wattage but lots of hydrogen.

Let?s take the normal water molecule; it has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Now the problem with breaking apart the water molecule is the covalent bond of the water molecule, this is the electrons that hold it together. But now that we are using high voltage fields we can ?strip? of the electrons, leaving the hydrogen and oxygen free to rise to the top as a gas mixture.

We have now broken the water molecule with high voltage fields by affecting the electrons.

Imagine the water molecule is held together by a lock witch is the electron. The conventional electrolysis process is like trying to smash apart the lock; it takes so much energy to do that.

But what Stan did was unlock the covalent bond of the water molecule using voltage, ?plucking? or ?extracting? the electrons. This uses much less electricity, and is more efficient.

It breaks the laws of thermodynamics you say?

Well, in the process of stripping the electrons the water molecule looses its electrons, the hydrogen and oxygen then goes into the combustion chamber in the piston of the engine. It needs to use its other electrons to reform that covalent bond,

Just try and re use that water coming out of the exhaust, you cant.

Before that water can be reused, is needs to go up into the atmosphere and join the clouds, get re-energized by the sun and fall back to earth, it acts like a solar panel, to get that covalent bonding electron.

As soon as you start using electricity to make photons to ?re energize? the ?stripped? water molecules is as soon as you loose energy.

Thank you all, to find out more go to http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ and join the forum!

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 19, 2007, 04:13:59 PM


D14 Circuit PCB Layout



Gary aka Chemelec from the OUPower forums has kindly done up the PCB layout for Dave's ciruit! Hopefully this will be useful to everyone.

he has also added additional paralled caps to the two 100uf caps, he says
these should be .1uF disc or ceramic types to give better stability at higher frequencies.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 19, 2007, 05:47:07 PM
PULSED)ReverseH/OfuelcelI>>>>>

Dats a terrific rundown! Where have u been all along mate??

What do you think of pancake bifilar? cud u use them here? as these don use cores atall wud they give d same effect as bifilars wound on long ferrite rod core? wot difference is there in outputs? I kinda dont understand how pancakes wud work.


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: chortly on September 19, 2007, 06:16:16 PM
How difficult is it to find the settings to get resonance? Does anyone have ballpark suggestions for settings to begin with?
Seems like it'd be a good idea to compile everyone's rigs/results into a big spreadsheet... you know, develop a list of operating parameters?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 19, 2007, 06:24:16 PM
Due to the numerous requests I have had for it -

I just listed 10 more of the PWM "black box" on eBay as a preorder sale - Item number: 120163570832  - the pcb's are off to manufacturing and have a delivery eta of 9/24 unless they get them done quicker and the box will start shipping on 9/25/07

Thanks guys


I was just notified the circuit boards are done and will be here on Friday 9/23 - the "BLACK BOX" will start shipping on Saturday 9/23. I upgraded the board design to include screw terminal blocks on all inputs, outputs, Pots, gate switch. This added a few bucks to the cost of reproducing it but will save tons of time on final assembly. I also changed the resistors to 1/2 watt instead of 1/4 watt  - Ravi posted this info a while back as the changes he made to the circuit for the bigger tube setup. The outward appearance of the unit will remain unchanged at this time. Thanks

(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/back.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 19, 2007, 08:05:37 PM
when we're talking about resonance I think we're talking about
the physical resonance as in a bell or wind chime, I'm going to use
1" and 4/3" tubes same as Dave. The only variable that can't be changed
after the cell is built is the length of the tubes, you can vary the frequncy and
the gating you hit the tube with this frequency. I think the 2 tubes have to resonate
the same frequency so according to these wind chime frequency tables

http://home.fuse.net/engineering/1alumnium.htm

http://home.fuse.net/engineering/34alumnium.htm

the 3/4 inch tube should be shorter than the 1" which doesn't make sense.
I'm looking at about 5" tube length which gives a third overtone frequency
of 38.016Khz. By the way I'm making all this up as I go along so I'm not
sure wether it makes the slightest bit of difference, but it's worth looking into.
It says on the home page aluminium and steel have similar acoustic properties.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 19, 2007, 09:02:58 PM
Well guys, I've tried all sorts of ways

I cannot see how Ravi was able to produce such a flow from 6 watts of input unless something was added to the water to cause the reaction, or maybe it is something already in the water where he lives.

So has anyone else managed to replicate what Ravi did?

I mean at 12 volts 500ma 6 watts?, NOT high voltage, NOT additives, NOT boiling water, just plain tap water at 12 volts 500ma 6 watts?

Anyone?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 19, 2007, 09:24:42 PM
when we're talking about resonance I think we're talking about
the physical resonance as in a bell or wind chime, I'm going to use
1" and 4/3" tubes same as Dave. The only variable that can't be changed
after the cell is built is the length of the tubes, you can vary the frequncy and
the gating you hit the tube with this frequency. I think the 2 tubes have to resonate
the same frequency so according to these wind chime frequency tables

http://home.fuse.net/engineering/1alumnium.htm

http://home.fuse.net/engineering/34alumnium.htm

the 3/4 inch tube should be shorter than the 1" which doesn't make sense.
I'm looking at about 5" tube length which gives a third overtone frequency
of 38.016Khz. By the way I'm making all this up as I go along so I'm not
sure wether it makes the slightest bit of difference, but it's worth looking into.
It says on the home page aluminium and steel have similar acoustic properties.




Please refer to my previous post jox...I have copied it below:




Quote
Ravi,

Do you know the approximate frequency at which you are applying the square wave pulses to your WFC?



The reason why is related to some research I did with a well known 'water as a fuel' research group.....


Here was the crux of my interesting finding:

The findings are based on this youtube video from Dave Lawton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwbvsya3Ek , WATCH IT!


[4/1/2007 3:40:25 PM] Tao says:
Just doing a simple calculation a tube in plain fresh water, the equation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance shows f=(n*v)/(2*L) where n corresponds to the harmonic, v is the speed of sound in the water, and L is the length of the tube....

So, lets simplify this equation, n can be always 1, v is 1435 m/s in fresh water according to Wikipedia.

So, f = (1*1435)/(2*L) = 717.5 / L = f , Just for fun, lets take the frequency Dave was producing Hydroxy at in his latest video on Youtube: 3425.781Hz

So, 3425.781 = 717.5 / L , L = 717.5 / 3425.781 = 0.21 meters , So that would be 8.27 inches long.... So, how long in inches are Dave's tubes? Just curious........


[4/2/2007 11:26:20 PM] Tao says:
So, I asked how long Dave's tubes were, well, I looked up how long they were from an old post Dave did on the original forum back in 2004...


[4/2/2007 11:26:44 PM] Tao says:
Dave said that his tubes were about 12.5-13cm (which is about 5 inches long)


[4/2/2007 11:27:39 PM] Tao says:
so, calculating that into the equation: 717.5 / L = f , we have 717.5 / 0.1275 = f , so f = about 5650Hz


[4/2/2007 11:28:21 PM] Tao says:
So, based on what it says at the END of that video on youtube, it says that the hydroxy was being produced at 3425.78Hz


[4/2/2007 11:29:00 PM] Tao says:
BUT, they acoustic frequency came out to be 5650Hz, so I said, 'oh, too bad' seems there isn't much of a connection, I guess I need to
do more research'


[4/2/2007 11:29:10 PM] Tao says:
UNTIL, I just watched that video again..........


[4/2/2007 11:29:50 PM] Tao says:
Look at what Dave was pulsing his DC at in the video: 5714Hz!!!!
At 1:11 in the video you can see what he was pulsing at.......


[4/2/2007 11:30:58 PM] Tao says:
Based on the equation for acoustic resonance, Dave was pulsing his tubes at the EXACT frequency at which those tubes will resonate ACOUSTICALLY in FRESH WATER...



So, my finding was basically this:

Dave found the BEST gas production at the VERY SAME frequency that just so happens to be where his tubes resonate ACOUSTICALLY IN WATER... HMMM...

Maybe it is nothing at all but a coincidence, but maybe there is just something to it........................
? Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 09:02:47 PM by tao ?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 19, 2007, 09:39:34 PM
1 minute 23 seconds into the video, 56watts!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwbvsya3Ek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwbvsya3Ek)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: chortly on September 19, 2007, 10:29:15 PM
@runningbare

somewhere i read that each time you add a tube, the cost in watts is less for each additional tube. i think it was in the d14. in your last vid i only saw one tube, but it seems like most of the uber bubble vids have 5 or 6 tubes. i dont know if you figured that in or not. im nowhere near as knowledgable with whats going on as others; just trying help out some way. but a diminishing cost with a linear gain could be significant with your glove test.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 19, 2007, 10:58:41 PM
hi Tao thanks for the info and the links, I usedto be on the icubenetwork forum a couple of
years ago but it got messed up. I'm going to cut my tubes 5 inch so I'll have an idea of the ballpark. I also did a test with a short length of 22mm copper 3inch, recorded and analysed it on the computer
came to 6944hz, I cut a 1cm slot in the side with a hacksaw retested and it came to 6804hz, so
I should be able to tune the inner and outer tubes
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 19, 2007, 11:05:11 PM
Guess the power in watts?  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QceLbrD1VKc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QceLbrD1VKc)



@runningbare

somewhere i read that each time you add a tube, the cost in watts is less for each additional tube. i think it was in the d14. in your last vid i only saw one tube, but it seems like most of the uber bubble vids have 5 or 6 tubes. i dont know if you figured that in or not. im nowhere near as knowledgable with whats going on as others; just trying help out some way. but a diminishing cost with a linear gain could be significant with your glove test.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 12:58:17 AM
Guess the power in watts?  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QceLbrD1VKc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QceLbrD1VKc)




Excuse me quoting myself, does no one want to even hazard a guess?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: sbeehre on September 20, 2007, 01:15:34 AM
Gheller J that done for me by Gary and was posted by me on oupower :-) we have built that but had some problems with it so we modified it to this one which is exactly the same as the d14 circuit.

(http://www.coarsefishing.co.nz/images/CIRCUITv3.gif)

when you print it out you will need to mirror image it ie horizontal flip it
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: trol on September 20, 2007, 03:17:34 AM
Hola TAO
En relaci?n a la determinaci?n de la frecuencia que viene dada por el largo de los cilindros, y en tanto no se termine por conocer en detalle la operaci?n del sistema de Stanley Meyer, sugiero tambi?n considerar como alternativa a la velocidad  del sonido en el agua (1.600 m/seg), la velocidad de propagaci?n del sonido en el acero ( 5.100 m/seg).

Trol
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 20, 2007, 03:44:55 AM
Hola TAO
En relaci?n a la determinaci?n de la frecuencia que viene dada por el largo de los cilindros, y en tanto no se termine por conocer en detalle la operaci?n del sistema de Stanley Meyer, sugiero tambi?n considerar como alternativa a la velocidad  del sonido en el agua (1.600 m/seg), la velocidad de propagaci?n del sonido en el acero ( 5.100 m/seg).

Trol


I will consider this in my research, thanks Trol...

The main reason I only posted about the speed of sound in water, is because it matched the frequency where Dave Lawton was seeing the best gas production in his WFC...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 20, 2007, 05:31:25 AM
Here is an example of Keely's control of gravity through acoustic resonance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KzmB2bI7s

I remembered this after viewing hansvonlieven's site.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 05:40:38 AM
Just been through the D14 document, cannot find anything relating to the number of tubes, if anyone knows differently could they point out the page number please?


@runningbare

somewhere i read that each time you add a tube, the cost in watts is less for each additional tube. i think it was in the d14. in your last vid i only saw one tube, but it seems like most of the uber bubble vids have 5 or 6 tubes. i dont know if you figured that in or not. im nowhere near as knowledgable with whats going on as others; just trying help out some way. but a diminishing cost with a linear gain could be significant with your glove test.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 06:11:53 AM
Runningbare>>>>>>>

D14 updated      page 8     paragraph 4.
dis info was always there right from d 1st D14!!

You generation looks 12V 300 / 400mA.   Anywhere close??



sbeehre>>>>>>>>

Thanks for d update mate!



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 06:16:04 AM
Sorry Gheller someone on Youtube beat you to the answer, it was in fact 12 volts 1 amp, 12 watts, so not very good.
Thanks for the page number and paragraph! your a star.


Runningbare>>>>>>>

D14 updated      page 8     paragraph 4.
dis info was always there right from d 1st D14!!

You generation looks 12V 300 / 400mA.   Anywhere close??



sbeehre>>>>>>>>

Thanks for d update mate!



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 06:33:36 AM
Very interesting, of course I had not considered the obvious, the tubes are in fact capacitors to the the current flow and since its straight DC or pulsed DC they will charge impeding current flow, so adding more tubes will not substatially increase current flow, only the initial current will be high at turn on until they reach potential.

Quote
With just one tube in place, the current draw is about one
amp. When a second tube is added, the current increases by less than half an amp. When the third is
added, the total current is under two amps. The fourth and fifth tubes add about 100 milliamps each and the
sixth tube causes almost no increase in current at all. This suggests that the efficiency could be raised
further by adding a large number of additional tubes, and as the gas is produced inside the tubes and the
outer tubes are connected electrically, they could probably be bundled together.


btw, this can also be found in the "Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf" page 230 paragraph 4.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 20, 2007, 06:52:42 AM
Well guys, I've tried all sorts of ways

I cannot see how Ravi was able to produce such a flow from 6 watts of input unless something was added to the water to cause the reaction, or maybe it is something already in the water where he lives.

So has anyone else managed to replicate what Ravi did?

I mean at 12 volts 500ma 6 watts?, NOT high voltage, NOT additives, NOT boiling water, just plain tap water at 12 volts 500ma 6 watts?

Anyone?

it's your gap
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 20, 2007, 10:46:13 AM
i was reading about resonance too and i think its good to try to tune the two tubes to each other (inner and outer) but also go further than that.

From what  i have read certain lengths will give full standing waves so you should try and work out that length first.
(i have no idea what im talking about really, when i say standing waves i mean the wave ends right in the middle of the tube at both ends) if that makes sense?

And also i read that inductors have a resonant frequency so try and build your inductor to resonate at the same frequency as the tubes at whatever length you chose, i mean if everything in your circuit resonates at the same frequency surely something will happen?

On that note anyone know the formula to calculate the resonance of a inductor?
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 11:47:03 AM



JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCE !!



Gh. j.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 12:18:41 PM



JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCE !!



Gh. j.

!! I already did this configuration of my bifilar a few hours ago, it suddenly occured to me that if wired the normal way the the magnetic field would be cancelled because of the opposing polarity, but we need that field to build as much as possible to take advantage of the collapse, so I swapped one of the coil connections around and deffinitely got a difference, better output from the pulser, sorry I had not passed on the info, I was still testing.

But guys, I think we best pack up and go home  ;)


Quote

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.utopiatech.fr/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.utopiatech.fr/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.utopiatech.fr/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.utopiatech.fr/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG)

Consuming only 3 to 4,5 Watt/hour per liter of produced gas, against 15 to 35 Watt/hour per liter for the whole of the electrolysers 12 Volts indexed on the world market, and marketed to date, this performance remain all the more honourable if one takes into account the report that, working on the basis of electronics High frequency of Power, part of this energy remains dissipated by the only transistors of power and coils of harmonic agreement (Forced technological HF difficult to minimize, in spite of a choice of components of last generation). By deduction, it appears that for the first time a process of electrolysis to very high output would be marketed thus today.[/b]




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: wizkycho2 on September 20, 2007, 01:44:21 PM
Hi all !

I would like to jump in with some theory (and 33A DC electrolysis expirience)

Why I think this pulsed setup should work ?
(I have all setup on a table and everything in place I just wait for some free time to give it a pace)

1. Mass of electron is tremendously smaller than mass of Atom Core of H or not to mention O(16)

2. therfore inertia of electron (as particle) is very small and if Our puls is not lasting for too long
only electron will move in Our electrolysis proces. Ions H and O will not start to move cause they are heavy and for them to
start to move (towards plates) pulse needs to be much much longer (especially DC)

Whay is that important ?
most importantly they will group on plates in such manner that they
form voltage layer opposing Our voltage. Allso when moving they genarate heat and lowers conductivity.

Allso Our cells are like condensators but with additional property that after charged it discharges itself (through time)..

Giving that pause we give time for Ions to stabilyze (ensure they stay in place not moving much) and cell to discharge so like in
condenser our next pulse can be at maximum current like in start of charging normal capacitor.

Liquid Accumulators acts simmilary when discharging or charging with pulses (ions move very little not sticking to plates) they behave
incomparably more efficient than in situation when char/discharging with DC.

In situation when such sistem is pulsed (and paused) Ions doesn't have to carry charge (electron) but rather passing it to next Ion.
They form a chain much like chain when people carry a buckets of water in a line passing it to one another (only first taking water
from well, only last distingushing fire)
Many chains are formed parallel (as much as there are wells and fires)
...People don't move but only the water in a bucket...


Igor Knitel
Perihelion Labs
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: coolwater on September 20, 2007, 02:18:06 PM
Hi all, keep up the good work, can some post and actual pic of the coils not a mud map, im have trouble wing hundred turns of wire on to an inch of ferrite rod bugga is the word thats comes to mind, also tuning the tubes can this be alliminated by using a plate system with identical dimension plates the resonance of the plates due to exact dimensions should be the same therfore eliminating the need to adjust resonant freqancies can some one confirm of deny this for me,
Also just a therory has ne try to send a PWG thru an auto motive coil (up to a 35kv charge into cathode at pulsed freqency, or even a motorcycle coil about 20kv) an other idea was to get a igntion system off a 4,6 or 8 cylynder car and setting up 4, 6 or cell setup in the same enviroment and run the ignition system in cycle thru each cell in a cycle,
Can / has ne 1 investigated this already if so let me know by post or email
Thanks Agian guys I think were gettin closed to breaking free from the Corperate giants,
Troy
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 02:28:08 PM
Runningbare>>>

That schematic was supposedly made for Panacea replication by you know who!!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 02:41:52 PM
Err, Gheller, the picture is signed  ;)


Runningbare>>>

That schematic was supposedly made for Panacea replication by you know who!!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 02:51:17 PM
Coolwater>>>

Check d pic of inductors posted on Page 19 of dis thread. They r more than a few inches long!

Plates supposedly don give u d same efficiencies as pipes in dis process.

Som1 i kno has tried autocoils it didn work
u dont dump HV in a shot this cud create arcs like on spark plug
u need step pulsin
go through stan full details pdf see VIC drawings n writeup youll get d picture.


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 02:51:51 PM
Well, he did not like Aerosmith, perhaps he will like the lab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0Hay3MBC0) 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 02:55:00 PM
Runningbare>>>
 ;D ;D I know

He supposedly wanted it posted for every1 !! dats how it got forwarded 2 me!


Gh. J.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 03:47:42 PM
Runningbare>>>

r those the rewired chokes makin so much gas?

wots d volt/amp ratio??

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 04:10:21 PM
That was 12.5 volts at 0.6amps with just the high frequency pulse, the gating pulse was turned off.

Runningbare>>>

r those the rewired chokes makin so much gas?

wots d volt/amp ratio??

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 20, 2007, 04:24:48 PM
Runningbare>>>

Dats 7.5 watts!! Looks good......me thinks ure right behind Hydrocars ouputs!!


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 20, 2007, 06:44:42 PM
hi Gheller J, do you have a link to the circuit diagram that relates to the PCB design you posted. Its different to the Lawton circuit, is this the one where the frequency remains stable when you adjust the mark/space.
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 07:13:18 PM
I do not know if someone else did it, but I was the one who put up the revised circuit to keep frequency stable while adjusting mark/space, unfortunatly it had an error which has now been fixed...
(http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/pulse_circuit_revised.jpg)

I had omitted R7 and R8 but now they are included, the discharge pin 7 of the 555 timers need to go to the junctions of R7-VR4 and R8-VR2

I am sorry to everyone who followed my original circuit, the error had not become apparant until the circuit was mentioned again, the above cicuit is now correct.
If your concerned about the 50k pots instead of the 47k shown in the original circuits do not worry, either 47k or 50k will work with little difference.

hi Gheller J, do you have a link to the circuit diagram that relates to the PCB design you posted. Its different to the Lawton circuit, is this the one where the frequency remains stable when you adjust the mark/space.
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: jox on September 20, 2007, 07:35:25 PM
thanks Runningbare do the ends of variable resistors that are floating go to the sliders?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 08:08:29 PM
No, VR2 and VR4 will function as is, the floating ends can be left floating(disconnected)

thanks Runningbare do the ends of variable resistors that are floating go to the sliders?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 20, 2007, 08:25:11 PM



JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCE !!



Gh. j.

i'm sorry but if you are using the lawton circuit alone this will not do anything but limit current, the back emf is wasted, if you are going to use this whith out a use of a transformer you should use this circuit, therfor it does not wast the back emf as the first picture, if you was to use the first picture you pasted it would work fine with a transformer, but the second added diode is not doing anything, and the direction of the chokes must be hooked the right way.

using the same core means sharing a magnetic field, if hooked improperly you loose. the core inside the choke takes on a discharge effect, when sharing cores the discharge emf effect falls faster, it is better to use single cores so each chokes can fall at it's on electro magnetic field rate.

it is very important that the 3rd cycle of the transformer hits the chokes at a discharge level, if the transformer hits the chokes on the 3rd cycle and they have already been dishcharged caused by using the same core, then you loose again.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 08:25:54 PM
A note to everyone who is building from my circuit, it is only stable so long as the ends of the potentiometer tracks are not reached!, full up or full down means zero resistance at one end or the other, you could of course add resistors to the track connectors to stop the resistance reaching zero, this is for the mark/space pots VR1 and VR3, suggestions for Ra and Rb are between 220 ohm and 1kohm

      Ra                            Rb
---\/\/\/\/----               ----\/\/\/\/-----
                \     |      /
              /               \
             |        O       |
             \                /
             
 
   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 20, 2007, 08:33:20 PM
A note to everyone who is building from my circuit, it is only stable so long as the ends of the potentiometer tracks are not reached!, full up or full down means zero resistance at one end or the other, you could of course add resistors to the track connectors to stop the resistance reaching zero, this is for the mark/space pots VR1 and VR3, suggestions for Ra and Rb are between 220 ohm and 1kohm

      Ra                            Rb
---\/\/\/\/----               ----\/\/\/\/-----
                \     |      /
              /               \
             |        O       |
             \                /
             
 
   

use a 270 ohm resistor, red violet brown.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 08:35:27 PM
For a bifilar winding Ravi has it correct, if wired parallel the windings will have opposite polarity, this will mean the magnetic field from each winding will cancel the other, they use this technique to reduce magnetic field effects in some electronics

What Ravi proposed and I agree is to swap the terminals of one coil, in this way they both have the same polarity, the magnet field from one wnding is multiplied by the other winding which is what we want because when that field collapses it will give a larger back emf which is what we are after, check out Tesla's bifilar winding patent.





JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A VERY VERY RELIABLE SOURCE !!



Gh. j.

i'm sorry but if you are using the lawton circuit alone this will not do anything but limit current, the back emf is wasted, if you are going to use this whith out a use of a transformer you should use this circuit, therfor it does not wast the back emf as the first picture, if you was to use the first picture you pasted it would work fine with a transformer, but the second added diode is not doing anything, and the direction of the chokes must be hooked the right way.

using the same core means sharing a magnetic field, if hooked improperly you loose. the core inside the choke takes on a discharge effect, when sharing cores the discharge emf effect falls faster, it is better to use single cores so each chokes can fall at it's on electro magnetic field rate.

it is very important that the 3rd cycle of the transformer hits the chokes at a discharge level, if the transformer hits the chokes on the 3rd cycle and they have already been dishcharged caused by using the same core, then you loose again.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 20, 2007, 08:35:39 PM
A note to everyone who is building from my circuit, it is only stable so long as the ends of the potentiometer tracks are not reached!, full up or full down means zero resistance at one end or the other, you could of course add resistors to the track connectors to stop the resistance reaching zero, this is for the mark/space pots VR1 and VR3, suggestions for Ra and Rb are between 220 ohm and 1kohm

      Ra                            Rb
---\/\/\/\/----               ----\/\/\/\/-----
                \     |      /
              /               \
             |        O       |
             \                /
             
 
   

use a 270 ohm resistor, red violet brown.

edit,, just noticed that you had the values close... good deal!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 08:51:47 PM
This picture will explain the bifilar arrangement I hope.

http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/bifilar_comparison.jpg (http://hh0.no-ip.info/images/bifilar_comparison.jpg)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 20, 2007, 09:31:51 PM
I have updated the coil configuration on my webpage...

http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm (http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 21, 2007, 01:00:32 AM
Just found this site for simple tools to analyze spectrum and frequency and all free!

http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun (http://www.techmind.org/audio/#mustun)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 21, 2007, 04:41:30 AM
Ok guys, I finally got some numbers you can run with...

I fed the tubes with a DC pulse at 6080hz approx.
Total current drawn by circuit and tubes 0.5amps, voltage 12.5
Then the 6080hz was gated, 90ms ON, 60ms OFF.
It took 1 hour 20 minutes to collect approx 600ml of gas.

If anyone would like to run those numbers I will be back with a second lot after another test run.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: albator10 on September 21, 2007, 04:48:49 AM
Hi,

Found this patent that was cited in Meyer patent.

Someone in 1974 who produced hydrogen with pulsed power.

May be it will help us to improve the pulse system and VIC
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 21, 2007, 06:43:44 AM
Guys i can back up that source it is creditable, we are helping them and also adding that to our replication, don't be discourage try it in the lab.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 21, 2007, 06:53:54 AM
I'm copying this across to save me having to type it all out again.

Actually to explain, this was never a test for gas output because my tube configuration is totally inefficient anyway, this was actually a test of the bifilar transformer configuration

I'm not going to even bother completing the second test, it has already confirmed what Ravi advised and I thought about a few hours ago.

In the first test the bifilar configuration was the one Ravi suggested

In the second test which has now been running for 2 hours and barely giving much gas the original bifilar arrangement is being used
apart from the bifilar the parameters are pretty much the same, in fact I had to bring down the frequency and pulse width so that the current drawn matched the first test because it was above 0.6amps



Ok guys, I finally got some numbers you can run with...

I fed the tubes with a DC pulse at 6080hz approx.
Total current drawn by circuit and tubes 0.5amps, voltage 12.5
Then the 6080hz was gated, 90ms ON, 60ms OFF.
It took 1 hour 20 minutes to collect approx 600ml of gas.

If anyone would like to run those numbers I will be back with a second lot after another test run.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 21, 2007, 07:12:32 AM
Can you attempt to feed a frequency to your tubes based on my previous post?

the base equation, after simplification is: 717.5/L = F, where L is in meters, and F is in Hz

let google convert your inches for you: Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=5+in+to+m&btnG=Search

So, for 5 inch tubes, 5 in = 0.127 m ,  so F=717.5/.027 = 5,650 Hz


You might have already done this, and if you have, excuse me.......
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 21, 2007, 07:26:30 AM
Thanks tao, my tubes are 8cm in length, calculated frequency 8968.75 hz, I've got it very close to that now, running the test again from fresh, including a change of water.


Can you attempt to feed a frequency to your tubes based on my previous post?

the base equation, after simplification is: 717.5/L = F, where L is in meters, and F is in Hz

let google convert your inches for you: Example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=5+in+to+m&btnG=Search

So, for 5 inch tubes, 5 in = 0.127 m ,  so F=717.5/.027 = 5,650 Hz


You might have already done this, and if you have, excuse me.......
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on September 21, 2007, 10:02:07 AM
20th september update of http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 21, 2007, 11:38:05 AM


Looks like d bifilar input connection has been corrected in this D14 after Ravi's schematic on d last pg.

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 21, 2007, 07:51:12 PM
Hello,

today I got all parts I needed to build the circuit and it's now nearly finished. First test can start tomorrow :-)


so far for now

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 21, 2007, 11:13:54 PM
Thats good work atlantex

I hope you wont take my criticism in the wrong way, you are going have incredible instability problems because the leads feeding the chip timers are too long, you need to get the componants as close to the timers as possible keeping all leads as short as possible, especially the input leads pins 2, 4, and 6 of the timer chips, you should get the timing resistors and capacitors as close to these pins as is physically possible, its not so much of a problem for the gating part as that is low frequency, but the high frequency part is quite critical, the long leads on the input pins will behave like antennas causing the circuit to be unstable.

Hello,

today I got all parts I needed to build the circuit and it's now nearly finished. First test can start tomorrow :-)


so far for now

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 22, 2007, 01:35:47 AM
I've revised the revised pulse circuit, sorry to all who were confused by the ommision of some componants, I will do my best to keep things updated.

http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm (http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: albator10 on September 22, 2007, 04:29:43 AM
HI,

Found this Canadian patent of Stanley Mayer.

Date : 1988

Title: ELECTRICAL PARTICLE GENERATOR.

We saw a drawing (fig. 3) of a very special choke of "3 parallel non-magnetic tube". There are other kind of choke

I am not a specialist, but I think you shuold read it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 22, 2007, 05:04:01 AM
My first born! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6vo_gXda-4)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: albator10 on September 22, 2007, 05:16:16 AM
Hi,

Can someone check the value of this circuit ?

In German, sorry, but I am sure that the symbol are universal.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 22, 2007, 06:43:47 AM
Hi RunningBare,

Quote
I hope you wont take my criticism in the wrong way, you are going have incredible instability problems because the leads feeding the chip timers are too long, you need to get the componants as close to the timers as possible keeping all leads as short as possible, especially the input leads pins 2, 4, and 6 of the timer chips, you should get the timing resistors and capacitors as close to these pins as is physically possible, its not so much of a problem for the gating part as that is low frequency, but the high frequency part is quite critical, the long leads on the input pins will behave like antennas causing the circuit to be unstable.

no problem, good advices are always welcome, I'll try to shorten some of the criticle cabels. I also have the possibillity to create PCB's, so it would be nice if you could post an updated pcb shematic.


stay tuned

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 22, 2007, 04:51:30 PM
HiHo,

first test is still running, what I noticed.

- one coil is ticking while power is switched on
- the current on the ampmeter is jumping (ampmeter right after the power supply)

I'll do some pictures and post those here.


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 22, 2007, 05:21:46 PM
MULTIPLE BIFILAR SETUP for WFC!!


Quote from the sender:



------------------------------------------------------
Im sending a pic of the multiple bifilars I tried on the WFC just a while ago. These were connected to each pipe individually. Diode used 1200 V 40 Amps. Solid core length 8" wound with 0.711 mm conductor end to end.

The generation increased by approximately another 10cc of gas for a 20 second period.

This works on efficiency!! Need to try out other combos to see if it can increase some more.
-------------------------------------------------------



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 22, 2007, 05:39:12 PM
Are you connecting those the way Ravi advised?


MULTIPLE BIFILAR SETUP for WFC!!


Quote from the sender:



------------------------------------------------------
Im sending a pic of the multiple bifilars I tried on the WFC just a while ago. These were connected to each pipe individually. Diode used 1200 V 40 Amps. Solid core length 8" wound with 0.711 mm conductor end to end.

The generation increased by approximately another 10cc of gas for a 20 second period.

This works on efficiency!! Need to try out other combos to see if it can increase some more.
-------------------------------------------------------



Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 22, 2007, 05:41:35 PM
Hello,

here is a quickshot of the gas production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YJSJ1xZNYw

I cant get a stable amp value, because its jumping between 0.20 - 0.46 A at 12 V.

Please don't laugh about the coils but after I couldn't find any detailed picture about these parts, I had to start with a own "design" ;-)


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 22, 2007, 06:13:18 PM
Good work atlantex, whats the vertical core?, it looks like iron in the picture.

Hello,

here is a quickshot of the gas production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YJSJ1xZNYw

I cant get a stable amp value, because its jumping between 0.20 - 0.46 A at 12 V.

Please don't laugh about the coils but after I couldn't find any detailed picture about these parts, I had to start with a own "design" ;-)


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 22, 2007, 06:16:04 PM
Runningbare>>>>>

Dat aint mine mate!! take a closer look @ d pic u'll know. I jus posted a frwrded mail  4  som1. No names pl shouldnt show up on searches for safety.


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 22, 2007, 06:26:56 PM
DOH!

Just looked more closely at the wiring, a bit of a giveaway, including the huge name in big red letters!  :o

Runningbare>>>>>

Dat aint mine mate!! take a closer look @ d pic u'll know. I jus posted a frwrded mail  4  som1. No names pl shouldnt show up on searches for safety.


Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 22, 2007, 06:31:20 PM
Hi,

Quote
whats the vertical core?, it looks like iron in the picture.

it's also a ferrit core, this one with the 0.7 mm copper wire, the other coil is made from high frequency copper wire, it was just a thought...


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 23, 2007, 09:07:15 AM
good morning,

after the circuit seems to work, I'll start now with the conditioning process.



@Stefan

do you know a people who would like to sponsor such a project?


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 23, 2007, 12:39:43 PM

.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 23, 2007, 02:39:28 PM
Hi all,

I thought I might as well put up a few pics of the meyer/lawton/ravi pulse generator replication. Hopefully I get this finished today.
Tomorrow I'm gonna pick up some 316L tubes and can start building the cell.

All in all, another replication on its way.... 

regards,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on September 24, 2007, 12:25:33 AM
It never hurts to rember that hydrogen is an alkali metal..and that H20 could sort of be considered to be it's 'oxidized state'
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 24, 2007, 02:51:22 AM
Yup, the way we were taught it, "water is ash", an already burnt substance.


It never hurts to rember that hydrogen is an alkali metal..and that H20 could sort of be considered to be it's 'oxidized state'
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: albator10 on September 24, 2007, 04:51:36 AM
Hi,

I will build a replication of the WFC of Stanley Meyer in the next 2 weeks.

I am waiting for my tube (24 feet long 304L ss, one 0,75" and one 1") and will build the circuit of the updated D14.PDF

Can someone told me if there is a better circuit ?  Also what is the best choke?

I do a lot of research this time and I have found on the website of Jean-Louis Naudin (a very intersting site about free energy) an experiment that is called :

THE SOLITON PULSES GENERATOR EXPERIMENT

This is the link : http://jlnlabs.imars.com/spgen/index.htm

In this web page we saw the "multiple layers Caduceus wound Coil" this coil seems to produce a lot of power.

Do you think we can use it as a choke for the d14 circuit?

Also I have send 2 days ago in this topic a circuit plan (in german) for a replication of WFC.

Have you see it and what you think of it? good or not?

Thank's
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 24, 2007, 07:27:34 AM
To all, it is a pulse! enough of this ??? it's only a pulse.

Right From the Patent, I'm posting this since everyone seems to be missing it!

When water molecules are exposed to voltage at a restricted current, water takes on an electrical charge.

When a charge is applied to a capacitor, the electrical charge of the capacitor equals the applied voltage charge; in a water capacitor, the dielectric property of water resists the flow of amps in the circuit, and the water molecule itself, because it has polarity fields formed by the relationship of hydrogen and oxygen in the covalent bond, and intrinsic dielectric property, becomes part of the electrical circuit, analogous to a "microcapacitor" within the capacitor defined by the plates.

THE VIC IS FORMED!

The primary coil of the toroid is subject to a 50% duty cycle pulse. The toroidal pulsing coil provides a voltage step-up from the pulse generator in excess of five times, although the relative amount of step-up is determined by preselected criteria for a particular application. As the stepped-up pulse enters first inductor (formed from 100 turns of 24 gauge wire 1 inch in diameter), an electromagnetic field is formed around the inductor, voltage is switched off when the pulse ends, and the field collapses and produces another pulse of the same polarity i.e., another positive pulse is formed where the 50% duty cycle was terminated. Thus, a double pulse frequency is produced; however, in pulse train of unipolar pulses, there is a brief time when pulses are not present.

By being so subjected to electrical pulses in the circuit of FIG. 1, water confined in the volume that includes the capacitor plates takes on an electrical charge that is increased by a step charging phenomenon occurring in the water capacitor. Voltage continually increases (to about 1000 volts and more) and the water molecules starts to elongate.

The pulse train is then switched off; the voltage across the water capacitor drops to the amount of the charge that the water molecules have taken on, i.e., voltage is maintained across the charged capacitor. The pulse train is the reapplied.

Because a voltage potential applied to a capacitor can perform work, the higher the voltage the higher the voltage potential, the more work is performed by a given capacitor. In an optimum capacitor that is wholly non-conductive, zero (0) current flow will occur across the capacitor.

In the process, the electrical resonance may be reached at all levels of voltage potential. The overall circuit is characterized as a "resonant charging choke" circuit which is an inductor in series with a capacitor that produces a resonant circuit. [SAMS Modern Dictionary of Electronics, Rudolf Garff, copyright 1984, Howard W. Sams & Co. (Indianapolis, Ind.), page 859.]

Such a resonant charging choke is on each side of the capacitor. In the circuit, the diode acts as a switch that allows the magnetic field produced in the inductor to collapse, thereby doubling the pulse frequency and  preventing the capacitor from discharging. In this manner a continuous voltage is produced across the capacitor plates in the water bath; and the capacitor does not discharge. The water molecules are thus subjected to a continuously charged field  until the breakdown of the covalent bond occurs.

In an example of the circuit of FIG. 1 (in which other circuit element specifications are provided above), two concentric cylinders 4 inches long formed the water capacitor of the fuel cell in the volume of water. The outside cylinder was 0.75 inch in outside diameter; the inner cylinder was 0.5 inch in outside diameter.

Spacing from the outside of the inner cylinder to the  inner surface of the outside cylinder was 0.0625 inch. Resonance in the circuit was achieved at a 26 volt applied pulse to the primary coil of the toroid at 0 KHz, and  the water molecules disassociated into elemental hydrogen and oxygen and the gas released from the fuel cell comprised a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen from the water molecule, and gases formerly dissolved in the water such as the atmospheric gases or oxygen, nitrogen, and argon.

In achieving resonance in any circuit, as the pulse frequency is adjusted, the flow of amps is minimized and the voltage is maximized to a peak. Calculation of the resonance frequency of an overall circuit is determined by known means; different cavities have a different frequency of  resonance dependant on parameters of the water dielectric, plate size, configuration and distance, circuit inductors, and the like. Control of the production of  fuel gas is determined by variation of the period of time between a train of pulses, pulse amplitude and capacitor plate size and configuration, with corresponding value adjustments to other circuit components.

The wiper arm on the second conductor tunes the circuit and accommodates to contaminants in water so that the charge is always applied to the capacitor. The voltage applied determines the rate of breakdown of the molecule into its atomic components. As water in the cell is consumed, it is replaced by any appropriate means or control system.

Variations of the process and apparatus may be evident to those skilled in the art.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 24, 2007, 08:45:34 AM
Wow, great video Leeroy, thank you for posting the link.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 24, 2007, 12:25:19 PM
Just a little oops :'(
Hooked up djtecks black box to tubes and had it running for an hour or so and playing with all the knobs and produced some gas and made explosions ( WOW ) just to check it was hoho all seemed well until it stopped working turns out l fried the mosfet, found a local bloke ( godsend ) and it will be fixed tomoz so back to conditioning.

Now what l did was hook it up to a battery charger without the battery. Big nono apparently battery chargers produce big spikes but if you run it thru battery it evens these out and protects the circuit.

l realise most people on this site probably know this but just in case theres somebody as uneducated in sophisticated ( or not ) electronic devices as myself they may learn from my inexperience and thats what its all about, learning and sharing

Also djtechs black box works as promised and it aint expensive, thanks mate

Regards

Peter

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 25, 2007, 12:22:46 AM
Thanks a lot Peter from Oz for that tip.  I did not know that.  You're right, sharing helps us small fish a lot.  I know there are a lot of big fish here with lots of advanced knowledge and understanding, but that doesn't mean us small fish can't play too. Afterall, if you're too afraid to admit what you don't know, you'll only slow your progress learning and not help the 100s of other Monday morning quarterbacks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 25, 2007, 12:24:59 AM
Dutchy that's a nice box you got there.  Is anyone making tubes, etc. and selling them yet?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 25, 2007, 12:34:31 AM
You mean this link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KzmB2bI7s

I have read that there are tales of ancient civilizations that could move tons of materials with sound.  I don't know if it's true or not, but clearly something odds going on in that chamber.  Supposedly Keely did this very thing.

I figure a resonant chamber is a resonant chamber.  Perhaps it applies to the Stan Meyer scenario?  Also, someone posted something about the guy from h2earth talking about all of these overunity possibilites relating to resonance.

Would the creation of  laser light be a type of resonance?  Basically the light is bounced back and forth between mirrors in a substance until it finally escapes through a hole and TADAH...odd things happen.

If you think about it...in the Kanzius experiment, perhaps the testube is resonating??  I don't know...just blabbing on and on here.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 25, 2007, 04:15:04 AM
Peter from OZ, Sorry to hear about your mishap, I would think it should have blown the fuse before it fried the mosfet, interesting?
if any one else has a problem with the unit please let me know. Feedback is the only way to make things better, I will repair any unit
that quits working for free for the first 60 days for the cost of parts and shipping. If you are going to run the unit for long periods of time it might be wise to place a small fan blowing on it. Under my tests at low amperage, the mosfet remained cool, if you crank it up it will get hot!

ALSO UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES HOOK UP THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INPUT BACKWARDS, IE REVERSE POLARITY,
I CANT STRESS THIS ENOUGH, IT WILL FRY THE 1N4007 DIODE IN A HEARTBEAT.

If you do or did, you will know what is wrong with it.

I listed a few more of these on eBay, for anyone who missed out on the last auction, item  # 120165493869



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on September 25, 2007, 07:27:03 AM
More info on Multiple bifilars

Gh. J.


Forwarded msg
--------------------------------------------
I think my tubes are still being conditioned as I saw a lot of brown stuff generation when I connected the bifilar inductors. The conditioning I presume happens for every specific voltage.

 
Try to use a ferrite core torroidal to step up voltage connect to the inductors (individual and regular wound) as mentioned by Spewing on Overunity thread as of now as the bifilars are creating some problems...I blew up both the 1200V 40A diodes....looks like one of the tubes ( no.7) has shorted...no gas production. The voltages might have gone very high with the bifilars connected and theres a possibility that this is creating problems for the smaller gap to short out. Dont use the bifilar inductors till we have a proper understanding of how they can stably work.

I'll probably have to open up the unit to see what's wrong.

--------------------------------
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on September 25, 2007, 06:43:52 PM
Hi folks,

I'm in the process of conditioning right now, it's intersting to see that different frequencys seems to have different effects to the gas generation, so forms a lower frequence little sparkling bubbles and a higher frequence something like fog right in the water.

Well, after 8 conditioning cycles yet, the coating of the inner pipe has startet, I can't follow the exact values as recommented in the PDF because I only have one pipeset.
After that time now, I can't say that the gas generation has increased but don't worry, I'll don't stop the process now.

I'm going to make a new new choke tomorrow, someone like ravi's bifilar coil, shorting shouldn't be a problem here, because the gap of my pipeset is ~1.5 mm  ::)  anyway, I have to try it.


good night

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: coolwater on September 25, 2007, 08:36:21 PM
Well its official i suck at electrionics, hav shorts all over the board, so startn again will not give up.can some one show me or post pics of how the three pin pots are wired as on diagram shows link to additional pin thatg goes no where, also i have Mosfet IRFP240 can someverify if this is suitable for circuit, Well back to drawing board will post again soon if have blown up, Keep up the gr8 work guys
Coolwater
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 25, 2007, 09:01:36 PM

Beginners guide to pots (http://sound.westhost.com/pots.htm)

The IFRP240 is a little slow but should be ok, make sure it is on a good heatsink, its drain current handling capability is only 20 amps, I managed to wipe out a 70amp mosfet   ::)
If you are using the circuit from page 7 of the D14 pdf, the wiper pin is connected to one of the track pins on all the pots, but there is a variation on this circuit that will keep frequency relatively stable while adjusting mark/space, it's my own variation and it works for me.
http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm (http://hh0.no-ip.info/tubes.htm) just scroll down the page and you will see the circuit.

P.S, be persistant, don't give up  :)

Well its official i suck at electrionics, hav shorts all over the board, so startn again will not give up.can some one show me or post pics of how the three pin pots are wired as on diagram shows link to additional pin thatg goes no where, also i have Mosfet IRFP240 can someverify if this is suitable for circuit, Well back to drawing board will post again soon if have blown up, Keep up the gr8 work guys
Coolwater
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: coolwater on September 25, 2007, 10:37:33 PM
Thanks for the info, IF youve blown such large capacity parts why does the doc say to supply, 200v/20amp only?
Also a question how much pressure is required to run a car, What PSI? Wots the flow Rate for these cells (D14) And is the D14 Circuit capable of morphing to suit an array of cell configurations calculated together  and frequencies adjust to suit in order to supply a vehicle on demand sufficient gas to run X vehicle or internal combustion engine of any kind (so to sound ignorant but just curious as i assume this would be the ultimate goal, to fill car with water and off you go again) I have experimented with cell thats will supply enuff gas to run a car but these are done with brut force amps and ultimately kill the battery and loss of energy ie thru heat etc, would appreciate info
Thanks again
Troy(Coolwater)

PS Can some body post pic of the pots with pin allocation numbers on them 1 2 3 etc for D14 circuit would prob take 2min for the gurus out there but just askin for the electronically fresh people out there (ie myself)
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 26, 2007, 04:20:14 AM
I made a video yaaaaaaaay......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 26, 2007, 04:51:18 AM
I was pushing for higher frequencies, transistors/mosfets will dissipate more heat with higher frequencies, I just happened to push mine too far.
I'm not sure about PSI, I've read that some go for 5 PSI.
I'm not a car driver,much prefering my electric cycle, afraid I cannot answer the rest of your questions.

Thanks for the info, IF youve blown such large capacity parts why does the doc say to supply, 200v/20amp only?
Also a question how much pressure is required to run a car, What PSI? Wots the flow Rate for these cells (D14) And is the D14 Circuit capable of morphing to suit an array of cell configurations calculated together  and frequencies adjust to suit in order to supply a vehicle on demand sufficient gas to run X vehicle or internal combustion engine of any kind (so to sound ignorant but just curious as i assume this would be the ultimate goal, to fill car with water and off you go again) I have experimented with cell thats will supply enuff gas to run a car but these are done with brut force amps and ultimately kill the battery and loss of energy ie thru heat etc, would appreciate info
Thanks again
Troy(Coolwater)

PS Can some body post pic of the pots with pin allocation numbers on them 1 2 3 etc for D14 circuit would prob take 2min for the gurus out there but just askin for the electronically fresh people out there (ie myself)
Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 26, 2007, 04:56:21 AM
Very nicely done!
Do you know what currents you were pulling?
And what were those cone shaped pieces?, I've been thinking along the lines of forcing the tiny bubbles into larger bubbles before hydrogen and oxygen has the chance to recombine into  water, kind of putting a cone at the top of each tube with small hole at the tip, this will force the tiny bubbles together forming larger bubbles that will escape to the waters surface more readily.

I made a video yaaaaaaaay......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 26, 2007, 05:34:30 AM
The cone shaped pieces are the stainless plates from the centerfuge of a 1939 mccormick deering cream separator, If I hook up the atx power supply direct they draw 5 amps @ 12.2V, with the circuit I can produce good bubbles with 300ma to 1.5a, I have no idea as to the gas production it is creating....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 26, 2007, 05:37:41 AM
Yeah that was cool
I made a video yaaaaaaaay......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7x9l8CHOO4)

being an electronics newbie i was wondering what is the simplest way to test the circuit without plugging it into tubes?

Like test that the electronics are all wired up correctly before running it?

Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 26, 2007, 05:54:27 AM
You could just hook the output leads to a multimeter set to DC and watch the voltage jump up and down, it does not need to be hooked to anything for it to create the pulsed signal.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 26, 2007, 05:57:41 AM
yeah thanks

i was more wondering if i needed to have some sort of load there or not, but i guess
the multimeter is enough

Thanks again!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 26, 2007, 12:30:35 PM
Meanwhile back at kindergarden, got dj's black box back, DJ the mosfet was not cactus it had stuffed a 555 and the other one was not well, upgraded the other thingies (resisters, had to look it up) and back to making gas THRU a battery, cooool. Just looked at DJs video, nice to see the dial turning, have found the best production rate is with everything turned to the right, it really pumps out a cloud but am waiting for conditioning to get big bubbles. My new best mate says he can make these boards pretty cheaply (no offence DJ but we are on the other side of the pond) and is in Melbourne, can also do the ferrite wound thingies. He used to make bullet proof electronics for the Defence Dept and is interested in the teccnology, anyone int. give me a PM depending on interest hell give me a price. Also hooked up a comp fan to cool the mosfet, it does get hot.
Regards
Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 26, 2007, 12:39:38 PM
If you can find one, the turning indicator lamp from a car will be a good load test, connect it where the tubes would normally connect, you can also tell if mark/space is working because by varying it you should see the lamp brighten or dim.


yeah thanks

i was more wondering if i needed to have some sort of load there or not, but i guess
the multimeter is enough

Thanks again!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 26, 2007, 01:22:52 PM
sweet one thanks for that i will just rip one outta my car lol!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on September 26, 2007, 05:50:48 PM
Peter from Oz, good to hear you got things running again, No offense taken - I'm not here to be a sole supplier of PWM's, I'm just here to help out, Building 10 of these units is a 40 hour week on top of running my Computer Business 50+ hours a week. Shipping is expensive across the pond from the states. It would be good for you guys to have a local supplier.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gilles on September 26, 2007, 11:37:12 PM
Heres what I have assembled in my free time this week. Got little tired of my primitive first setup and put together this time 7 tubes of 65cm length. There is no specific calculaton behind the length, I just got 2m length tubes and cut into 3 shorter each. Im in the middle of procces of now gettin rid of the iron muck. One interesting thing though appears. There seems to form a chain of bubbles on top of tubes close to the centre and also around them on the acrylic. When shaked off, they assemble again in short time. Interesting :)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gilles on September 26, 2007, 11:46:31 PM
forgot to attach ...doh
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 03:14:21 AM
Really nice setup Gilles, when ya gonna launch it?  ;) only kidding, I'm still waiting to get my mits on some 12 inch tubes, my present setup sucks!

I've coated the outside of my outer tubes with water proof glue so that all energy is concentrated between the gap, cannot see any improvement but no loss either, so I guess it is safe to say the insulating the outside of the outside tubes is ok, at least this will increase the life of the metal a bit.


forgot to attach ...doh
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 27, 2007, 04:29:47 AM
if you want to increase the life of your tubes, don't let your tubes touch as in using tie straps or fitting tubes together touching side by side, this will eat the sides of the tubes. i'm very sorry to tell you this but i just wanted you to know before you ran your tubes, if you keep running them the way they are in the picture it will eat lines running from the top all the way down to the bottom.

SORRY.

Btw, Sloted Tubes and More water will Run Cool, your tubes should be in a tank such as stanley meyers to run cool, not in a tank like mine or yours, there is no room for the tubes to breath in our tanks, and will a small amount of water it will heat up faster, a large amount of water dont heat up no where near as quick, i'm not even sure it will heat up if the tubes are vented correctly.

Those are some nice tubes, i hate to see you ruin them. if you want to keep them at a long life get a bigger tank, and bigger is better. Slots is better than one tune longer than the other, it someway circulates the water better, it also makes the hydrogen bubbles get the heak out of the way so other bubbles can take it's place, unlike the longer tube.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 04:43:41 AM
If your refering to me, my tubes have more than enough room lol http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0Hay3MBC0 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0Hay3MBC0)



if you want to increase the life of your tubes, don't let your tubes touch as in using tie straps or fitting tubes together touching side by side, this will eat the sides of the tubes. i'm very sorry to tell you this but i just wanted you to know before you ran your tubes, if you keep running them the way they are in the picture it will eat lines running from the top all the way down to the bottom.

SORRY.

Btw, Sloted Tubes and More water will Run Cool, your tubes should be in a tank such as stanley meyers to run cool, not in a tank like mine or yours, there is no room for the tubes to breath in our tanks, and will a small amount of water it will heat up faster, a large amount of water dont heat up no where near as quick, i'm not even sure it will heat up if the tubes are vented correctly.

Those are some nice tubes, i hate to see you ruin them. if you want to keep them at a long life get a bigger tank, and bigger is better. Slots is better than one tune longer than the other, it someway circulates the water better, it also makes the hydrogen bubbles get the heak out of the way so other bubbles can take it's place, unlike the longer tube.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 27, 2007, 06:32:04 AM
Gills i love the smell of napalm in the morning it smells like victory  8) ;D

But the universities wont believe oyu have it running, here is a message after we told one university that Ravis and Dave's results where getting reported

""In an enclosed system the energy required to create water from hydrogen and oxygen is exactly the same as that to split water into its components (oxygen and water). The nett result is ΔG = 0. This has been known since 1873 and is well established in the Laws of Physics. It can be reviewed at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/helmholtz.html which quite well describes the electrolysis of water and its recombination in fuel cells. Hence it would be a waste of time for the University getting involved.

 

Where the client may be getting efficiency (if at all), is in the electrolysis equipment as losses occur in the process, hence an audit of the efficiency of the equipment is probably all that is needed. However it would appear that this has already been done in both India and London.

 Consequently I can?t see any role in this for UniQuest or the University .""

Looks like i need to show this guy personally..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 27, 2007, 07:37:11 AM
Here is my Latest Video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kdbaFIFcwNw
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: coolwater on September 27, 2007, 08:01:35 AM
HI all , I made a post the other day and just wanted to know if any one could help me out with the pin configuration of the pots in D14 would appreciate the help thanks
Coolwater
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 27, 2007, 08:15:28 AM
Given to me by a friend

I have wound one version of the bifilar inductors to go in our inductor test bank switch box.
 See this image - I believe it explains it quite well. It also explains the benefits of using bifilar inductors over standard inductors.I calculated ages ago that you would need a huge inductance to get the WFC cell stack to resonate! Bifilar may do the trick.
 
http://overunity.ifrance.com/Magnetricity_com%20___%20NEOGEN%20Dynamo%20Project_fichiers/NEOGEN_BIFILAR.jpg
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 27, 2007, 09:28:41 AM
Hello Hissyfitnihilism, apart from your obvious dislike for Ash are you saying that the latest post wont work or none of this works or you know something we dont, its a fair bet that l dont know much, so just asking out of curiousity and not wanting to inflame any situation
Regards
Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: PULSED)ReverseH/OfuelcelI on September 27, 2007, 10:30:45 AM
Hello everyone,

For you bifilar chokes, you want high resistance; you won?t get the type of high resistance you need. 26 AWG a copper wire is too thick, 36 AWG is to thick, for maximum resistance use 44 AWG. Or anything above, and use lots of it. 2000 foot for an ideal choke with the kind of capacitors you guys are using, also use a ferrite rod for a core.

The thinner the more you can wind on the rod, plus the thinner the more resistance!

Thanks for that video Hydro!

Peace!
 ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 27, 2007, 10:31:32 AM
Given to me by a friend

I have wound one version of the bifilar inductors to go in our inductor test bank switch box.
 See this image - I believe it explains it quite well. It also explains the benefits of using bifilar inductors over standard inductors.I calculated ages ago that you would need a huge inductance to get the WFC cell stack to resonate! Bifilar may do the trick.
 
http://overunity.ifrance.com/Magnetricity_com%20___%20NEOGEN%20Dynamo%20Project_fichiers/NEOGEN_BIFILAR.jpg

I am saying that the file Astweth references regarding bifilar winding of inductors is full of absolute nonsense and garbage.  That's all.  The claims are that a 250,000X increase in energy storage capacity is made by using the same number of turns, same diameter and length on same core.  In truth, there is no increase in energy storage and a lowering of the self-resonant frequency due to increased effect of interwinding capacitance. 

Ashtweth is a believer in magic and knows so little about science that he is prone to believe and pass on as fact any crap he hears.  The man has no discernment; no judgement of his own on technical matters.  He surrounds himself with charlatan magicians, all of whom talk plenty big stuff but none produce anything but mumbo jumbo.

Hi HissyfitNihilism,

The bifilar coil shown on the Neogen drawing is the basically the same as the one Tesla got a patent granted on. In there it is stated how the 250000 times energy storage is created.  (the tesla patent is even shown on that website).
I'm not saying wether it is right or wrong, but if you say it is wrong you apparently know something Tesla didn't......

Regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 27, 2007, 10:37:22 AM
Hello everyone,

For you bifilar chokes, you want high resistance; you won?t get the type of high resistance you need. 26 AWG a copper wire is too thick, 36 AWG is to thick, for maximum resistance use 44 AWG. Or anything above, and use lots of it. 2000 foot for an ideal choke with the kind of capacitors you guys are using, also use a ferrite rod for a core.

The thinner the more you can wind on the rod, plus the thinner the more resistance!

Thanks for that video Hydro!

Peace!
 ;)

Hi,

I like to add to this:

If you read Stans technical brief you will find he later used SS wire for the chokes because it has higher resistance. This higher resistance imparts electron flow further (travelling IN the wire) and permits therefore higher voltage potential (traveling AROUND the wire).

Regards

Robert

btw I've got my SS 316L tubes now and will start building a cell this week.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 27, 2007, 10:50:44 AM
Hi,

Please forgive my intrusion, I just wanted to offer the following.

I take interest in noting that no one has recognized that the production of ozone by high voltage discharge is a "Cold Fusion" process on the molecular level!  It is known that very little input energy is required for the production of enormous amounts of ozone gas. 

Lets assume that an environment of air and and environment of water are one and the same, the only difference being the density of the medium in question. Tesla indicated in his ozone patent, that he had devised a means by which gasses other than ozone could be produced, unfortunately he never revealed how this device could be adapted to produce the other gasses, or did he. 

Quote:

568,177 Apparatus for Producing Ozone

In my present improvement I have utilized appliances of this general character under conditions and in combination with certain instrumentalities, hereinafter described, which enable me to produce, without difficulty and at very slight expense, ozone in any desired quantities. 

I would state the apparatus which I have devised for this purpose is capable of other and highly important uses of a similar nature, but for the purposes of the present case I deem it sufficient to describe its operation and effects when used for the purpose of generating ozone.

End Quote

It must be remembered Tesla wanted to burn/combust atmospheric nitrogen, and successful in doing so, the frequency and potential of the current required for this was hundreds of times greater than those required for the production of ozone. 

In the open atmosphere the circuit in this patent 568,177 produces ozone, in a different environment.....

The bifilar winding is very special arrangement.  It was around long before the birth of Tesla, he was simply the one to recognize its importance and significance in the sphere of electricity.  Its true power and purpose can only be demonstrated when it is properly wound, and placed in a circuit specifically designed for its use, and therein lies the problem.  There are too many theories as to the bifilar coils purpose! 


Regards



Hi Erfinder,

No need to apologize, we're glad to see you here! Hope you can help us further. Seeing as I'm not familiar with the ozone patent it seems to me that tesla was hinting to something else.
Maybe you can let us know if there is anything important in the mentioned patent that can be useful for our quest. That being, upping the voltage potential and at the same time restricting electron flow through the cell.
If useful would you post the patent here?

Of course any other ideas or suggestions from you are welcome!

thanx.

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: PULSED)ReverseH/OfuelcelI on September 27, 2007, 10:52:15 AM
As the skeptic (crankheliyus) stalks his prey, unsuspecting it itself is being stalked, moves in for the kill. But unknown by the skeptic, the formers have picked up his strong scent.

They are scattering, and in the distance a faint war cry can be heard, ?laws of thermodynamics? he screams!

And in his last ditch efforts he whines, ?you are wrong, because you are just saying what some one else said and believe? not know that they themselves have fallen to this silent terror, and so this creature of the night, because he has nothing more useful to do, continues to feed on other peoples blood.     

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: scotty1 on September 27, 2007, 01:21:07 PM
Hehehehe....shifting and dividing and concentrating.....mmmmm..heard those words before...
Shaking the medium.....natures way....
Yes...i can do that.  ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 02:06:03 PM
It seems I get best results at lower power levels, I think more tubes would certainly be better.

First low power run (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eUvl1oHjspE)

Twice the power level of the first (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8QASQgYarRU)


Edit, sorry I had wrong link for second video  :-[
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 27, 2007, 02:30:32 PM
ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 03:56:31 PM
Sorry guys, repeated same link for second video, here is the correct link...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8QASQgYarRU (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8QASQgYarRU)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 04:00:42 PM
errr yup, you connect those pins wrong and you can possibly kiss that device goodbye  ;D

g=gate goes to the junction of the resistors 220 ohm and the 820
d=drain goes to the coil that feeds the inner tubes
s=source goes to 0V line.

Which mosfet are you using
This is the pinout for the buz350 http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/siemens/BUZ350.pdf (http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/siemens/BUZ350.pdf)

ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 27, 2007, 04:07:20 PM
ok so heres my silly question

with the mosfet does it matter which way the legs are wired up?

i noticed on the diagram there is a g, d, s next to each leg so im wondering
how do i work out which leg is which on the actual mosfet?

Thanks i will probably have more stupid questions like this shortly!

Hi,

You will need a so called Datasheet for that specific Mosfet. Just put the type number (of the mosfet) and the word "datasheet" in Google and it will find you the datasheet. On there you can find out which leg is which.....

@runningbare
Sorry, I think you didn't understand him right....

regards,

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 04:07:46 PM
Keep your hair on!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil)
Quote
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 27, 2007, 04:12:23 PM
@ Runningbare,

Have you already considered using an EEC (Electron extraction circuit) as that seems to up the efficiency further? ( the extraction will  stop atoms from recombining after they have been separated already).

regards

Robert
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 27, 2007, 04:15:37 PM
@dutchy

Not yet, I'm still trying to get the best out of the circuit, and as you have seen my tubes are pitiful to say the least, I will try EEC later, but I do not have whopping great capacitors, best I have is a few 11000mfd types.

@ Runningbare,

Have you already considered using an EEC (Electron extraction circuit) as that seems to up the efficiency further? ( the extraction will  stop atoms from recombining after they have been separated already).

regards

Robert
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 28, 2007, 12:01:35 AM
thanks runningbare and dutchy found it

If anyone else in australia and needs a part number IRFP240
i was told its a replacement part for BUZ350. It has same voltage/amp
specs so it should do the trick.

3 more questions

1.) If i wanted to wire in a light to tell me power is on would i just wire it in parallel with the
power switch? And would it need a resisitor or anything as well? (LED)

2.) If i wanted to wire in lights to flicker with the pulse where  would i wire those in?

3.) Finally the dum question! On the diagram on page 10 of d14 where it shows the wiring to
the knobs, switches, inputs/outputs etc i wire it up how i see there dont i?

What i mean is the ammeter for example has a cable going from its right side to 2 places
as does the mosfet, so i just wanted to check this is definately the correct way of doing this?

Thanks again guys! almost there

Oh and is a 7amp fuse ok instead of 6? i assume its ok
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 28, 2007, 03:22:00 AM
Keep your hair on!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil)
Quote
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 

Yes...it is multiplied by two, the number of windings.  But it is the same energy storage as a single coil with an equal number of total windings.  The idea that bifilar winding gives some great multiple of the inductive energy storage over a single-filar coil of same total turns is simply wrong and can easily be disproven by simply doing the experiment.  All wiki means is that the coils will aid each other if in phase (i.e. 1+1=2x) and oppose each other if anti-phase (i.e. 1-1=0x).  The idea that hundreds of thousands of times energy storage is magically achieved by bifilar winding is just pure rubbish.

the transformer not under any kind of load should put out well over a thousand volts, the coils reduce current on both sides to the cell.. when the transformer starts to pulse the wfc threw the chokes the cell gets energized at that time, the cell is taking on a charge, during the off pulse of the primary side of the transformer the chokes is emitting back emf to the transformer witch is in parallel with both of the chokes "at that given time". by the time the 3rd pulse arrives the chokes work with the transformer in a series fashion, this multiplies the voltage across the cell.

each time the cell is step charged the voltage across the cell increases, each time the cell increases in voltage the output from the transformer to the chokes is increased, and stronger emf is emitted. once the cell reaches its peak the transfromer is now putting out over its maximum thousand volt rating because of the series positioning of the chokes. the second side of the circuit is now resonating, meaning the circuit, not the water fuel cell.

each time the cell takes on a step charge the amount of amps in pulses applied to the primary side of the coil drops, when the cell becomes completely charged hardly any amps is consumed from the primary side of the transformer.

this is not overunity, it is just a resonating "circuit" that works.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 28, 2007, 03:48:43 AM
Guys,  our circuit and tube replication of Raiv's is done and just needs conditioning now, we are entering Two universities with it in order to get a make shift Panacea lab and endorsement for open sourced engineers.

I do wish to publish our test results and process sere how ever it seems Humbugger under the user name 'HissyfitNihilism' is not moderated here so i don't wish to waste time sorting through his mess.


Mean time here is also a response you can put towards the universities if they question your results.

good luck all , Im off

"It would be worth responding in writing to the university's comments, stating that the Faraday supposed maximum has been proven to be incorrect, as electrolyzers built by Bob Boyce have achieved 216% Faraday on straight DC, and the Shigeta Hasebe DC electrolysis patent US 4,105,528 of 1978 shown at www.panaceauniversity.org/PatE14.pdf shows laboratory records of 1,000% the Faraday supposed maximum.

Further, the Faraday maximum quoted in the university correspondence relates to DC electrolysis, while the system to be demonstrated is not DC electrolysis but is pulsed water-splitting which is a completely separate system which draws additional energy from the surrounding environment.  When pulsed in a similar way, the Bob Boyce electrolyzer operates as a water-splitter and has measured efficiencies in the 1,000% Faraday range.

So while it is understandable that the two entirely separate systems have been confused on this occasion, it is necessary to point out that there is no direct connection between the two, and that due to the intake of additional environmental energy, the Law of Conservation of Energy is not broken.

It is also worth noting that Paul Zigouras has recently demonstrated a marine engine made by his company Zigouras Racing, operating with 200 HP of excess energy, run solely on the gases produced by splitting water with power produced by the engine electrics.  This would not be possible with Faraday DC electrolysis, but has been demonstrated to be perfectly possible with water-splitting using high-quality pulsed signals.

Paul Zigouras Infos

The information to date is:
1. The unit takes water in at one end and hydroxy gas exits the entire open end of the cell at the far end.  No water makes it as far as the exit.
2. The small unit has 20 to 30 plates 2-inches high, 8 inches long, the larger unit has 36 plates 3-inches high, 10 inches long.
3. The plates are 1/16 inch thick 316-grade or 318-grade stainless steel sandblasted with 60 grit alum oxide and spaced 0.025 inches apart (0.635 mm).
4. The voltage applied to the cell with the engine running is 13.8 volts.
5. The unit generates an output signal which is a very pure "perfect" square wave
6. The current is 190 amps for 5 gallons dissociated per minute
7. The oscillator frequency is 40 kHz
8. Paul says: "Two or three output transistors just will not hack it, you have to think big".
9. The COP of the cell is between 5 and 10
10. He started with plans from Kevin of WaterForFuel.com and modified them.  I have Kevin's data on order but I don't those plans really matter any more with all the extra information received today.
11. He uses a standard MSD 200-amp high performance alternator to supply the current via the battery.

This is actualy not how Meyer did it as his electronics found and auto-locked on to the resonant point of the cell and subsequently tracked it.  Paul's design is a long way from being perfect as most of the power does not produce hydroxy gas and the consequential loss of vast amounts of water makes it somewhat impractical except for stationary generators beside an unlimited source of water.

His unit with a less aggressive output drive, placed in a conventional electrolyser box like shown in D16.pdf, could well be a working solution.

Patrick
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 28, 2007, 05:09:19 AM
I'm new here and don't know all the politics, etc. buy HissyfitNihilism seems like an ass to me.  If you haven't anything constructive to offer, why don't you fuck off!!!

Can we say fuck off here?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on September 28, 2007, 05:21:36 AM
Excuse my previous post.  It looks like it may have been in error.  I just read the sarcastic reply he had to ashtweth.  I read back further on his posts and see he is trying to explain his understanding.

Looks like I'm the ass here.  Also, the two of them may just need to get a room already.    ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 06:20:05 AM
Erm, the field built is hardly 1+1, I do not know the exact figure, but to test out a hypothesis I rewound my levitation coil head with bifilar winding and it is "my" opinion that the field was more than twice the equivilent singular winding and the levitation of a half pound/233 gram steel ball bearing at only 21 volts 2 amps, while it is not scientific proof my video below shows an example of bifilar winding on levitation.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AelopbRoCQE (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AelopbRoCQE)

Keep your hair on!  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil)
Quote
Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 

Yes...it is multiplied by two, the number of windings.  But it is the same energy storage as a single coil with an equal number of total windings.  The idea that bifilar winding gives some great multiple of the inductive energy storage over a single-filar coil of same total turns is simply wrong and can easily be disproven by simply doing the experiment.  All wiki means is that the coils will aid each other if in phase (i.e. 1+1=2x) and oppose each other if anti-phase (i.e. 1-1=0x).  The idea that hundreds of thousands of times energy storage is magically achieved by bifilar winding is just pure rubbish.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 07:45:35 AM
Heck no, if I had to take a guess I would say somewhere between 3 to 4 times greater, at 250,000 my steel ball bearing would have struck the head sending everything into orbit!  ;D

Do you think it was 250,000 times stronger?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 08:03:42 AM
I am actually still trying to get more information on the Tesla bifilar coil, my own experments have shown some interesting results when parallel fed, also if you tie one output to the input of the other then feed as shown.

input
----cccccc-----|
               |
|--------------|
|
|-----cccccc----   
                  output

You get a much greater BEMF than that from a simular singular would coil with the same number of turns.
eg 50 turns each winding on the bifilar, 100 turns on the singular wound coil, the only way I can think that would happen is if the magnetic field potential is greater in the bifilar.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 09:12:31 AM
For the life of me I do not know why I went along with this resonating of tubes thing, I guess I got caught up in the excitement  ::)

I believe very strongly that Meyers was NOT looking at the physical resonance of the tubes but in fact was looking at the resonance of a series resonant circuit, eg a coils and capacitors in series!, in this case the tubes would be the capacitor in question!, physical resonance when submerged in water would be so dampened down as to be unimportant.

If you can find the value of your inductors and the capacitance of your tubes then you can work out the resonant frequency, to find the resonant frequency is...

F=1/(2Pi(SQRT(LC))

In laymans terms, thats F = 1 divided by (2 x Pi x SQRT(L x C)), calculate the inner parenthasis first L x C, then get the square root of this, then multiply by 6.283(eg 2 x Pi) then do a 1 over, on your calculator it should look like [1/x]

Where F=resonant frequency, L=inductance of coil, C=capacitance of tubes.

A good LC bridge meter should be able to read the capacitance of the tubes while they are submerged in the water.

Once you have that frequency, try tuning the high frequency pulse to it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 10:12:32 AM
I've had this discussion a number of times, if the wires were bare side by side touching then the magnetic potential would be shorted out, in effect it might as well only be one winding, by keeping the windings seperate they reinforce the magnetic potential in each other.


If they can touch, and they can, they can just as well be a single wire.  If the surface area is the same and the cross section is the same, there would be no difference even counting skin effect. 

Hissyfit
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gustav22 on September 28, 2007, 12:52:14 PM
I'm trying to build onto an idea posted by tao et al. regarding the speed of sound in water and related calculations.

If you have a set of tuning forks, consisting of one fork tuned to a tone such as C flat
and several others forks tuned to 1, 2, 3 ... octaves above and/or below, all of them will resonate if only one of them is struck.

Example: If the frequency of the biggest  fork is per chance 2675 Hz
the frequency of the next smaller fork would be 5350 Hz to be one octave higher and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 10700 Hz and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 21400 Hz and
the frequency of the next smaller one would be 42800 Hz and
so on.

That's like always doubling the frequency, such as:
1 (basic frequency)
2 (one ocatve up)
4 (next octave)
8 (next octave)
16
32, 64, 128, ...

...... concentric cylinders 4 inches [0.1016 m = 101.6 mm] long formed the water capacitor of the fuel cell in the volume of water. The outside cylinder was 0.75 inch  in outside diameter; the inner cylinder was 0.5 inch [12.7 mm] in outside diameter.

Spacing from the outside of the inner cylinder to the  inner surface of the outside cylinder was 0.0625 inch [0.0015875 m = 1.5875 mm]. Resonance in the circuit was achieved at a 26 volt applied pulse to the primary coil of the toroid at 0 KHz, [ this must be a mistake/omission/alteration !?

Variations of the process and apparatus may be evident to those skilled in the art.

I take it that this is a quote from a SM patent (the watercar SM, not the TPU SM)

Here the "resonance cavity" i.e. gap between the inner and outer tube is given as 1.5875 mm (see quote)
the length of the tubes is given as 101.6 mm (see quote)
Divide the two:
101.6 / 1.5875 = 64
that means that tube length (i.e. height of water column) is seven octaves of the gap and thus auto-resonating to the same basic freq.

And at the same time:
outside diameter of small tube is given as 12.7 mm
the length of the tubes is 101.6 mm
Divide the two:
101.6 / 12.7 = 8
that's 4 octaves and thus auto-resonating to the same basic freq.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 28, 2007, 04:17:29 PM
ok guys its late here in oz i think i have the circuit complete

i tested with voltmeter and while i couldnt see pulsing (using digital multimeter)
the voltage would change when i changed frequencies

and then i didnt have any bulbs on hand so i just put a diode accross terminals
and while it didnt pulse so much i could change the colour of it by changing frequencies

so i assume its working? tomorrow i will get a proper bulb and see how it goes

but my altmeter isnt working? Could i have wired it up incorrectly? i followed the diagram
but im thinking the diagram and my altmeter have different positive / negative, i cant
see the needle move at all so im not sure?

anyone have suggestions on that?

thanks
pete
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 28, 2007, 09:09:20 PM
some of you may not like me for this, but i guess i'll see what the outcome of it is going to be.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 09:19:23 PM
Read it earlier  ;)

"grabs popcorn and waits for fireworks"

some of you may not like me for this, but i guess i'll see what the outcome of it is going to be.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 28, 2007, 09:35:47 PM
Well, I've just about reached the limits of testing that I can do, so far no signs of extra HHO for my power input, I've gone over everything, used distilled as well as tap water, ramped up and down the frequencies but so far I'm getting no better than a 20 maybe 25% efficiency, so I'm still waiting, has anyone out there managed to match Ravi yet, any takers with several hundred percent efficiency!?!?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on September 28, 2007, 10:58:23 PM
lol altmeter i meant ammeter

ok guys its late here in oz i think i have the circuit complete

i tested with voltmeter and while i couldnt see pulsing (using digital multimeter)
the voltage would change when i changed frequencies

and then i didnt have any bulbs on hand so i just put a diode accross terminals
and while it didnt pulse so much i could change the colour of it by changing frequencies

so i assume its working? tomorrow i will get a proper bulb and see how it goes

but my altmeter isnt working? Could i have wired it up incorrectly? i followed the diagram
but im thinking the diagram and my altmeter have different positive / negative, i cant
see the needle move at all so im not sure?

anyone have suggestions on that?

thanks
pete
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 03:16:15 AM


A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 


Yes...it is multiplied by two, the number of windings.  But it is the same energy storage as a single coil with an equal number of total windings.  The idea that bifilar winding gives some great multiple of the inductive energy storage over a single-filar coil of same total turns is simply wrong and can easily be disproven by simply doing the experiment.  All wiki means is that the coils will aid each other if in phase (i.e. 1+1=2x) and oppose each other if anti-phase (i.e. 1-1=0x).  The idea that hundreds of thousands of times energy storage is magically achieved by bifilar winding is just pure rubbish.

Quote from: HissyfitNihilism
Here is something for you to ponder:  You say that when you put two bifilar-wound coils in parallel you get "some interesting results".  The truth of the matter is that you get exactly the same results (inductance, energy storage, Q) as you would get using a single coil made with larger wire, except for skin effect.  Think about it...there is no voltage difference between the two wires at any point so they could just as well be bare wires touching each other inside a thin tube that insulates the pair from the next turn.  If they can touch, and they can, they can just as well be a single wire.  If the surface area is the same and the cross section is the same, there would be no difference even counting skin effect. 

Bifilar coils placed in parallel offer no advantage or difference compared to a single wire coil except possibly skin effect based Q improvement if the pair of wires offers more surface area than the equivalent larger single wire.  The extreme proof of this is Litz wire, where many many strands are wound "filar". The only reason Litz wire is used is to increase the Q and AC high frequency current handling by reducing the skin effect. 

An inductor wound with Litz wire has the same inductance and energy storage as an inductor wound with the same turns and size and core but with a single fat conductor. 

Regarding placing the bifilar coils in series, as Tesla's patent suggests, I very seriously doubt that you obtain any greater BEMF compared to a single-wound coil of rwice the turns, same geometry.  Teslas actual legal patent claims tell the tale.  He did it to lower the self-resonant frequency and eliminate discrete capacitors.  That is all there is to it.  The rest is popular ou mytholgy.  I suggest you measure again, this time properly, and see for yourself.  If anything, the increased interwinding effective capacitance will reduce the peak unloaded BEMF voltage because it will provide a larger transient current path as the mag field collapses.

There are so many delusions based on back emf and lead acid batteries...you know better RB...I've read you over on Steorn.  This whole bifilar myth is another bit of ou magic silliness fog factor.

@HissyfitNihilism

I strongly suggest that you buy a magnetometer and test bifilars on iron core by yourself.

Bifilars, depending on how connected, can increase or decrease the magnetic field generation.
This have nothing to do with energie storage.


B.T.W.  Litz wires do not behave like bifilars, not because of skin effect, but because, at some points, one wire is on top of the other wire.
That kinda intercept the magnetic field at those precise points, don't you agree ?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 04:51:16 AM
No.  I don't agree.  Your understanding of magnetics obviously lacks any realism and came from a comic book.  The strength of the field has everything to do with energy storage...where did you think the energy was stored? 
????

what is the reality then ?

Displacement of energy in a wire create magnetic field and vice versa.
I never saw any capacitors exibiting a magnetic field, perhap you can show me one...

Did you ever tested bifilars ?
What was the outcome, at the ends of the core rode, compaire to a single wire coil ?

I still suggest you buy a magnetometer and test bifilars by yourself.
Has for myself, i will still use bifilars, in it multiple types, where i see them fit based on my own experiments.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 06:49:21 AM
It is very hard to tell what you are trying to say, but I think you are telling me that inductors do not store energy in their magnetic fields; only capacitors store energy...is that what you are saying?

I have done many experiments.  They have shown me that bifilar windings offer no advantage except to increase the normally-unwanted self-capacitance as Tesla's patent claims clearly state.

Your theories about "energy displacement" in wires are nonsensical.  Have you been studying at Panacea University?
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.
But sure, that "parasitic" capacitance, must be taken into account when developing an electric circuit where capacitance matter.
Resistance can be an unwanted thing in an inductor too.

I don't really care about if electrons are moving in a wire or if they are put in a higher state of energie.
Suffice to say that something is happening in those wires.
And no matter the way you think it work, you get the same effects.

The biggest difference in bifilars compair to single wire coil, lenght for lenght/size for size, is not in capacitance.
It is the inductance difference.

Magnetic field lag behind current, or is it behind potential...  ::)
What bifilars do is put them in sync or in opposition depending of how you make the connection.

Bifilar are commonly use to reduce or nullify self-inductance or nullify the magnetic field collapse.
But bifilar can also do the opposite.
It only depends on how they are connected in your circuit.


@all
Tuning your bifilar coil(s) could be to water resonance, earth mag field, tubes, etc...
But, what if everythings are tune the proper frequency or one of the harmonic of the base beat...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 29, 2007, 09:26:34 AM
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.



Errr, energy is stored in an inductor, thats what the magnetic field is, when the field collapses the stored energy is released in the form of BEMF.

I understand your thinking, that only a capacitor or similar stores energy and it does seem strange that a wire coil can store energy, but there you have it, a wire coil stores energy in the form of a magnetic field.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza on September 29, 2007, 04:43:57 PM
This is for "Hiss...whatever the puck" why don't you go the the right section of this forum and leave this thread alone. There is a whole section for people like you. It is the skeptics thread. This here section is dedicated to people that are set to build what you deny. So please don't come here to interrupt our progress. If you don't believe it can work than what the hell are you doing reading this forum?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 08:18:46 PM
It is not the inductance that store energy, it is the capacitance, and in inductors capacitance is a really low one.



Errr, energy is stored in an inductor, thats what the magnetic field is, when the field collapses the stored energy is released in the form of BEMF.

I understand your thinking, that only a capacitor or similar stores energy and it does seem strange that a wire coil can store energy, but there you have it, a wire coil stores energy in the form of a magnetic field.
You might be right, stored energy in the form of a magnetic field in coils, but i don't view it like that.

"Electricity" and magnetisim are the same things but in different forms.
Both travel differently in a wire, and giving the proper physical placement of that wire, compaire to itself, you can favor the magnetisim way.

The way i see it is that inductors favor magnetisim as a way to travel the energy trough the wire.
The apply energy always stay the same but split in different forms.

Putting tiny magnets next to each other will get you a bigger overall magnetic field.
That is what self inductance do.

The collapse of a magnetic field have specific effects.
The stronger the field, the stronger the effects.
Use were those effets best apply...


"Suffice to say that something is happening in those wires"

I think this single statement sums up your true knowledge of electronics fundamentals. 

Everything else you say is either absolutely incorrect or completely misstated. 

Good luck...you are in the right place to have your misinformation strongly reinforced.  There is a vast majority here who know as little or less than you do and who profess to know much more.
Then, enlight me.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 29, 2007, 09:35:55 PM
Here a better explanation of what i mean when i say "Use were those effets best apply".

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3247.0.html

Even if that tread was to clarify the terms "Back EMF" and "Collapsing magnetic field".
It give a good understanding of when, and how, coils should be use.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 30, 2007, 03:52:41 AM
I added my two cents here to dispute a false claim that a bifilar wound inductor stores 250,000 times the energy of a single-filar wound inductor of the same turns.  Now we have idiots arguing that inductors store no energy at all; only capacitors do!

The level of stupidity and groping in the dark through endless falsehoods and misinformation spewed here will no doubt prevent anyone from ever duplicating Meyers work, even if it is repeatable.  So many "experts" asserting so much bullshit...it's comical.  Progress?  LOL
The "idiot" is still waiting for a lesson.
And don't say you have no time to loose with idiots, you are already loosing plenty of time trying to insult me.


b.t.w RunningBare
You are right.
Inductors store energy in the form of magnetic field.
Only true idiots are not able to study more and change their mind.  :D

But i am still convince that serie bifilar coil does concentrate more of the energy in form of magnetic field then single one.
Is it 250 K times ?
I don't know, i never tryed to calculate it.
But it is more for sure.


Here a simple experiment:

Take one 100 cm wire #32
Turn it over an soft iron core.
Apply 1.5 Volt
See how much weight you can lift.

Take two 50 cm wire #32
Turn then over the same core in the bifilar way, hook them in serie.
Apply 1.5 Volt
See how much weight you can lift.

Now.
Tell me why i can lift more weight with my serie bifilars coils.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 04:21:35 AM
i have updated the pdf.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on September 30, 2007, 04:57:21 AM
Excuse my previous post.  It looks like it may have been in error.  I just read the sarcastic reply he had to ashtweth.  I read back further on his posts and see he is trying to explain his understanding.

Looks like I'm the ass here.  Also, the two of them may just need to get a room already.    ;D

He goes back and EDITS his posts , he is mentally ill i am still waiting for Stefan to remove him or who ever moderates here. This is the banned Humbugger BTW, he follows me around the intter net like a stalking female, (he has been banned other places BTW) plus post skepticism as i beleive (those who know me trust me) he is working for Big oil.
Read between his lines, he is not very mentally stable, and allot of people think his posts are usefull, but dont realize.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 30, 2007, 06:15:26 AM
Because you are hallucinating?  I tried the experiment and there is no difference.
Then i will have to find a better way to quantify the result of that little experiment.
Aside from counting the number of paper clips picked up.
Any suggestion on how i should proceed to properly quantify the weight ?



So...
You are saying that Tesla was wrong in patent 512340, section 95 to section 5, and, after about 120 years later, people are still misinformed about serie bifilar ?
Seem weird to me, but could be true.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Super God on September 30, 2007, 06:16:33 AM
Sorry to change the subject from all the bickering, but...How can we scale this Meyer setup to gas production rates to run a vehicle?  Ideally we wouldn't want to take up alot of space, so should we have more than one pulse generator connected to sections of tubes, or should we just setup more than one cell entirely?  I can't wait to get started on my own cell.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: tao on September 30, 2007, 06:50:15 AM
...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 30, 2007, 07:20:30 AM
Read the patent and especially the claims.  Tesla never discusses any DC electromagnets.  The claims specifically talk about lowering the self inductance by raising the effective interwinding capacitance.  These are AC phenomena only and have nothing to do with DC battery-operated electromagnets. 

Count your paper clips.  You are hallucinating.
I know what the claim is.
Mind you, the patent does not state AC, but frequencies.
That can also be pulsed DC.

I see your point about DC battery-operated electromagnets tho.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on September 30, 2007, 12:20:40 PM
"grabs popcorn and waits for fireworks"
"l have updated the pdf"

Ok, l'm confussed to put it mildly. As a potential user of this technology l thought l was replicating something that worked, all it needed was "tuning" and we were all working on the same page so to speak. Now two postings from spewing have to date gone totally unnoticed or commented on. l'm starting to believe peoples motives in this is the process not the effing end result. So Stan told porkies, well he was human after all not an effing God, lets get over it. Were do we go from here ? ls it all BS or can l still produce hohoho and run my truck for all the righteous reasons? (shuv it up big business, shuv it up the government, and greed )

 What are you saying Spewing? it does work but l need slots in the pipes to let the gas out, need sh1t loads of amps now instead of volts, or both. Ravi and Dave were having a lend of themselves with the big bubbles, (well l spose they did disappear, why?) conditioning is crap? l'm no inventor but l can and want to produce sh1t loads of hohoho that l think l can put to good use, not stuff around trying to make the unworkable work, l'm to bloody old for that.

Runningbar, l presume from your posting that you cant get it to produce as good as Ravi and Dave and from reading you have put a lot into it, sooo what now? more amps, slots? or retire to the lounge chair and watch the sideshow cos it dont work?

Hissyfit, for Cs sake post something that helps instead of snipeing ya prick. l dont pretend to know enough to comment on the tec talk going on here, but it sounds like you might know something that could contribute and possibly get something producing enough gas to do more than fart, or is snipeing your way of getting your jollys, end of story.

Well l spose l've offended everyone now, l'm not sorry if we can move on and answer the ? of if it can produce more than standard electrolosis or whatever you call it, or l'll just go over to the Griffin thread and do it that way, at least l dont need the friggin technology degree to understand it

Regards
Peter (no, l'm not bitter and twisted, just pissed at the possibility of been conned)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on September 30, 2007, 12:29:50 PM
Hi Peter,

First of all  i must say I totally agree with you. I think this whole thread has gone a bit haywire...
I've read spewings document and as far as i can see i totally contradicts the operating principles explained by Stan Meyer.
I think a lot of people put forward their own (unverified) theories at the wrong place.

I am still gonna continue with replicating the demo electrolyser. I have the pulser ready. Just waiting for my acrylic tube to start building the cell. My SS tubes are cut to size and ready to go in. I'm gonna have 6 tubes of 20 centimeters.

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Duranza 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....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: motofox 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..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare 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..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 06:22:01 PM
here you go

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jewg71L2uig
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 30, 2007, 06:59:55 PM
here you go

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jewg71L2uig



So what was the power driving the alternator?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 07:04:29 PM
it ran by itself. Thank you
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP 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

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 30, 2007, 08:42:39 PM
The point is, how much energy was the 120v ac motor taking?


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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 08:55:26 PM
thats a good question. probably about the same as stanley meyers. im not measuring the driver motor.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 30, 2007, 09:04:30 PM
The equinox video stated 0.5amps, so the power would be 120x0.5=60 watts

thats a good question. probably about the same as stanley meyers. im not measuring the driver motor.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 10:57:54 PM
The equinox video stated 0.5amps, so the power would be 120x0.5=60 watts

thats a good question. probably about the same as stanley meyers. im not measuring the driver motor.

i was unaware that there was a motor ac or dc of that size that ran on 0.5 amps as big is the one in the video. i have searched and came up with a paper shreader motor which was 2.0 amps, and some other kinda motor that is 0.5 amps, but none of them would even turn the alternator under no load.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-0A-AC-Motor-in-Paper-Shredder-2-amp-115v-120v-60Hz_W0QQitemZ280156654780QQihZ018QQcategoryZ71400QQcmdZViewItem


http://www.electronicsurplus.com/commerce/catalog/product.jsp?product_id=71004

if you do happen to find a motor about the size stanley was using in his video that runs on 0.5 amps please let me know. i'm sure if i could find one of those i would completely forget about hydrogen and start looking for these motors so i could really create something overunity.

i would almost sell my car to see a motor that size run on 0.5 amps just free spinning. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on September 30, 2007, 11:05:50 PM
Now you get the picture ;-)

The Lawton circuit may only consume milliamps, but the drive motor is going to draw amps, there is no 0,5amp 120volt motor that would turn an alternator without burning out.


i was unaware that there was a motor ac or dc of that size that ran on 0.5 amps as big is the one in the video. i have searched and came up with a paper shreader motor which was 2.0 amps, and some other kinda motor that is 0.5 amps, but none of them would even turn the alternator under no load.

http://cgi.ebay.com/2-0A-AC-Motor-in-Paper-Shredder-2-amp-115v-120v-60Hz_W0QQitemZ280156654780QQihZ018QQcategoryZ71400QQcmdZViewItem


http://www.electronicsurplus.com/commerce/catalog/product.jsp?product_id=71004

if you do happen to find a motor about the size stanley was using in his video that runs on 0.5 amps please let me know. i'm sure if i could find one of those i would completely forget about hydrogen and start looking for these motors so i could really create something overunity.

i would almost sell my car to see a motor that size run on 0.5 amps just free spinning. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on September 30, 2007, 11:11:54 PM
lol, you silly man, lawd. you tickled me funny bone.

i have this in my pdf if you can cifer it out...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on September 30, 2007, 11:35:42 PM
Peter...

What if someone could strip away all the bullshit and confusion?  Would that be useful?  Would that help you be able to decide what works and what is someone's delusions?  You can tell where science is going on because theories are clearly stated, tests are devised to verify or break them and myths are crushed and tossed out.  Real science uses brutally honest methods to converge on real solutions.

I don't proclaim to know how to do this; never have.  Many here say they have great insights on how it should work, yet they cannot communicate it nor build it.  The myths and jargonistic hoo ha are never challenged.  Its a mutual admiration society based on who can out-bullshit the other.  Nobody produces successful replications here.  It seems like you are just now figuring that out!

All I'm doing is pointing out the bullshit; some of it anyway.  If you follow every thread here that claims success at anything, you will find that there is never a definition of what success is, no agreement on how to achieve it, forty three theories on how it works, nine guys claiming guru status and some of the most "creative" measurement techniques ever devised to avoid making actual straightforward measurements.  The claims and reported claims and stories of intrigue are endless.  The myths myriad.

If you stand up and shout "bullshit", the stonethrowers come out.  It's like a religion; a cult.  In the end (and there is no end...) each joker who claims success ends up getting into a hissy fit and withdrawing his earth-shattering info or giving some story about MIB hovering over him in a black helicopter and crawls off into the woodwork. 

Nobody communicates anything that ends up converging on a solution.  It's a giant circle-jerk club.

Good luck, my friend.  Meanwhile, I'd suggest building or buying an electric car and putting up wind or solar.  Waiting to run your car on water based on work done by these open-source engineer dudes around here is going to mean waiting forever and building a million projects that don't work.

HissyfitNihilism
Now, that is a usefull post.
I mean, a post that i can clearly understand the faqs.
It also made me re-realise that most web sites/forum are not the right places to learn stuff.
That is sad, but truth.

Thanks for openning my eyes.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 01, 2007, 12:03:07 AM
The real truth comes from doing it yourself, I do not take the word of skeptics or believers, skeptics are quite easy to spot so easily ignored, some "so called" believers on the other hand are not easy to spot, their purpose is to try and get you to waste your time, their motives could be anything, but I would say they are just malicious pranksters.
While as a group we help each other out, each and every individual has a responcibilty to find out for themselves, I take this phylosiphy because if I screw up then I can only blame myself.

Now, that is a usefull post.
I mean, a post that i can clearly understand the faqs.
It also made me re-realise that most web sites/forum are not the right places to learn stuff.
That is sad, but truth.

Thanks for openning my eyes.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on October 01, 2007, 12:27:06 AM
here you go

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jewg71L2uig

@Spewing

so how many Watts of power did your drive motor draw
in this video ?

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 12:59:19 AM
here you go

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jewg71L2uig

@Spewing

so how many Watts of power did your drive motor draw
in this video ?

Many thanks.

i think it has a rating of 9 amps labeled on the side. i didn't measure it because i dont have that kinda amp meter. but you know it's gotta be using 9 amps if it is on the side of the motor.

you gonna use amps or some kinda energy to turn it, theres no getting outta it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: hartiberlin on October 01, 2007, 01:19:17 AM
Okay, so no overunity yet,
but 9 amps x 120 Volts from the grid, right ?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: TheNOP on October 01, 2007, 01:55:42 AM
@ RunningBare

Not that i don't beleive in the WFC anymore.
I will still try to replicate it, learning more stuff on the road.

But let face it, look at this forum, globaly.
His point of view might not be far from the reality.
It look like there are more ignorant peoples, like me, trying to replicate than knowledgable ones.
When asked for specific data, they can't give for X reasons.
How do they know what they are claiming is real then ?

Don't get me wrong, there are still some good stuff being posted.
But trying to split the faqs from myths can get pretty hard sometime for someone with less knowledge in that art.




Got to go to the library monday.
Guess what books i will borrow.  :D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 01, 2007, 02:30:09 AM

Quote
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jewg71L2uig

I just watched the video listed here.  Is he claiming that he is running the ac motor that powers the alternator on just the 9v battery?  I watched it twice and I think that is what was said.  The gas produced looked promissing.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: KISS on October 01, 2007, 03:30:51 AM
Finally got the concept of Coil Orientation, for VIC, as per Stan Meyer's page 7-17 figure 7-1, and the Correct Connections and to WFC.
Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 04:12:22 AM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12667;image

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12668;image

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=12669;image

No the small 9 volt battery was not running the alternator. Running bare brought to my attention that stanley was getting overunity because the AC Driver motor was running on .5 amps. i told him if you care to scroll up that it was impossable. he was proving a point. where does this end?

please read my pdf again and again.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3079.0;attach=13201
Thanks, Hydro
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 04:38:20 AM
Now that everything is cleared up. i really hope whomever watches my video "In Memory Of Stanley Meyers" can kick back and appreciate it for what it is and what it was meant to be. Stanly was a smart man and i respect him and i always will.

Hydrocars
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 01, 2007, 08:01:16 AM
Actually Spewing, you made a very good even if unintentional point with that video.

Others should note the confusion and how easy it is to see the wrong thing, despite the mains motor being an obvious componant in the setup some folk only saw the 9 volt battery and straight away assumed this to be the only source of power,
Please guys, do yourself a favor, get all the information before jumping to conclusions, but I'll give you a little hint, a 9 volt battery of that size would have burnt out in seconds trying to power that alternator, the only thing the battery was powering were the 555 chips and LED.

Now that everything is cleared up. i really hope whomever watches my video "In Memory Of Stanley Meyers" can kick back and appreciate it for what it is and what it was meant to be. Stanly was a smart man and i respect him and i always will.

Hydrocars
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: esaruoho on October 01, 2007, 08:04:41 AM
My understanding is that Tesla also studied pulsed DC.
im really surprised nobody even bothered to read the erfinder suggested   tesla patent  "apparatus for creating ozone".
in the last page, where the claims are, it is completely obvious that he is talking about  pulsed DC  being used to create the ozone.
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/patents/p-568177.068/index.htm (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/patents/p-568177.068/index.htm)

theres something there in pulsed DC, and possibly an understanding of the patent would assist in understanding how to improve the stanley meyer replication.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 01, 2007, 08:35:49 AM
To a coil AC and pulsed DC are very much the same, anything that produces a changing current at a high enough frequency in a coil will produce a changing magnetic field and skin effect, but a coil powered by steady DC might as well just be a long length of wire, it has no effect except to introduce a DC resistance.


im really surprised nobody even bothered to read the erfinder suggested   tesla patent  "apparatus for creating ozone".
in the last page, where the claims are, it is completely obvious that he is talking about  pulsed DC  being used to create the ozone.
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/patents/p-568177.068/index.htm (http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/patents/p-568177.068/index.htm)

theres something there in pulsed DC, and possibly an understanding of the patent would assist in understanding how to improve the stanley meyer replication.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 07:53:26 PM
i have to admit,,, it is a good invention. if you was to put the alternator onto the car for a second alternator, it hardly needs any torq to run the cell. and you don't need to have a battery connected to it for it to work, i'm assuming with the right diodes this alternator would run 6 cells like mine the way i have it.

i feel it would be worth the trouble. unfortanitly i am not rich, so i cant afford 6 cells, it killed me to get the one i got.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 08:09:58 PM
my diodes are rated 1000 volts and 30 amps. yet over a amp at 12 volts they get hot. i can understand this because my mosfet runs cool when on a 12 volt battery, but when that 12 volts drops to 11 the mosfet will start heating very quickly. thats why i keep a full charge on my battery.

do any of you know of a diode that is rated at 12 to 20 volts " the voltage varies comming from the alternator", and 18 amps or so that will really supply 18 amps without getting hot??? that would be awsome, i would notepad the part number till i got the money to get them.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 01, 2007, 08:26:25 PM
If 1000 volt 30 amp diodes are getting hot then the BEMF from the alternator must be higher than a 1000 volts, the volts rating for a diode is its reverse voltage handling capability, if the voltage is higher than the diodes rated voltage then the amps will not matter much because the voltage is going through the diode in reverse heating up the pn junction, even a few milliamps at say 1500 volts is going to be a lot of energy at the diodes pn junction.
If you have a multimeter capable of reading up to 2000 volts, try measuring the voltage at the diodes with respect to the point where the three coils meet.
my diodes are rated 1000 volts and 30 amps. yet over a amp at 12 volts they get hot. i can understand this because my mosfet runs cool when on a 12 volt battery, but when that 12 volts drops to 11 the mosfet will start heating very quickly. thats why i keep a full charge on my battery.

do any of you know of a diode that is rated at 12 to 20 volts " the voltage varies comming from the alternator", and 18 amps or so that will really supply 18 amps without getting hot??? that would be awsome, i would notepad the part number till i got the money to get them.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 01, 2007, 08:49:00 PM
oh lord, something else i will have to figure out. by any chance you think we should start a new thread in a proper place just to work on getting this system up to par? if so im me somewhere.

i love my alternator lol
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 02, 2007, 12:01:45 AM
i have started conditioning and after 1 run through of the 7 steps (i missed step 7 cause it was too much effort for that amount of time) my inner tubes are already going white.

Fair bit of brown stuff gets generated in the early steps but less and less as amps go up or maybe its time
its run for goes down i dunno, anyway

I think alot of the brown stuff sediments to the bottom as the bottom of my tubes are getting pretty
dirty, i think that i am gonna have to pull it all apart to clean them which is gonna be a hassle but im
gonna run the cycle a few more times first.

On another note, i just remembered when watching a video on tap water vs purified water he used an
electrolyzer to seperate the water and said the brown muck in tap water was all the impurities, when he
did it with purified water there was almost none, what i find interesting is if that was the case then why after
conditioning the tubes would the brown stuff stop being made if it was related to the water???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gculpex on October 02, 2007, 03:21:36 AM
In other threads they said it was from impurities on the steel( grease. oil).
I wonder about the chlorine that's added to tap water and how this
affects the results.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 02, 2007, 03:28:14 AM
yeah i wonder how the chlorine affects it too

smells a bit like a swimming pool after i have run through the long duration steps!

anyway so far the tubes are turning white like there supposed to, but the brown stuff
is starting to seriously attach itself to the outer tubes and the bottoms of the inners
so i guess i am gonna have to pull it all apart and clean those areas, hope i dont have to start
from scratch again

we have water restrictions where i live in australia (which means we are supposed to use as little water as possible)
and i feel guilty pouring all this water out lol!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on October 02, 2007, 06:12:50 AM
Raiv's Tubes size are coming we need to source the acrylic? in Oz, just a tease for the builders here.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on October 02, 2007, 07:28:01 AM
Hey guys, I have reached 300% efficiency. I bought a donkey, He eats my grass, so I dont have to waste gas mowing, I can use the poo for my garden, he runs on water, and I can ride him to work!  ;D
 
Just kidding, but I did manage to produce hydroxy gas with as little as 7.5 watts of power in the new cell I made and posted some new videos of it working. I have not measured the gas output so I make no claim it is OU. It is made from 8 cone shaped stainless plates as seen in my original video from an old cream separator. Its a new design that has never been done before and It creates some interesting results. Also some screwball videos of me ignighting the bubbles because it's fun!

Check it out..
http://www.youtube.com/VariablePulse (http://www.youtube.com/VariablePulse)



(http://www.frontiernet.net/~djctek/celltopview.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 02, 2007, 07:36:47 AM
looks good but its very dark

are you making it that dark on purpose?

anyway from what i can see looks alright you get some big bubbles from the coney things!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on October 02, 2007, 07:53:34 AM
Its dark because it was 4am, Poor lighting, and my camera sucks, I made these videos a few days ago, It was my first try at it, I'm building a device to measure its output and will post it on video for the world to see... Not trying to pull over anything, That's why I stated, I have not measured the gas output, I dont know what it's putting out I just thought it was interesting, the 20 watt video is better than the 14 watt video, but if you look close in the 14 watt, you will see at 1 point the amps @ 2 and the volts @ 3.7ish thus the 7.5 watt reading. I have been busy filling orders for the pulse gen so I have not had much time to play.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 02, 2007, 11:46:49 AM
ok so i disassembled one to see the brown stuff

and there was hardly any on the inner tube, there was some at the bottm so i sanded it off
it came of pretty easy so i probably dont need to use sandpaper. but judging by how little brown stuff there
was i probably wont disassemble the others just yet, i will let em keep going for a while yet

As you can see the inner pipe is starting to turn white (apart from where i wiped it off disassmbling it)
i think i will lose more re assembling them together which is a bummer but oh well.

The inside of the outer pipe looks fairly dirty at least at the top and bottom so not sure what to do about that yet

Anyway take a look tell me what you think, is it looking alright?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on October 02, 2007, 12:12:16 PM
l'm impressed, l aint got nothin yet

Regards

Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gilles on October 02, 2007, 01:31:14 PM
I was wondering about the the amounts of amps used in the conditioning process sent by Ravi. My tubes are way longer than most and the quantity of tubes differs in many cases here. 1Amp to lets say 15 cm tube puts much more stress to the metal and produced more heat/corrosion than 1 amp in 45 cm tube, at least to my logic and what iv noticed. So I was wondering if instead of conditioning at 0,5 amp, i should really take into account how much the tube setup is different and for instance multiply/divide it with some coefficent.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 02, 2007, 02:09:39 PM
For me the best conditioning has been done by adjusting power until the bubbles just begin to flow and run for several hours, basically I do this just before I go to bed, in the morning I empty out the water and leave it to dry, presently the tubes themselves are drawing 10ma with a nice easy flow of bubbles.

I was wondering about the the amounts of amps used in the conditioning process sent by Ravi. My tubes are way longer than most and the quantity of tubes differs in many cases here. 1Amp to lets say 15 cm tube puts much more stress to the metal and produced more heat/corrosion than 1 amp in 45 cm tube, at least to my logic and what iv noticed. So I was wondering if instead of conditioning at 0,5 amp, i should really take into account how much the tube setup is different and for instance multiply/divide it with some coefficent.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 03, 2007, 01:46:23 PM
hey guys some more stuff from me

i know this is probably basic stuff but anyway

first pic is my tubes going white and the outer tubes going rusty, pretty badly by the look of it
one of them is the one i cleaned yesterday which you can easily tell, im not gonna clean the others just
yet maybe this weekend

the 2nd is the first inductor i have ever wound, does it look correct? I have no idea how many turns it is
as i couldnt be bothered keeping count as i was watching tv, anyway does it look right?

Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 04, 2007, 06:25:37 AM
More questions

These are probably basic as well but anyway

Would the fet need protection from anything coming back from the inductor(s)?
And if so what? A chunky diode maybe?

Im assuming something comes back and thats why it can handle 200v?

Thanks again
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Spewing on October 04, 2007, 06:49:56 AM
im not sure what your asking on the fet, if you're asking me i didn't have any problems with it. also i'm not trying to get overunity anymore, i am more focused on finding the cell with the best output straight dc.

i was so lost trying to find overunity i forgot the real reason to produce hydrogen, and thats to produce enough to run a car HOD. so i have decided to forget about over unity and start looking for something that was possible. i came to the conclusion that if you find the right cell you will be replacing the water in it as it is consumed by the engine, therfor if a cell is running a car it always will have moving water and you want have a heat issue.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 04, 2007, 07:02:17 AM
yeah i dunno what im asking either, i was only asking whoever could answer really lol

i just figured that if im pulsing the cell and its gonna get bigger until resonance, then surely
there will be some sort of back lash towards the circuit itself if that makes sense...

in relation to overunity and cars, yeah my objective is to get it in a car too, while i dont really
care for overunity it would still be nice to achieve, either way the car is the goal

regards

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 04, 2007, 07:21:27 AM
More questions

These are probably basic as well but anyway

Would the fet need protection from anything coming back from the inductor(s)?
And if so what? A chunky diode maybe?

Im assuming something comes back and thats why it can handle 200v?

Thanks again

Hi Saintpoida,

As far as I know there shouldn't be anything coming back from the inductor because of the blocking diode in the circuit. It only allows current in the directions of the cell! Of couse that diode needs to be able to handle the voltage biut i think if you used the "standard" 1n4007 it should be alright.

Also your inductor looks nice! Good work. You will need two of them right? (or one bifilar wound one).

For everyone who hasn't read it I've attached the patent from Stanley where Lawtons/Ravz replication is based on. I strongly suggest reading it because it clears up a whole lot of misconceptions.

I'm still awaiting delivery of my acrylic tube. As soon as that arrives I will replicate Ravz replication  :)

cheers

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 04, 2007, 07:40:36 AM
Thanks dutchy

yeah i have the 1n4007 diode and that inductor is bifilar wound (i hope lol)

two wires side by side is bifilar right??

i still need to order my acrylic yet but i have a bin that im using for conditioning
the rust has seemed to slow down a fair bit now and im also hardly producing brown crud anymore
except on the low amperage, i will see if brown stuff returns when i clean up the outer tubes a bit

when i stop the crud i will put the inductor in and see if that brings back the crud

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: gilles on October 04, 2007, 03:09:47 PM
I accidentally blew up my frequency generator few days ago. Had previously blown up fuse and put some screw instead of it and forgot it there... till I shortcircuited, really smart of me lol

Anyways, I took one PWM motor controller i had bought form ebay with frequency regulator and hooked it up to all 7 tubes. As my setup has long tubes this time, I couldnt put more than 3volts out, because the amps were getting too high with usual tap water and my power supply, which has autmatic 10amps protection switched off. And of course at this low voltage, no gas was produced.
But what was interesting to notice, for the first time, the tubes or smth inside tube started to make sound when I regulated frequency, either with chokes or without. Perhaps wires, but i couldnt make much difference. It had never happened before with smaller ones, and if any sound would come it would be the chokes or the power supply itself.
Dont know how much of help is this information, but when I get to multiply the input voltage to get any productions, I can at least check, if resonation sound inside the tube makes any difference.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on October 04, 2007, 07:17:51 PM
I seriously suggest to check for a short circuit in the tubes, 10 amps is way to high just for 3 volts, a good guess for the sound you heard was the wires creating a strong magnetic field with that kind of current and resonating the tube metal.


I accidentally blew up my frequency generator few days ago. Had previously blown up fuse and put some screw instead of it and forgot it there... till I shortcircuited, really smart of me lol

Anyways, I took one PWM motor controller i had bought form ebay with frequency regulator and hooked it up to all 7 tubes. As my setup has long tubes this time, I couldnt put more than 3volts out, because the amps were getting too high with usual tap water and my power supply, which has autmatic 10amps protection switched off. And of course at this low voltage, no gas was produced.
But what was interesting to notice, for the first time, the tubes or smth inside tube started to make sound when I regulated frequency, either with chokes or without. Perhaps wires, but i couldnt make much difference. It had never happened before with smaller ones, and if any sound would come it would be the chokes or the power supply itself.
Dont know how much of help is this information, but when I get to multiply the input voltage to get any productions, I can at least check, if resonation sound inside the tube makes any difference.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on October 04, 2007, 07:45:23 PM
I brightened up some of the youtube videos I posted to make it easier to see...

www.youtube.com/variablepulse (http://www.youtube.com/variablepulse)

and listed 2 more Lawton pulse "Black Box" on  eBay item # 120168462329

for anyone who's interested.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 10:18:10 AM
after reading the patent posted a little back it says you can calculate the capicantance of the water and staineless
steel

using surface area, dielectric and distance spaced apart

i found a formula but it required the permitivity of the dielectric so does anyone know the permitivity of water?

i have no idea if this is correct but its an idea?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 10:21:16 AM
oh i should say the above is in relation to a resonant circuit

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 05, 2007, 10:30:53 AM
after reading the patent posted a little back it says you can calculate the capicantance of the water and staineless
steel

using surface area, dielectric and distance spaced apart

i found a formula but it required the permitivity of the dielectric so does anyone know the permitivity of water?

i have no idea if this is correct but its an idea?

Hi,

It is mentioned somewhere in Stanley's documents (I think it's the tech brief). I haven't got it at hand but I think I remember it being 78 at 25 degrees celsius.
Should be pretty easy to find using google i guess....

Btw, th acrylic tube came today, so i will start building this weekend.

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 10:44:48 AM
oh i thought permativity was something different to the dielectric value thingy

meh i have no idea what im talking about but if your right then that value sounds about right from my
memory, where is this tech brief thing anyway more reading is always helpful for a newbie like me...

on that note though if we can use that value as permativity then does someone want to use it to find
the resonant frequency of there already built unit and see if that is what its actually resonating at?

im still conditioning and stuff other wise i would try work it out
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 05, 2007, 11:05:49 AM
As you might understand already, the resonant frequency is dependent on several things and hard to exactly calculate. E.g. it is dependent on the water quality, water temperature, size and number of tubes and the used chokes config.

I tried to attach the tech brief, but it keeps coming up with a posting error. I guess it's too big....
I'll try again later

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 11:23:51 AM
well yeah i understand it depends on size and number of plates but that would come down to the capicator side
of the equation, as i understand it capacitors in parallel add and inductors in series add, so when you worked
out one of your tubes, you could just multiply by number that you have or is that too simple thinking?

And as for water quality that brings me to my next question, adjustable inductor

Would i be wrong in thinking this could be made by making two identical inductors and lie them
side by side and as you move one away from the other you would be chaning the inductance??

Or is that too simple thinking again?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 05, 2007, 11:35:19 AM
I guess it is best to calculate a rough figure for the frequency by the known parameters of a specific cell. Then just find the exact spot by changing the frequency with the controller.
Another problem with this cell is that if the water is converted into gas the water level in the cell drops. This changes the desired frequency! So you either have to have a circuit that detects the dropping water level and controls a pump to adjust the water level. OR the frequency needs to be adjusted while the cell is running.
Stanley Meyer had a circuit that tracked the resonance in the cell and kept it running at the exact right frequency....

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 11:49:06 AM
is there somewhere i can get the technical brief from?

cause i can just go download it if its not posting properly
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 05, 2007, 11:55:31 AM
is there somewhere i can get the technical brief from?

cause i can just go download it if its not posting properly

http://www.bgevolution.com/files/

look for the file full meyer brief.pdf

btw there is loads more there...

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 05, 2007, 11:59:24 AM
thanks again dutchy!!!

i guess with my other questions i am trying achieve a way of getting close to the resonant frequency
so it makes it easier to lock onto, i mean if you had an estimate to start with and something to
measure what you were doing, you could go to that start point and hopefully the resonant frequency would
be close by..

and of course i could be way off with anything im saying so please dont hesitate to let me know
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: popeye68 on October 05, 2007, 09:22:38 PM

Check out this video.
Peter Lindemann explaining Meyers patent , looks at it from a different interesting angle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM

Enjoy

popeye
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2007, 09:46:35 PM
@popeye68

Thanks for posting the video link.  If this is correct, this explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 06, 2007, 01:49:09 AM
hey i tried the inductors with just a small one tube setup i made from spare tubes (not conditioned)

and with the inductors in i get pretty good production at 1amp, if i take em out
i think i get around same production but the ammeter tries to go past 5 amps

so is that sort of working or are the inductors just affecting the ammeters reading so
i am still putting in 5+ amps?

if i wire an ammeter in series directly before input will i be able to check how much its drawing
from the battery???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 06, 2007, 01:50:36 AM
also what voltage are people getting across there output terminals?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 06, 2007, 08:48:27 AM
hey i tried the inductors with just a small one tube setup i made from spare tubes (not conditioned)

and with the inductors in i get pretty good production at 1amp, if i take em out
i think i get around same production but the ammeter tries to go past 5 amps

so is that sort of working or are the inductors just affecting the ammeters reading so
i am still putting in 5+ amps?

if i wire an ammeter in series directly before input will i be able to check how much its drawing
from the battery???

Hi,

Well I must say that doesn't surprise me at all. That is exactly what the inductors are for....restricting the current. Ideally you would have NO current through the cell. In practise we won't be able to do it but it is what we are aiming for. Current through the cell is just waste energy. I know you can send amps through the cell and get HHO but that is something completely different. I's called brute force electrolysis and we are NOT trying to do that.
We want to use the VOLTAGE to do the work. Therefor the voltage across the cell should as high as possible (which can be spikes up to 20KVolts! ) and the current should be restricted as much as possible at the same time.

Yes you can use an ammeter, but i would put in in the 12v power lead. Use an anlog meter as digital ones are no good for measuring pulsing current.....  My controller has a built in analog 5A ampmeter.

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on October 06, 2007, 04:57:10 PM
...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on October 06, 2007, 09:14:13 PM
Hi all,

here a new video of me single cell after 2,5 weeks of conditioning, after 3 hours of running, the water changed the color a little bit, no brown scum is produced, and the current didn't raised.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmSz3ZORt78

it's pretty quietly, so turn your speakers on.

next step would be to build a multicell, and than mounting the whole thing to a car in connection with an EFI lambda controller.

My goal is a fuel saving rate of 20%, than create detailed instructions or may be a kit and everyone can use this technology, that would be great...

Could someone please give some information about the prices for the tubes?


best regards

atlantex



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 06, 2007, 10:12:58 PM
That looks like a pretty productive cell there on the video. Thanks for sharing the video.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 07, 2007, 02:49:23 AM
hey i tried the inductors with just a small one tube setup i made from spare tubes (not conditioned)

and with the inductors in i get pretty good production at 1amp, if i take em out
i think i get around same production but the ammeter tries to go past 5 amps

so is that sort of working or are the inductors just affecting the ammeters reading so
i am still putting in 5+ amps?

if i wire an ammeter in series directly before input will i be able to check how much its drawing
from the battery???

Hi,

Well I must say that doesn't surprise me at all. That is exactly what the inductors are for....restricting the current. Ideally you would have NO current through the cell. In practise we won't be able to do it but it is what we are aiming for. Current through the cell is just waste energy. I know you can send amps through the cell and get HHO but that is something completely different. I's called brute force electrolysis and we are NOT trying to do that.
We want to use the VOLTAGE to do the work. Therefor the voltage across the cell should as high as possible (which can be spikes up to 20KVolts! ) and the current should be restricted as much as possible at the same time.

Yes you can use an ammeter, but i would put in in the 12v power lead. Use an anlog meter as digital ones are no good for measuring pulsing current.....  My controller has a built in analog 5A ampmeter.

Robert

thanks again,

yeah i have an analogue one wired up as per d14 but i wanted to make sure thats all that was coming
from the battery so i wired a digital one inline with the power lead and it verified it so thats good!!

i realised i used wrong gauge wire for the inductors so i might be able to get more out with proper gauge im guessing!!

but apart from that im having fun so its all good!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 07, 2007, 10:37:51 AM
Hi everyone,

I made quite a bit of progress with building my cell yesterday, so here are some pics of work in progress.
The cell is nearly a meter higher and longer tubes can be put in easily if results are promising.

regards

Robert

 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on October 07, 2007, 10:54:53 AM
Hi dutchy1966,

looks good but I would strongly recommend to replace the copper cables BEFORE you start the first test !

One point of the conditioning is to clean the tubes, with these sorts of cables you will have a lot of brown scum, the tubes
will get brown marks at the connection points and the cables will oxidize...

Please don't do the same mistakes as many many people in the past.


atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 07, 2007, 11:55:55 AM
yeah im using copper wires and it leaves a few marks which i will clean up later

surely you can use copper as long as you seal it with something water proof and that should be
ok??

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 07, 2007, 12:27:18 PM
hi again

i have been trying to measure the voltage accross the cell but the volts seem very low...

unfortunately i only have a digital voltmeter at moment, and its only showing like 4 volts
does that sound right? i would have thought there was a fair bit more?

Thats accross the cell, accross the output im getting 7v and accross the input im getting around 11 volts
so does anyone know if thats right or is there something going wrong here?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 07, 2007, 12:31:41 PM
... or could this be related to conditiong??

cause this is across a cell i made from spare bits and has had no formal conditioning
to it, i just made it and ran it straight away over weekend so its got hardly any coating??

i still would of thought there would be more than 4v?

could inductors cause this if they were done incorrectly or something?

thanks again
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 07, 2007, 12:52:12 PM
Hi dutchy1966,

looks good but I would strongly recommend to replace the copper cables BEFORE you start the first test !

One point of the conditioning is to clean the tubes, with these sorts of cables you will have a lot of brown scum, the tubes
will get brown marks at the connection points and the cables will oxidize...

Please don't do the same mistakes as many many people in the past.


atlantex

Hi atlantex,

Thanks for the tip. What do you suggest? Use SS wire inside the cell as per D14.pdf?

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on October 07, 2007, 01:37:37 PM
Finally got some powder happening. Got some liquid calcium from aquarium shop, used for coral in fish tanks. Had no choice my Rain water and dam water was to "clean" l think. Anybody see any problems with this.

Also, when l build my unit properly rather than testing phase, instead of welding wires to wfc if l drill hole into tubes and use bolts and 2 nuts instead of clamps (cos l've noticed the bolt arrangement on clamp does rust and will eventually fail l presume) Would l have to get it re annealed, anbody know?

Awesome unit Dutchy

Thanks for the tip Atlantex

Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 on October 07, 2007, 05:48:12 PM
Finally got some powder happening. Got some liquid calcium from aquarium shop, used for coral in fish tanks. Had no choice my Rain water and dam water was to "clean" l think. Anybody see any problems with this.

Also, when l build my unit properly rather than testing phase, instead of welding wires to wfc if l drill hole into tubes and use bolts and 2 nuts instead of clamps (cos l've noticed the bolt arrangement on clamp does rust and will eventually fail l presume) Would l have to get it re annealed, anbody know?

Awesome unit Dutchy

Thanks for the tip Atlantex

Peter

Hi Peter,

I've got one remark on adding the calcium. I have thought of that too but was told it isn't entirely certain what that layer, that is forming on the tubes, is..... So maybe it helps maybe it doesn't.... Of course I hope it works out because that would benefit everyone.
I have the stuff at home because i've got an aquarium  ;)

Then about the clamps....are yours not SS or are they still starting to rust?
Also, is there anything wrong with welding the wires to the tubes, as you say you want to bolt them next time....

Robert
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SpeedyLee on October 07, 2007, 08:45:43 PM
D14 has been updated again!!!

Updated 03 October 2007

http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

 :)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: peter from oz on October 08, 2007, 12:58:00 AM
Hello Dutchy yes the clamps are ss but the winding mechanism is gal plated, next question l spose is can you get total ss clamps, l'll try to source them.
ln the pdf or Ravi's thread it mentioned after welding or any "cold" work you would have to get the tubes annealled so l was just trying to bypass the need for this.

Peter
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: KISS on October 08, 2007, 06:30:18 AM
Stan Meyer mentioned the use of Delrin as an insulator to encapsulate the resonant cavity(57)of figure 3-25. This encapsulation(Delrin), Electrical Insulated Housing (72), appears to be bound only to the outside surface of the Positive Excitor Plate(66). Positive Excitor Plate(66)encompasses the Tubular Resonant Electrical Wave Guide Cavity (57). There appears to be no Delrin on the Negative Excitor Plate (67), nor on the inside surface of Positive Excitor Plate(66).
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 08, 2007, 08:09:15 AM
ok so i put the inductors i made for my test tube onto my 9 tube setup
and while the amps dropped the max production i can get it is very small,
the single crap tube i tested with produces way more by itself!

and the voltage across the 9 goes down to like 2.6volts

So would this mean that my indcutors are too small? Or is something else
the matter here?

I unplugged 8 of the tubes to see if it made a difference and it did the 1 tube by itself
is producing ok, still not that great but way better than when all 9 are in and nowehere near
as good as the smaller single crap tube i have

Anyone have a clue?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: del_toro_es on October 08, 2007, 07:58:24 PM
 ??? ???
I think that the way to archive the ?quantum jump? and approach to the performance of original Meyer cell is to obtain resonance with the water condenser circuit composed by the pipes, the coil.ad the oscilator 

Anybody have some idea to calculate/measure the resonance  frequency? Resonance with sound or electrical? 
Which parameter would be measured to fit the resonance frequency?  Perhaps the electrical current that is possible extract of the cell?

lucky
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare 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.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: leeroyjenkinsii on October 08, 2007, 11:56:40 PM
Has anyone here actually achieved overunity?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida 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???????
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida 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?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: razasunny54 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
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: modernsteam 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: srawofni on October 13, 2007, 05:19:19 PM
WATER FUEL CELL DOWNLOADS:

www.hotlinkfiles.com/browse/waterfuel/42765

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Freenrg4me 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Freenrg4me 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.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pleez2help 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!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pleez2help 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!!!!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on October 17, 2007, 07:50:51 AM
I posted a few more Lawton PWM's on eBay this week for those interested in saving some time...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120172658077 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=120172658077)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: pleez2help on October 17, 2007, 04:19:09 PM
@Freenrg4me..did you want to respond at all??
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Freenrg4me on October 17, 2007, 07:17:40 PM
@plez2help

It is pointless to respond.

If you look at the Meyer circuit, it is a pulse compression circuit. If you look at the Dr. Stiffler circuit, it is a pulse DEcompression circuit.

Here is a "Am I experiencing reality" experiment you can do:

Print out the first patent picture of the Meyer circuit and then on the backside of the paper, print the Stiffler circuit. Next, stand in front of a mirror, look at the pictures and start laughing at yourself. ;-)

You will see the Meyer circuit is a pulse compression circuit and the Stiffler cold electricity circuit is a pulse decompression circuit.

Still don't see it?

Meyer - We go from a big inductor to smaller inductors,
Stiffler - We go from small ferrite bead inductors to large antenna core inductor.

Pulse compression to drive really hot lasers and pulse decompression to drive condensers, etc.

Something gets compressed it gets hot, something gets decompressed it gets cold.

So what does that tell us about anything?

Steven Hawking predicted that there was a space less empty than empty space, what some of you call zero point. A pulse compression circuit is the device that was held up to prove that Hawking was right. I can't draw pictures here, but from roughly 150 degrees to 200 degrees in the wave, is the zero point area. We compressed energy into time and that of course springs back at us and we use that spring to do work for us.

Like I have said so many times to deaf ears and blind eyes, all OU devices have something in common. CAVITATION. A Spark is cavitation, a jet going through the sound barrier is cavitation, electricity itself is the effect of cavitation, Aronov Bohm is cavitation.

Cavitation produces electron clusters that explode out and knock other electrons free (secondary emissions). Meyer spoke of this as have I and so many others but nobody listens. They are busy making useless bubble machines and I hope they enjoy doing it because they will not run an engine that way.

Look at how a photo multiplier works, replace the photos with electrons and start applying that to every verified OU device you aver looked at. In every case, you will find the cavitation -the heart of every OU device. That what 20 years of research on and off and ten years steady research taught me. You can have it for free.

In the Meyer device, the analog circuit SENDS the step charge to the cell, step charging is not something that happens in the cell. That is clearly stated in the patent notes and why he traced the analog circuit over the top of the pulse circuit. The PWM keeps the water from electrolyzing too much and pre-detonating in the injector, it does not make more bubbles. Just the opposite. It is like up is down and black is white with some people.

As I stated, the Meyer device is a digital version of the Puharich patent. H Gas does not get sent to the engine in either device. You are wasting your time and being led by either fools or counter intel agents. I will leave it to you to sort out the pros and the hoes.

You prep the water in the cell and blast it with plasma to explode it in the injector in both patents and others as well. This is clearly explained in both patents and nothing new.

I am not hanging out here these days, like Dr. Stiffler, I do not find this to be very fertile soil. Nothing personal but I would rather work with a small group of like minded people that are more open minded and less detractors.

If you take some beach crabs and dig a pit in the sand, the crabs could all crawl out by themselves but they can't. As soon as one crab starts to crawl out, the other crabs grab it and pull it back down. They will do that until the tide washes in and buries them all alive.

Free energy web sites have the crabs. You would do well to cure them.

Just like Dr. Stiffler pointed out in the terms of signing up on his web site regarding detractors and fools, (can no longer log in to his site - thanks assholes.)  That kind of creepy does not wash off at the end of the day and is what keeps good people away.

And so to conclude, the free energy movement has two challenges, one technical and one social. Both are important and you will not get there without solving both in my opinion.

Best of luck to all of you.

PS - Here is good example of what drives good people away:

The Pompus ass section:
Thanks Stefan ;D

... don't know why, but this guy is a little bit suspect to me,
anyway, looking to find his circuit.

G'day Super and all,

You have reason to be suspicious. A D.Sc. is not a legitimate mainstream degree. There is reason to believe that his degree was acquired in the same fashion as the "doctorates" of Peter Lindemann D.SC. and Robert Adams D.SC. In both instances they were honorary doctorates handed out by a natural health type "college" in New Zealand.

Hans von Lieven


G'day all,

Thanks Stefan and Sterling for giving this poor bloke an avenue to publish his work.

Reading what he had to say makes one wonder if the Spanish inquisition is still alive and well. To persecute a man over his ideas on energy and other scientific issues is deplorable. Perhaps our society has not advanced as much as many claim.

I wish him well and if the necessity arises that he needs my support it will be forthcoming.

Hans von Lieven

Wow... If you were Dr. Stiffler, a man that worked on the advance energy project, an older retired scientist that spent his life doing research would you want to come here and help?

You should read some of the other posts this pompous ass (HonsVanLievan) has made. His most recent contribution was a link to the resonate frequency of the elements in response to a post I made. Unfortunately, it was a link to elements that do not exist and are purely theoretical.

I could go on with others but you know who they are. If you don't shout them down, they will continue to poison the well. I am out of here - good luck.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: surfturf on October 29, 2007, 04:56:27 PM
There?s a general misunderstanding here on Meyers devices..

Dionysios You think you are so smart with your idiotic posting telling a guy who just asked for a forumthread bout Stan Meyer, that everyone who believes in him is an idiot. Thats really not the way to step forward in any field of research..You suck and you havent even read anything from the source material about Meyer. I can tell since you don?t even know his hydrogen generator is not the same as his Water splitter installed in hiss dunebuggy. In that little thing he used both Lazer and Amplitude to split the water into hydrogene and oxygene. you are a tart and a wanker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ola in Sweden
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: scoodidabop on October 31, 2007, 04:42:11 AM
Yo Freeeng4me....

You seem to have a handle on some realities there.

Who in your opinion has replicated Meyer's work accurately?  Has it even been done at all yet?

Would I be wasting my time in building a "plain" tube style water fuel cell to try and run my car on?



Sorry if the answer to these questions is obvious.  I'm a noob to this whole scene, and I have a bad habit of jumping into discussions without reading gobs upon gobs of forum posts.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SwinG on October 31, 2007, 08:18:10 PM
Has alle development in this thread stopped?
What about all the experimenters who was going to work on this?
What happend to Ravi?

I'm about to start an attempt on a replication, but is noone else battling with the Stanley Meyer WFC at the moment?

Sorry for all the questions, but I was hoping to join all the fun soon  ;D

SwinG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: saintpoida on October 31, 2007, 10:50:58 PM
i think there are still people trying it and im sure they will post stuff when
they get something useful to post

i have got way too much work for next couple of weeks so mine has taken a
bit of a rest for now but i will be back on it soon!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 01, 2007, 12:31:21 AM
@ Scoodidabop:

User Freenrg4me was banned from this forum several days ago.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on November 05, 2007, 10:30:57 PM
Aloha,
I have not read this entire forums content, but has anyone mentioned that Stanleys buggy had a very large alternator hanging on the left side of the motor (with stock generator in its position above the motor), and had an electric motor spinning an alternator in clear view, on his tabletop demonstration video?
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on November 06, 2007, 07:16:09 AM
Aloha,
I would like to expand on this alternator issue, as I may have an insight that others may not because I am familiar with VW's and heavy equip., a little.
I am going to base my following statements on a combination of assumptions and experience, so please take my information with a grain of salt. See "Stan Meyers water car" on youtube.

This video may be of the first running on water. Stan says that it is "ordinary natural water". The engine appears stock (1500cc), with a stock 30-32mm carb., stock generator, intake. It has a blue coil- high perfomance item, no air filter, dual exhaust, a box about 4x4x2 between the taillights on the frame (don't know what that is), to the left of the licence plate is an alternator (maybe ford or chevy), the cell appears to be about 2" tall and 4" in diameter, it looks like he used a spray paint can lid as a choke to start the motor, 
Stan says he can accelerate by varying voltage. He says the fuel cell has 13 3/4lbs. pressure, after looking at the gauge at the top of the cell.
There is an alternator on the ground next to the cell (which it being turned by an electric motor) which Stan said is running at 5 volts, 2 amps, if I understand correctly. Stan is talking while the loud motor is running. Stan does not mention how much energy the electric motor is using, so this will have to be taken into account.
It is my observation that the motor spinning the alternator has a 3" pulley, and the alternator may have a 2" pulley. Assuming that the electric motor is spinning at 3600 rpm, then the alternator may be spinning at 5400 rpm. The electric motor is not under much load, as Stan said the alternator is putting out only 5 amps, so the current draw must be low.
We don't know if the alternator was modified but it is safe to assume that it was, as Stan said that he could accelerate by changing voltage. If the voltage regulator was removed from the alternator, then increased rpm would result in increased voltage. I think the alternator is 12 volt, as it appears to be about 6" in diameter. I was wondering if Stan had used a 24 volt alternator off of some heavy equipment, like a caterpillar or other big diesel. That may prove to be an option.
I cannot tell at what point the hydrogen is introduced, but since the tube from the cell is so large, yet not visable at the motor, it must be attached lower near the carb base.
I suspect that the alternator on the car has a 3" pulley, and the motor probably has about a 6" pulley (like the original) bolted or welded on top of the stock one.
Stan said it took 11 minutes to convert the car to run on hydrogen. Maybe he runs the hydrogen into the fitting for the vacuum advance. He may not use the vacuum advance, as the use of the blue coil suggests that he added a high performance centrifical advance distributor. He does not mention any carb or intake modification.
In the video from the news broadcast, the alternator-electric motor combo are clearly visable behind the driver. It is so interesting that Stan did not try to cover this up to hide his secret. The other alternator is also still on the motor as before. He has one stock generator, two alternators- one controlled by engine rpm, one controlled by an electric motor, rpm unknown and maybe variable. I would like to know how he powered the electric motor, was it with an invertor and the motor mounted alternator? Or was it a dc motor that ran from the alternator it was driving, with the same current first, or lastly, passing through the cell?
Ultimately, it certainly appears that this device is not as technologically sophistacated as many on these forums seem to therorize. Remember, this is the 70's, Stan used a simple VW, and most agree he does not appear to be a great scientist.
A good rule of thumb is to do as the teacher does, not as he says.
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on November 06, 2007, 07:27:55 AM
Aloha,
P.S. Do you know how Bob Boyce stumbled upon resonance? He was racing boats using brute electrolisis to produce hydrogen for fuel. But one time he noticed a big increase in hydrogen production at a certain rpm. Later he discovered that a voltage regulator in an alternator had failed.
Forgive me Bob if this story is not accurate, but this is how I recall reading about it on oupower.com.
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Farrah Day on November 06, 2007, 09:34:33 PM
MrG, can you provide a link to this Meyer video so I can take a look.
Thanks
Farrah Day
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on November 07, 2007, 08:45:01 AM
Aloha,
Meyers videos-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3315081847164870581&q=stanley+meyer&total=528&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
and-    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8853290585556168569&q=stanley+meyer&total=44&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
and-    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6874795963285436898&q=stanley+meyer+water+car&total=151&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on December 29, 2007, 12:57:59 AM
So, well???

Anyone managed to replicate Ravi's replication?

My apparatus now sits in a cupboard after going through a myriad of configurations and tests.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on December 29, 2007, 09:04:43 AM
Hi RunningBare,

I came to the same result. After a lot of tests the coating was quite fat but no increase in gas production.

Somthing is missing...


best Regards,

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 30, 2007, 09:23:34 AM
I really think its a matter of cell construction ....  so far no ones posted anything constructed to the likes of the bottom of Stans cells were he provided power, that Im aware of.He called it someth'n like universal power or someth'n like that....he does also retract a statement on a news channle interview when he was describing the water....  "processed water" he said and I think thats a BIG part that no one seems to talk about.The water from his tap was even a bit iregular than just a solid stream...  it was under preasure and you can see that very clearly.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on December 30, 2007, 09:56:41 AM
Hi kewlhead,

it dosn't make any difference whether the cables are connectet at the top or the bottem of the tubes, I already tryed this.

Quote
He called it someth'n like universal power or someth'n like that....he does also retract a statement on a news channle interview when he was describing the water....  "processed water" he said and I think thats a BIG part that no one seems to talk about

I strongly think that there is somthing missing in our setups, no question.

May be Ravi could help us but we all know what's happend to him in the past..., I would love to continue the experiments but I don't see no more possibillitys in my
current setup and I'm not an electronic expert, thats the truth.


atlantex

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 30, 2007, 04:57:30 PM
yeah I understand... thers not much information to the construction ..  and thers so many ppl that just wanna make a dollar off of the late Stan Meyer its pethetic.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on December 30, 2007, 09:08:30 PM
if that is your opinion, no problem

anyway, it's not mine



atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 30, 2007, 10:21:11 PM
ok kewl..     have you tried to build it like its shown in this pik?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 30, 2007, 10:34:16 PM
I'll tell ya another opinion I have ..   the top plate is the cathode plate , the center plate is acetal insulator, the bottom plate is anode plate.Thats just an opinion tho, I havent built it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 31, 2007, 12:35:26 AM
It wuld do us all a great deal  of understanding if somebody culd explain why this document cant be found....  if its even possible but I doubt anybody wuld or even culd get it and share it.We know it exists and the real pisser is whoever has it will not share it with the rest of us.Ive ask evrybody from here to the other end of the world to share it but nobody has or even cared enough to offer an explanation to why it cant be found.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: djctek on December 31, 2007, 01:07:08 AM
I believe the file you are looking for is named: Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf and can be found with a google search...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on December 31, 2007, 01:25:18 AM
Ive seen most of that file you mentioned.The one thats miss'n is the one from the 'it runs on water" video.The last pik  posted there is the front page,the first pik  posted is the first page.I forget wat time frame ther on but it begins with the scientist that says it may have well been written in swaheli er someth'n.They show the document out of focus so that its not readable.If this was a patent of Stans that "they" took away from him ,is it possible to find thru the patent office?The patent application number on that pik and the patent # written on it isnt listed on the USPO or the World patent office.Surely it can be found.... Ive exhausted all resources available I culd find and came up empty.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: oystla on December 31, 2007, 09:49:19 AM
Kewlhead,

Go to
http://ep.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_ep

and put in Stanley Meyer as inventor..

You will there find a number of Meyers patents. The first patent I found w.r.t. WFC is from 1984....may this is the one that was filed in 1981..?

The "VIC" is a later patent.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 01, 2008, 12:43:56 AM
Thank you oystla,  there's some interesting results wit that.I didnt see the Natural Water Hydrogen Generating System  but di see some other papers I havent seen before.   8)  Maybe that will help take the edge off of the one we cant find.The one that wuld be great help to advance everybody wuld be reaal y kewl.The ones Stanley said was taken from him.It was interesting to see  SUTANRII EI MEIYAA  name as inventor on the Japan papers... guess thats an japanese way of say'n his name.The only 1984 papers I seen were from Japan only ???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 01, 2008, 02:39:27 AM
That does help find'n other information...

about that first pik posted...  does it look like 2 bifolar wound rods attatched to the electrode plates?The cathode looks like twice the size of the anode wrap.. well maybe the same number of turns just a bigger diameter.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: RunningBare on January 01, 2008, 08:25:52 AM
Hi RunningBare,


Somthing is missing...


best Regards,

atlantex

Yeah, thats one way of putting it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: oystla on January 01, 2008, 11:44:49 AM
Kewlhead;

The patent from 1984 I was referring to has the number: Publication number: EP0111573
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP0111573&F=0

This seems to be his first patent where Meyer also compares results using flat plates and tubes, where tubes for some reason gives off 3.75 times as much gas for the same electrode area compared to flat plates.....and concentric rings gives off 2.25 times gas volume compared to flat plates with same area.....

Also check out: Publication number: EP0103656
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP0103656&F=0
Also Published in 1984

It seems Meyer described or claimed resonance in to different aspects. One as beeing resonance in an electrical circuit based on the electrical components properties, and the other as some sort of resonance in the water or cavities between electrodes (as in the EPO103656)......

Regards
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 01, 2008, 08:29:39 PM
Thanks again ..Ive seen those files as well.The one I think we need to look at is his " Natural Water Hydrogen Generating Sytem"  S/N 6/302807  or # 492680 Issued July 10, 1989.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on January 02, 2008, 04:15:34 AM
I have also been looking for the "Natural Water Hydrogen Generating System"  S/N 6/302807  or # 492680 Issued July 10, 1989. It is possible the patent may only be found at the office he submitted it to. It is the diagram of his "Demo Cell" and the rest of the electronics such as the alternator and PWM can be found in patent 4798661 and the "Tech Brief". Notice there are no chokes in the original diagrams. It seems he is leaving one crucial component out of the diagrams. So all we really can do is build it, try it, and find it doesn't work. Many of you and me have done this including Dave Lawton, Ravi, and so on. But the truth is, No body has truly replicated Stans work in it's entirety. Close, but no cookies yet.

I have become obsessed and consumed by this missing component. So since Stan is gone and his brother isn't really talking, the only thing I can do is try to find what he learned and from whom. Part of the secret may be in his references cited. One of the cited patents is Puharich's patent 4394230. I have also been constantly reading about Keely, Tesla, Schauberger, Bedini, Berliner, Suslick, etc. I would have to say from what I have read, the King is truly Keely. Dale Pond has a HUGE collection of documentation @ http://www.svpvril.com/ (http://www.svpvril.com/). Keely could make water explode among a plethora of other things but the exploding part is what caught my attention. Stan claims this also. Further reading of Keely, I found he used cavitation and the water hammer effect with valves at a resonant frequency of the wave guide or cavity. Minus the water hammer effect, so does Stan. Hmmm interesting...

So, I got to thinking. How do they cavitate water in todays world? What does cavitation really do to water? Thats when the big light bulb above my head went bright! He used a transducive material or simply a transducer in the inside of his cathode tube. Suslick's research shows, quote,  "The chemical effect of ultrasound on aqueous solutions have been studied for many years. The primary products are molecular hydrogen (H2)  and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Other high-energy intermediates may include HO2 (superoxide), H·  (atomic hydrogen), OH·  (hydroxyl), and e-(aq) (solvated electrons). Peter Riesz and collaborators at the National Institutes of Health used electron paramagnetic resonance with chemical spin-traps to demonstrate definitively the generation of H·  and OH· . The extensive recent work in Arne Henglein's laboratory at the Hahn-Meitner Institute involving aqueous sonochemistry of dissolved gases has established analogies to combustion processes. As one would expect, the sonolysis of water, which produces both strong reductants and oxidants, is capable of causing secondary oxidation and reduction reactions, as often observed by Margulis and coworkers." Now the pieces of the puzzle are coming together, for me at least. All I have to do is find a suitble transducer to fit my tubes and the experiments will tell me if it works or not. There is a lot involved to doing this correctly but I think I have a good idea how to construct it cheaply.

The next step for me is tuning my tubes. I will do this with a Rijke's tube style test where the tone or sound generated will determine the frequency. I think both cathode and anode have to match in tone and mass. We will see how that goes and then move on to finding a transducer. I thought of maybe making my own transducer but now I don't think thats such a good idea. Any comments?

Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 02, 2008, 05:35:28 AM
HeairBear ,

The transducer part Im not follow'n very well ....Ive seen videos of a ten head transducer ..the kind that opertaes just under a couple inches of water and makes fog and also seen a video of someone with a transducer in the bottom of ther cells ( well over 2 inches of water ) and it appeared to dissipate any gas that had been created prior to power'n on the transducer.Im not familar with how transducers work myself and wish you the best on that venture.
Im gonna work on the power plates as I see em.My hope is to have some control on gas production aside from apply'n a higher voltage between the cells.Its hard to see how gas production culd reach high enough levels with out some kinda force aside from just the voltage between the tubes.
Think'n about the transducer part....
I really dont see how a transducer is gonna do much in a " bulk water " situation but it sure does throw a switch when I think of a drop of water or  maybe a constant flow of micro sized water droplets.So my thoughts about build'n yer own transducer are if you can figure out a way to get one inside of a spark plug fouler adapter thing and get a flow of micro sized or nano sized ,structured,charged,or ionized water to it on its way to the combustion chamber....hmm   sounds a bit wild to me...   maybe a pourous transducer material er someth'n...  any way at all to get the proccessed micro or nano sized water..   ehh   I dont know a thing about transducers   so i better shut up  lol.It seems like a transducer culd be a part of the system I just dont think it wuld be in the bulk of it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 02, 2008, 06:10:37 AM
HeairBear,

You reminded me of the spark plugs I use when you quoated Suslick as he stated "the chemical effect of ultrasound on aqueous solutions"
The plugs are said to produce an ultrasonic wave and the way it does it is with a whistle from a spark.I thought you might find it interesting how an ultrasonic wave is produced with these plugs so I took a pik to show the hole in the cathode,the anode ..I could'nt get a good pik of it but it is shaped in a special way.Just thought it was interesting.BTW they do give me round 3 more MPG.

http://www.enginebrain.com/
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on January 02, 2008, 06:24:32 AM
There are many uses today for transducers and water such as ultrasonic cleaning tanks, mixers, etc. different frequencies will cause different effects. In effect, each application will require a certain frequency or multiples of. Here is a partial quote from Berliners site @ http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/index.html

Ultrasonic processing applies intense, high-frequency sound to liquids, producing intimate mixing and powerful chemical and physical reactions.  The process ("cavitation") is, in effect, "cold boiling" and results from the creation and collapse of countless microbubbles in the liquid, producing shock waves.  The technique is used to accelerate reactions, treat wastes, ores, and minerals, disperse fine particles and suspend slurries, disrupt biological cells and tissues, homogenize and emulsify, and clean surfaces and porous materials.  This work entails "blasting" liquids, usually water, with powerful sound energy, unlike sonar, imaging, measuring, or non-destructive testing, in which the subject is not altered by the sound energy.  Most such work is done at very high frequencies, far above human hearing.  Processing, on the other hand, works at frequencies just above human hearing, 20 to 40kHz (20,000 to 40,000 cycles per second).  In ultrasonic processing, sound is used to change materials.  Some of the more significant applications:

SONOCHEMISTRY - exposing of fresh material surface to enhance reactions and even to generate new species hitherto unobtainable by classic means such as heat, electricity, light, and catalysis.

REACTION ACCELERATION - cavitation accelerates both chemical and physical reactions, such as those of surfactancy and detergency, which is why it is a preferred cleaning technique.

Don't forget that Stan calls his process a "Non-Electrolysis" method. With electrolysis, the higher the voltage, the more current. You can't get away from that without some sort of resistance. And resistance will waste energy to heat defeating the purpose all together. a catch22.

Here is a video for a bit of clarity of the process in action. (Links posted previously by AhuraMazda)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oNZcLyCR_Q
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jmsc/1998/00000033/00000011/00339017;jsessionid=1ep9zh54lqhet.alexandra

Cheers!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: oystla on January 02, 2008, 09:35:41 AM
Combining ultrasound with the Meyer tubes is a very ineresting idea I have also been thinking about.

My point here is that the cavitation bubbles will/should  reduce the breakdown voltage level, since water vapour have a lower permitivity..(?)

The "avalanche breakdown" of the water capacitor should therefore be easier to achieve with cavitation bubbles than without.....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: SchtevieD on January 03, 2008, 02:57:50 AM
Here is a message from user ravzz:


Hi Stefan,

I've tried opening a new topic for this but I couldnt.

Check the following videos:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vzTzqpp-Uk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJ_vjuO_ME
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lScTsHBkQ
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiyfwWuA9gA
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nto66FTfdTg
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqSyTiPu8VI

For all the info on these videos you could go to

www.oupower.com

Discussions.......than hydrogen forum.


You could copy all the info i've posted there under the user name ravzz and post it here if need be.

Just thought i'd help as many people to replicate my WFC before im stopped again.


Regards,
ravzz
\
Read This:


http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_11_1.html
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kewlhead on January 03, 2008, 03:20:00 AM
can you explain your point in reading that?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on January 03, 2008, 04:13:30 AM
Thank you for your input, I truly appreciate it.

Let's take a look at the famous VIC diagram again but this time we will add a transducer to the cell/circuit. Now the circuit makes much more sense and we can understand each component and it's primary function. Starting with the PWM or for a better word, signal generator. Next is the step-up transformer or amplifier. We can use a modified alternator if you choose to. The diode is for rectification to half wave DC. The chokes are used in the industry to convert a DC square wave into an AC sinusoidal wave. Transducers operate most efficiently with AC signals. So why have a diode at all if we are converting it to AC again anyway? In this configuration we will have both DC and AC in the same circuit. DC piggybacking AC or vice versa. We will need a bit of DC to propagate a small amount of electrolysis in the cell and we will need AC to run the transducer to it's full potential. Transducers can be driven to extremely high voltages and still only consume mA. We can use this to our advantage because even though the voltage is high, the water part of the cell can not consume more current than the resistive nature of the transducer allows to flow. In other words, if your transducer is consuming only 500mA at 1000 volts, the water can't get anymore current to consume other than what the transducer lets through. We avoid the catch22. The ultimate goal of the device is to increase the the reaction of electrolysis with cavitation at a specific frequency or multiples of.

Is there any errors in my logic so far? If I am wrong about something please advise me. I make mistakes but I like correcting them if I can. Thanks for reading my post.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on January 04, 2008, 02:46:25 AM
Here is another quote from here... http://owww.cecer.army.mil/techreports/Cro_SoCo/Cro_SoCo.uli.post-02.htm#TopOfPage
This is a very great description much better than I can explain it.

      Sonochemistry

Sonochemistry is defined as the chemical effects produced by subjecting a chemical reaction to sound waves (Bremner 1990). Ultrasound, with frequencies roughly between 15 kHz and 10 MHz, has a drastic effect on chemical reactions. The mechanism that causes this effect is known as "acoustic cavitation." This phenomenon proceeds as follows. A sound wave impinging on a solution is merely a cyclic succession of compression and expansion phases imparted by mechanical vibration. During the solution expansion phase, small vapor-filled bubbles are formed due to weak points in the solution, primarily at trapped gas pockets on particulate surfaces. These bubbles grow and contract in response to the expansion and compression phases of the cycle, respectively. Because the surface area of the bubble is greater during the expansion phase than during the compression phase, growth of the bubble is greater than the contraction, resulting in an increase in the average bubble size over many cycles. Over time, the bubble reaches a critical size depending on the ultrasonic frequency, whereupon the pressure of the vapor within the bubble cannot withstand the external pressure of the surrounding solution. The result is a catastrophic collapse of the bubble with high velocity jets of solution shooting into the interior. This implosion process is known as acoustic cavitation. Extreme environments are produced in and near the bubble as a result. Suslick (1989 and 1990) gives a more detailed explanation of acoustic cavitation.

Although many bubbles are produced, these bubbles are quite small. It is estimated that 4 x 108 bubbles/second/ m3 are produced (Suslick and Hammerton 1986). The bubbles are on the order of 10 to 200 microns in diameter, and they are short lived, with a lifetime near 10 microseconds. Therefore, the bulk solution conditions remain relatively unaffected. But the implosion of the bubble causes enormous local effects. The temperature of the vapor within the bubble has been estimated to reach as high as 5000 _K (Suslick, Cline, and Hammerton 1986) with a concomitant pressure near 1000 atm (Mason and Lorimer 1988). The principal result of these conditions in an aqueous solution is the breakdown of water vapor in the bubble into hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals. This essentially transforms the bubble into a microreactor where interesting chemistry can occur.

      Uses of Sonochemistry

The unusual microenvironments created during acoustic cavitation permit a wide variety of uses for ultrasound. These uses include homogenization and cell disruption in the biological field, dissolution and mixing in chemistry, soldering and welding in metal working, degreasing and emulsification in industry, and polymerization and depolymerization (Bremner 1990). Novel chemical applications result from the catalytic effects of sonochemistry. This includes the creation of new compounds, for example, new iron carbonyl compounds (Suslick et al. 1991), new and more effective catalysts (Suslick and Casadonte 1987), and greater rates and yields on chemical reactions (Luche 1990). Research areas such as these provide the majority of sonolytic applications. In the past several years, the use of sonochemistry as a destruction technique has blossomed.

Applying ultrasound to an aqueous system initiates the cavitation process. If organic species are also present in the water, it is expected that degradation will occur, ultimately to complete mineralization. The extreme conditions created by acoustic cavitation initiate three distinct destruction pathways for organic contaminants: oxidation by hydroxyl radicals, supercritical water oxidation, and pyrolysis. It has been proposed that pyrolytic mechanisms dominate at high solute concentrations while hydroxyl radical attack dominates at low solute concentrations (Kotronarou, Mills, and Hoffmann 1991).

The primary mechanism is hydroxyl radical oxidation. The severe conditions are enough to break down water vapor within the bubble into hydrogen and hydroxyl radicals. But the highly reactive nature of these radicals prevents a long travel pathlength into the solution. Therefore, only organic molecules present within the bubble or very near the bubble surface will be destroyed in this fashion. Note the simultaneous production of the hydrogen radical indicates that reductive pathways may also be available for organic breakdown.

Supercritical water is a phase of water that exists above its critical temperature and pressure, 647 _K and 221 atm. This unique state of water has different density, viscosity, and ionic strength properties than water under ambient conditions. Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is one technique studied for the treatment of contaminants in wastewater (e.g., Harradine et al. 1993). Since the organic contaminant has an increased solubility within supercritical water, these organic species are brought into close proximity with the oxidant, usually oxygen from dissolved air. Oxidation is therefore accelerated. During sonolysis, it is proposed that supercritical water is present in a small thin shell around the bubble (Hoffmann, Hua, and Hochemer 1996). According to these researchers, this mode of destruction is expected to be secondary in importance because the fraction of water in the supercritical state is estimated to be on the order of 0.0015 parts out of 100 parts of water. Alternatively, the volume of the gaseous bubble is estimated to be 2 x 104 times greater than the volume of the thin supercritical water shell surrounding the bubble. The value of supercritical water may be limited to increasing the solubility of the organic contaminant near the bubble interface for radical attack. The possible occurrence of SCWO in the sonochemical reactor, however, may be one reason to justify the use of an oxygen-containing purge gas.

A third mechanism is pyrolytic breakdown of organic contaminants. Pyrolysis is defined as the thermal destruction of a compound in the absence of oxygen. The high temperatures attained within the bubbles are well above the temperatures required to destroy organic materials. This mechanism, however, requires the compound to be present in the vapor phase within the bubble. Compounds with higher vapor pressures will have a higher vapor concentration inside the bubble. It is expected then that pyrolysis will be more prevalent as the vapor pressure of the contaminant increases.

The above mentioned conditions created in the bubble during collapse would clearly degrade organic species present within the bubble interior. But since bubble implosion occurs by the influx of a jet stream of the surrounding liquid, it may not be necessary for the organic contaminants to be initially present in the bubble interior for degradation to occur. This implosion scenario is analogous to the injection of contaminated liquid directly into the hot reaction zone.

Have a great day!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on January 19, 2008, 02:10:21 AM
I built the D14 circuit with bifilar inductors. See my video here for the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBn8Y0BJZqc

Here is the text I posted along with it:

Single 4" cell, 304 stainless steel, 1.57mm gap. 1cm plastic straw segments used as spacers. Inner tube conditioned over 24 hours in calcium hydroxide solution (1/8 teaspoon Kalkwasser powder to 1 pint R.O. water). Beginning of conditioning took 12 volts at 1 amps, end of conditioning took 24 volts at .5 amps due to calcium oxide insulator depositing on cathode.

This here is driven by the newer D14.pdf Lawton circuit with bifilar inductor.

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

As you can see it produces gas with .26 Amps @ 12 Volts. Looks like much, but the bubbles themselves are tiny.

Only real interesting thing is that the cell has self-voltage. When I disconnect cell from circuit and measure its potential, it drops quickly to 2 Volts but then takes 20 minutes to drop further to 1.5 Volts. The better the oxide insulator coating, obviously the more slowly voltage drops.

Therefore in between signal pulses, there is a unipolar DC field between the tubes. In Stan Meyers' setup, I am guessing that this DC field is much higher and acts to unipolarly stress the water dielectric right at the point of breakdown. What happens there is that the tiny high voltage spikes going into the tubes actually raise this DC potential over successive spikes, then the gate shuts it off and lets the potential fall back down a bit. This might be to avoid arcing if the DC potential rises too high. In this video, that DC cell potential is only 2.96 volts, but that's because only 12 volts are going in from Lawton's circuit.

Lawton's circuit is not a true Meyers replication. Meyer had the cell circuit electrically isolated through a 1:3 to 1:30 step up transformer (toroid) and employed some kind of resonance to get high voltage spikes pumping into the cells. The blocking diode in that case is what produces a flat DC charge across the cells, whereas the high frequency pulses ride atop the DC and goes right through the water cap (because capacitors pass high frequencies) and interacts with the bifilar charging chokes.

The goal is to insulate the tubes, maintain a high DC potential between them via the blocking diode, and perhaps employ a flyback effect in the toroid transformer to have high voltages. Beware that the blocking diode makes this circuit not perform as a typical LC series oscillator. Also remember that Meyer used maximum potential and minimum current -- it was not pulsed DC-current electrolysis, it was high voltage DC with high voltage unipolar pulses atop this fed into a cell that optimally used distilled water and/or insulated cathodes. Meyer was all about dielectric breakdown of water due to intense E gradients, not loads of electrons marching through ripping and heating things up.

I post this video here just to show that Lawton's circuit still does something regardless, and as others report does it better than conventional DC current electrolysis.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Farrah Day on January 19, 2008, 02:12:09 PM
Hi DM

Just thought I'd let you know that in recent tests using a ss test cell, I found that my cell too held a standing voltage.  I discussed this a lot on my thread as I found it quite surprising.  I found that I had this voltage even before the cell was conditioned, and found that even out of the water on my workbench the voltage remained.

In fact I went to great lengths to try to remove the voltage, but found this very difficult to do as it would not seem to short out like a normal capacitor would!  Like you my cell held it's charge for hours, sometimes taking a full 24 hours to fully discharge - it would power a LED for a good while. I was and still am quite intrigued by this.  In it's unconditioned state, I have to suspect that the very thin chromium oxide layer that protects the stainless steel had to be responsible for this.

I'm surprised you had success using calcium hydroxide to condition your cell, I tried this and calcium oxide and found both these compounds not to work (that said I never gave it very long).  Assuming that the white coating was a result of the natural mineral limestone (calcium carbonate) in our tap water, I had real success doping my tap water with calcium carbonate, which is effectively the limescale forming mineral in out tap water.  I assume that only your cathode conditioned?

Using calcium carbonate, my cell developed a good white coating in only 4 hours at 0.5 amp.  I may be wrong, but I think that the white coating is itself calcium hydroxide and is formed by the reaction of calcium carbonate.  The fact that it only develops on the cathode indicates an electrochemical reaction, so whatever is reacting in the water is different to the end product on the cathode - otherwise it would be on the anode too.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on January 24, 2008, 07:39:35 AM
Aloha,
I have just introduced a new design for a simple, cheap, and efficient hydrogen booster-electrolizer. You can find the info here- http://oupower.com/index.php?dir=_Other_Peoples_Projects/mrgalleria/Mr.%20G%20cell&PageNum=1
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: supermuble on January 25, 2008, 08:45:47 AM
I am new to the forum, I just spent hours trying to read most of this long thread. I am tired now and so I am summarizing everything I can think of that I have read in the past few days - everyone please feel free to add or correct information where you think it is wrong, or incomplete. I would like to have a comprehensive understanding of the WFC technology, and also a list of accurate notes when I do decide to try building one.

Before I list my notes, I have to say:

I don't understand why the Lawton circuit won't work - if you simply add a step-up transformer. The low voltage pulse is stepped up to a high voltage, sent through the high voltage blocking diode, and through the charging chokes to overload the capacitor by not allowing any of the voltage in it to slip away. My knowledge of circuits is very limited, but it seems like the Lawton circuit is just the pulse generator circuit without the VIC (voltage intensifier) hooked up. If you add the VIC to the Lawton circuit, you should have something that will work.

Also why wouldn't an automotive coil work for the step-up transformer? Since the high voltage diode is in place, along with the inductors (charging chokes) the signal is smoothed out. It is designed to accept a basic 12 volt input signal which would work well with the typical Lawton circuit. Perhaps I am totally missing something?

LIST OF NOTES

These items are related to building a WFC and are in no particular order. Correct me where I am wrong, but please explain in detail.

-Stan did not start with a large surface area (see initial patents, etc) - the larger surface area makes the need for much larger inductors.

-Start with small tubes and small surface area

-Larger surface area's in a larger cell require larger inductors (charging chokes), so limit cell size. Make more separate cells later if necessary instead.

-Stan Used 304 Stainless Steel and specifically said in his patent that it needs to be non-oxidizing. Chemicals in tap water that will create oxides on the metal mean that it WILL probably affect the way the process works completely. If you have conductive particles floating in the water, you'll be lowering the resistance of the water and changing the entire process. Tap water will work, but it would only make sense that distilled water or filtered water (without chlorine, etc) could make the process go better.

-Stan used very high resistance inductors, these need to be slightly oversized and will not work as intended if undersized.

-The charging chokes need very small wire, stainless steel is best since it has high resistance so will use less wraps and will be easier to build, but small copper can be used.

-I read that the charging choke should have somewhere around 11,000 ohms or higher resistance - need to source this.

-Stan talked about a bifilar coil design with both charging chokes being wound parallel on the same core

-One of Stans inductors (charging chokes) was 4800 feet long and made from Stainless wire (just an example).

-Stans round tubes yielded a 350% improvement in gas yield per surface area than the flat plates. Thus there would be less energy loss through tubes rather than plates.

-The Lawton pulse generator is a signal generator without the Meyer VIC circuit. The VIC needs to be added to replicate the Meyer patent.

-The tube spacing needs to be kept at 1.5mm and no less. The water should break down at a given time, and with gaps that are too close, the VIC becomes worthless because it can short before achieving it's intended purpose of creating tons of hydrogen for every dielectric breakdown event that occurs.

-For a very simple water fracturing process, simply place plates or tubes at .005 - .010" from each other. This will produce  hydrogen with any circuit using low voltage even in distilled water. This can be done using spoons to demonstrate the effect of the "electrical polarization process" that Stanley Meyer invented.

-Stan Meyer is not trying to trick anyone, he is just overcharging a capacitor and causing a breakdown of the dielectric liquid, which releases the tremendous stored energy in the huge inductors all at once thereby ripping apart the water molecule. The huge inductors serve to save up the energy - the huge inductors are part of the free energy, in accordance with the wide gap of .060" at the tubes, no energy is being wasted until precisely the right time when the inductors can release their potential energy.

-Regarding practical applications for the people who can't wait, The Electrical Polarization process can be used with straight DC to produce hydrogen and to exponentially increase the efficiency of electrolysis, therefore anyone could theoretically run their car on water using a combination of VERY tightly spaced tubes and a solvent with low DC voltage and high current. In my own tests, the water practically boils out of the containers when using tightly spaced tubes as compared to using a widely spaced anode and cathode with the same input power.

Well I look forward to hearing more on this subject. It is very nice having so many like minded people trying to work together. Keep up the good work and the experiments.

~Supermuble~







Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on January 25, 2008, 09:01:23 AM
the Lawton cell produces very short, very sharp 1,200 volt pulses. Those who don't get it either the oscilloscope is not able to track it (probable) and/or the circuit is not generating the proper waveform.
given to me by Patrick Kelly.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on January 25, 2008, 11:53:42 PM
Aloha,
Great analysis and comment. Thanks for the summary and questions.
I agree that an auto coil should work, it is a great inductor.
Regarding a power source, go to oupower.com and look at Alaskastar project pages for diagrams on how to modify an auto alternator.
You said to start with a small surface area, refering to Stan's patent. I believe that the patent drawings are for example. I believe it is a good idea to look at what Stan did. In the video with the buggy in his back yard, He had a big cell. Maybe experimenting with small cells will cause discouragement, as the cell may disappoint. This may hinder individual advancement, know what I mean? As you said, auto coils could be used. There is no reason to limit cell size on the basis of access to large enough inductors.
Stan used tap water. If our cell is working like Stan's, then it will use tap water too, right? You and just about everyone else is worrying about "conductive particles in the water" or the water. Stan was not worried about them, and we should not if we are attempting replication.
Those factors MUST influence our understanding of the cells action. If you want to change that, then you are going in a different direction. You are not replicating.
I have seen no one yet fully replicate Stan's original design in full. I too am attempting this, but remain unsuccessful to now.
Remember in the buggy video, as well as others, where Stan said "5 volts, 2 amps"? Does your summary come to this conclusion as well? You said "Stan Meyer is not trying to trick anyone, he is just overcharging a capacitor and causing a breakdown of the dielectric liquid, which releases the tremendous stored energy in the huge inductors all at once thereby ripping apart the water molecule." Is the "brakedown" of the liquid the result of "tremendous energy" "ripping apart the water molecule"? If so, Stan's device can be easily replicated. If not, you and the others have not got it. You are going the wrong direction.
Think again about why the cell is pulsed, and with a square wave. I have explained previously how the cell worked, and I don't think anyone believes me. So much more so, Stan never explained it this way in his patents because scientifically it would not have been accepted. Did you know that Stan's original patent applications were denied. That may well have been because they stated facts that we not approved by the patent office scientists, nor known accepted science.
Bill

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: supermuble on January 26, 2008, 03:31:46 AM
Hello, and thank you for the kind response.

I wanted to use an automotive coil for the primary and secondary windings for the VIC circuit show in Stans Patent. The inductors would come after and would have to be hand made because of their unussual properties. At least this is what I have reasoned so far, again correct me if I am off track.

mrgalleria, I am in suspense now waiting for your conclusion regarding the "true" mode of operation behind the Meyer system. I have watched Stans videos where he talks for 4 hours. He does say that the system isn't ordinary science, he says that a good deal of energy for the molecular breakdown comes from the 4th dimension therby keeping in line with the law of thermodynamics - energy isn't being created from nothing, it just coming from the universe in a way not properly understood by mainstream science. Obviously this makes sense, as the cell remains cold which is proof that electric current is not being consumed.

I have reasoned today that the main reason the cell utilizes free energy is in part due to the huge inductors that Stan wound. He wanted them to be oversized, and it is said that this is very important. The inductors must be oversized and have very high resistance, so they are limiting the current and also storing energy. The larger the inductors are, the more current is stored. I believe the VIC circuit is just as important as the pulse train which is just a basic frequency that can be adjusted. If the frequency were so important, than it could be found by hours of expirementing by cell builders (myself included). I think the tremendous amount of stored energy in the inductors is what keeps the circuit so special. The current cannot flow out of the water because of the diode, and the charging choke inductors. Also the gap between the electrodes works in conjunction with this circuit, so that no energy is wasted. You see, if you make a very close gap, the dielectric will break down far far befor reaching any high voltage, and you will be wasting energy because there is less voltage performing work. If you can use extremely high voltage - and save it up in the inductors and in the water capacitor until it can be used perfectly, then you are not wasting any energy. I can't imagine that stan would wind 11,000 ohm 4400 foot long biffilar inductors if he didn't need the inductors to work to his advantage. I am still learning, and I could be way off track, but it seems that inductors and the VIC in general is extremely important.

I was told by someone that said Stan specifically said not to make the WFC tubes too large, otherwise it will be much harder to tune, so I am believing that he meant it. Stan had time to perfect the larger fuel cell, so it seems like it would be easier to build it small until we figure it out and then scale up, not down. Maybe we need less Ego? I recently built a fuel cell with 4 (4") tubes cut and formed to make tubes spaced .040" apart in a large bucket of water. It created very large (1/2")bubbles with only a few amps and 12 volts and no electrolyte using a very small power supply. That was all the proof I needed that this technology is real.

Anyway I am still trying to understand the concept of "cold electricity" where magnetism and voltage can create free energy. Forgive me if I sound naive, or just plain stupid. I know I have a long way to go until I fully understand the Meyer patents. At this point, understanding his patents completely seems like an impossible task. I think in time, this type of open source communication will yield major progress. Best of luck to all,

Supermuble





Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Goblue on January 26, 2008, 04:44:56 AM
Has anyone seen this?  It is a plasma fuel reformer from Arvin Meritor.  Is this anything like the concept used by Stan Meyer?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/06/arvinmeritor_cl.html

Or, even better!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I

Go
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on January 26, 2008, 06:57:02 AM
Aloha,
Sorry, I thought that you had read all of the Meyer topics.
Quote "I also have been reading over Meyers patents and have come to this understanding.
In normal electrolisis, electricity (in many forms) is added to the water to split it apart.
In the Meyers method, he takes the electricity already binding the hydrogen and oxygen, and takes it away, causing the hydro-oxy to explode in runaway division, as the binding agent has been removed. He capitalizes on the natural law of electrical saturation.
Everything, according to it's nature, has electrical saturation. Meyers found a way to make the electrodes unsaturated, thusly forcing the electricity to release from the water into the electrodes, and maybe also into the air (where it came from in the first place)."
Your not stupid, your just thinking in a logical way according to current understanding.
Stan must have thought- if you can put current in, why can't you figure a way to take it out. It is there in the water. The inductors work like big vacuums, drawing electricity from the water when the square wave in the pulse stops, causing the coil field to colapse. The stronger the coil, the bigger the pull on the current in the water. This explains where the energy comes from- not the 4th dimention, not space energy, not either, etc. The energy is THE ELECTRICITY ALREADY PRESENT IN THE WATER. There is a huge amount of current and gas in the water. It is said that there is 1800 gallons of hydrogen in a gallon of water.
It took me a while to come to this conclusion, please don't feel bad. But it is a result of the facts, strange as it sounds. No scientist will ever agree, and he cannot. This information has been carefully guarded by all governments for the obvious reasons. It is this knowledge that gives individuals almost unlimited power.
Bill
 

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: strewf on January 26, 2008, 11:35:51 AM
Hi all, another newby!  Just took delivery of stainless steel sheet, but still working on the electronics, does anyone have a car working on this HHO set up and how did they manage to get the gas variable with the accelerator pedal?
What is the real output needed in cc's or c inch per minute to power an average size car?
Regards to all. Strewf
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: supermuble on January 26, 2008, 05:59:51 PM
mrgalleria,

That was an excellent description of the electricity potential in the water - and how it can simply be removed to split apart the molecule. I very much agree with your description. I am taking a guess here, but wouldn't that mean that the electrical energy in the water is being replaced as it is being released (during pulsing) because there is no heat created, something has to be replaced, as Stan said you are really not getting something for nothing, and he did say that energy is coming into the water via a shutter effect (radiant energy). If you are starting with something that is not an electrolyte and you are extracting electrical work from it, that is truly amazing!

One other thing that doesn't make any sense to me. Stan used a plastic coating over the outside tube in one of his patents to reduce electrical drain in the circuit because the outside tube doesn't need to be conductive. But everyone thus far is talking about an oxide layer on the outside of the stainless steel and Stan specifically said "non oxidizing" metal. So wouldn't it be possible, because the amp load is so low, to use painted steel. I haven't tried it, but it would be interesting to see if you could make it work by lowering the gap down to .030 or so to account for the possible increased dielectric of the paint. I don't think I have anything to lose by trying some other things that are unconventional just so I can learn and experiment - it is a hobby after all. I know there are plenty of people working to reverse engineer the concepts and I will be able to learn from them when the knowledge is complete.

Anyway, for anyone using plates, they will work, but they seem to be less efficient per Stans initial experiments during his first attempt at getting a patent. He said the plates are about 3 1/2 times less efficient with all things being the same. I was all set on using plates until I read this.

Thanks for the great description and info mrgalleria



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on January 27, 2008, 07:54:26 AM
(thanks for the feedback Farrah Day. To coat the tubes I used R.O. water and calcium hydroxide, and yes it coated... but the coating came off kind of easily. Later I mixed calcium hydroxide with hot tap water, and that worked really well. So will do the latter from now on.)

Some observations after recent experiments:

* Made a toroidal 1:5 transformer from a 2" ferrite core. Bad results compared to hooking WFC straight to pulsing circuit through inductors. Whatever energy wasn't being taken by the secondary was being wasted by the primary, and by waste I mean the pulsing circuit treating the primary as an inductor and sending current back to the power supply. A limiting resistor just got hot and wasted more energy while reducing badly needed secondary voltage. I scrapped it and went back to the D14 inductor setup.

* Bigger charging choke inductance does produce higher voltage. That is good.

* Thicker inductor wire seems better. The increased resistance of thinner wire allows less current through the inductor, thus less of an EM field, thus less flyback voltage. The amp inhibiting effect, according to Meyer, should be strictly due to inductance. He said resistance only results in power losses. And when inductance inhibits current, it produces higher voltage as a tradeoff.

* Inductors were wound bifilarly onto the same core. When lead of one wire and opposite lead of other wire went to WFC, the opposite orientation seemed to cancel out the inductive effect and left only a resistance, and then I could not dial in any kind of resonant effect. However using leads from the same end made one coil's current oppose the other coil's current, thereby raising the voltage of both at resonance. From Meyer's Tech Brief:

----
Both Inductors (LI/L2) are Bifilar wound in equal length to optimize the electromagnetic field strength (FL) in equal electromagnetic intensity (FLI = FL2) to encourage and promote "Electron Bounce" phenomenon (700) of Figure (7-9) while adjusting (programmable pulse wave-form) input signal Pulse-Frequency (49a xx 49n) to "tune-in" to the "dielectric property" (Re) of water (85) ... causing amp flow to be reduce to a minimum value while allowing voltage potential (627) of Figure (7-7) to go toward infinity if the electronic components would allow it to happen, as graphically illustrated in (750) of Figure (7-14).
---

It looked like "electron bounce" to me, in the sense that as the inductor field collapsed it first tries to go back to the signal source, but then hits the diode and bounces forward again toward the WFC. If the signal pulse rate is too low, you may see several bounces of decreasing intensity. The second inductor also undergoes pulses in concert with those of the first inductor, sending a current / voltage pulse toward the first inductor through the WFC and thereby doing the "electron inhibiting effect."

* Problem is that in this configuration, to get that bounce effect, both inductors are sending the same polarity of voltage into the WFC. Both tubes get hit with the same + or - voltage. Thus there is no high voltage gradient between the tubes in that case, only the low voltage charge maintained by the blocking diode. To get the gradient I have to switch the bifilar leads to being opposite, but then like I said it cancels the inductive effect altogether. This matches what Meyer said about the electron inhibiting effect preventing arc-over in the tubes -- of course it would, if there weren't a high electrical gradient between the tubes to begin with.

* This resonance described above happened when flyback of one pulse overlapped the next pulse. When the flyback pulse is instead in between applied pulses, then that's where it looks like the frequency doubled. I could not get this with bifilar leads being opposite, only when the two wires from the same end of the core went into the WFC. And then, the double-frequency effect seemed useless and instead having the flyback overlapping the next pulse rather than being in between pulses is what made for higher voltage resonance effect.

* Higher inductance made for higher Q factor, meaning a more narrow range of resonance. With 50 ohm charging chokes the resonance was so sensitive that it would change if I held my hand just 1 cm away from the glass jar containing my WFC. That was interesting.

Not sure at the moment what I am doing wrong. The main problem I'm having is inductor resistance limiting how much power goes into charging the inductor EM field to create the flyback effect, and how much power ends up reaching the WFC to begin with. Think about it -- say you had two 11k charging chokes in series with the WFC -- that's 22k. All reactance aside, the pulsing circuit would see a 22k resistance and with 12V applied would submit just half a milli-amp! Well, if you look at page 139 of Meyer's technical brief, it says that the stainless steel / high-resistivity wire was used in something else, not the VIC with the blocking diode and resonant charging chokes. So I think the charging chokes are better to have high inductance and low resistance.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on January 28, 2008, 04:47:27 AM
Attached are two images taken from Meyer's Technical Briefing. I drew current and magnetic field arrows on them to show how, according to the diagrams, during an ON pulse the WFC is hit with the same polarity pulse from both charging chokes due to magnetic flux from the first choke inducing current in the second choke.

As mentioned in my last post, only when I hooked up the chokes as shown in these diagrams could I get any type of resonance going similar to what Meyer described (with current going down, voltage going up, etc...). But this contradicts what Meyer said elsewhere about opposite polarities going into the WFC. I wonder whether the diagram is wrong, or a hidden clue on how it really should be.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on January 28, 2008, 06:51:43 AM
If you pulse an ignition coil straight into the WFC, you will not obtain high voltages because water's low resistance demands too high a current. Current = Voltage / Resistance. The coil will just output current pulses instead of the desired high voltage. The resistance of water is relatively low unless it is distilled and de-ionized. Meyer could use either distilled or tap water, or rain water, even salt water theoretically. It is the two charging chokes acting together that overcomes the resistivity factor of the water, that's why he used those and not just a high voltage generator.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: BALLSCREWPRO on January 28, 2008, 08:18:33 AM
I built the D14 circuit with bifilar inductors. See my video here for the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBn8Y0BJZqc

Here is the text I posted along with it:

Single 4" cell, 304 stainless steel, 1.57mm gap. 1cm plastic straw segments used as spacers. Inner tube conditioned over 24 hours in calcium hydroxide solution (1/8 teaspoon Kalkwasser powder to 1 pint R.O. water). Beginning of conditioning took 12 volts at 1 amps, end of conditioning took 24 volts at .5 amps due to calcium oxide insulator depositing on cathode.

This here is driven by the newer D14.pdf Lawton circuit with bifilar inductor.

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

As you can see it produces gas with .26 Amps @ 12 Volts. Looks like much, but the bubbles themselves are tiny.

Only real interesting thing is that the cell has self-voltage. When I disconnect cell from circuit and measure its potential, it drops quickly to 2 Volts but then takes 20 minutes to drop further to 1.5 Volts. The better the oxide insulator coating, obviously the more slowly voltage drops.

Therefore in between signal pulses, there is a unipolar DC field between the tubes. In Stan Meyers' setup, I am guessing that this DC field is much higher and acts to unipolarly stress the water dielectric right at the point of breakdown. What happens there is that the tiny high voltage spikes going into the tubes actually raise this DC potential over successive spikes, then the gate shuts it off and lets the potential fall back down a bit. This might be to avoid arcing if the DC potential rises too high. In this video, that DC cell potential is only 2.96 volts, but that's because only 12 volts are going in from Lawton's circuit.

Lawton's circuit is not a true Meyers replication. Meyer had the cell circuit electrically isolated through a 1:3 to 1:30 step up transformer (toroid) and employed some kind of resonance to get high voltage spikes pumping into the cells. The blocking diode in that case is what produces a flat DC charge across the cells, whereas the high frequency pulses ride atop the DC and goes right through the water cap (because capacitors pass high frequencies) and interacts with the bifilar charging chokes.

The goal is to insulate the tubes, maintain a high DC potential between them via the blocking diode, and perhaps employ a flyback effect in the toroid transformer to have high voltages. Beware that the blocking diode makes this circuit not perform as a typical LC series oscillator. Also remember that Meyer used maximum potential and minimum current -- it was not pulsed DC-current electrolysis, it was high voltage DC with high voltage unipolar pulses atop this fed into a cell that optimally used distilled water and/or insulated cathodes. Meyer was all about dielectric breakdown of water due to intense E gradients, not loads of electrons marching through ripping and heating things up.

I post this video here just to show that Lawton's circuit still does something regardless, and as others report does it better than conventional DC current electrolysis.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on January 28, 2008, 09:06:15 PM
Aloha,
Wow, I had a tough time getting back online after my last post. I think someone sabatouged it. Even now I am having difficulty, had to close my anti-hacker, etc.
Thanks for the encouragement Supermuble. If you have nut, bolts and washers in a cup- you take out the washers, you don't have to replace them with something else. In a cup of water, you have hydrogen, oxygen, and electricity. Take out the electricity, you don't need to add anything to replace it. The hydrogen-oxygen decompose into gases, soon you will have to replace the water. When Stan said that you don't get something for nothing, I believe that he was refering to the device and the initial power that it consumes.
Demartin, great info. What is your power source? Meyers always used an alternator with motor drive. I think this could only be because the alternator is part of the pulsing circuit. The alternator outputs three alternating circuit fields which are bended, turned to dc, (by diodes) and voltage regulated to about 14 volts. Simple mods can alter these functions. Removing the voltage regulator allows voltage from 1-150+ depending on RPM. Eventually, I think we will stumble upon the correct RPM, and other wiring mods to supply a power source that is also a functioning part of the device. A good start are the alternator mods in the Alaskastar project pages in oupower.com. Alaskastar claims to know people using the mods and acheiving incredible results.
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on January 29, 2008, 01:08:56 AM
mrgalleria, my power source is a linear, non-switching, regulated variable DC power supply, 0-30V and 0-5A. It plugs into the wall, 120V 60Hz. I noticed on my oscilloscope some resonant frequencies in the 1mhz - 2mhz range that seemed to be associated with my power supply rather than the VIC circuit. Therefore I am concerned that the supply is messing things up and have been pondering using a battery bank instead. Anyone else having problems when using a benchtop variable power supply?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Goblue on January 29, 2008, 01:40:23 AM
Burning water.  Very simple and interesting set-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I

Can this concept be used to run a car entirely on water (also using HHO) or will it work as a suppliment to gasoline?  Mainly used to burn gasoline more thoroughly?

Any thoughts?

Go
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Farrah Day on January 29, 2008, 01:02:49 PM
DM

Above you mentioned that Meyer could apparently use any water (including salt water) in his device. I too have read this statement by Meyer, but few people seem to realise the implications of it.

If this is the case, then it surely goes to show that Meyer was indeed not using current to induce the ionisation of the water molecule, otherwise he would have had chlorine instead of oxygen at the anode.

MrG

Somewhere above you talk about electricity in the water been taken away.  By electricity I assume that you mean the covalent bonding electrons between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.  This however does not make a lot of sense if you think about it.  If the electrons were pulled off they would go to the anode so reducing the charge on it. We would be left with an oxygen atom (neutral), which would not be attracted to either electrode and 2 x +ve hydrogen ions that would head for the cathode.  My problem with this, is that if you pull something apart it will break at it's weakest point, which I think you will find results in the OH- and H+ of normal electrolysis.

The simple fact is that Meyer was causing water to ionise as normal, but without using electrical current to initiate it. So we get the gases given off at the electrodes as per usual, but we've initiated ionisation not by heavy current flow, but by some other method.  Once we know exactly what this criteria is we have cracked it!

Once we understand how ionisation is initiated in the Meyer fashion we will more easily be able to recreate it.

I often think that there is far too much emphasis on trying to recreate Meyer's ccts, rather than recreate his results. If it's high voltage pulses at specific frequencies there are far better and easier ways to achieve this than to be fiddling with inductors of unknown values and configurations and just hoping to get lucky.

Initially, using the correct electrical and test equipment to give us the result we desire is surely the best way forward. Then, once we know what we have to achieve, we can then go about achieving it from a more compact stand alone cct.

Lawton and all the others using the Lawton cct are claiming 300% over-Faraday. This seems to be the constant - not sure why this would be.  I'm concerned that this may be due to the residual voltage left on the electrodes during the 'off' periods between pulses. So effectively the cell continues to produce gas when the cct is drawing no current.  I know from my own test cells that the voltage can remain for a good 12 hours and that the electrolysis voltage threshold is maintained for short periods once turned off.  The length of time for which the cell can hold a charge above the electrolysis threshold, would determine the amount of 'extra' gas produced. At 300% over-Faraday then, the cell would have to hold enough charge to last 2 times longer in the 'off' state than the 'on' pulse.

This is where the electrode conditioning may come into play.  By producing an effective dielectric on the cathode, then we may be able to greatly enhance the charge storage and hence voltage on the electrodes to a point where we can maintain the electrolysis threshold voltage for much greater periods of time. I.e. shorter 'on' pulses, longer 'off' pulses.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on February 01, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: Farrah Day
Above you mentioned that Meyer could apparently use any water (including salt water) in his device. I too have read this statement by Meyer, but few people seem to realise the implications of it.

It blows my mind how deceptively simple the Meyer technology appears on the surface, yet how it becomes a rabbit hole you keep tumbling down. It looks like pulsed current electrolysis, but isn't. It looks like simple pulsed high voltage, but current is voltage over resistance so that would imply pulsed high current. Impurities in water only changed the resonant frequency, they did not significantly alter the power requirements. This can only be if the conductivity of the water was taken out of the equation through lack of real current through the water, which of course is what Meyer was trying to do.

It really looks to me like the cell was powered by displacement current or longitudinal electron oscillations, even time/gravity waves since longitudinal (compression/expansion) electron density oscillations generate those. I made a short post over on the "Stanley Meyer, please meet Avramenko" thread here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2967.0.html 

-- check out the PDF link in that post, it says that power could be sent over copper, steel, water, damp earth without resistive losses. That explains why Meyer was using stainless steel coils at one point, to truly restrict the regular current while allowing through this longitudinal energy that ignores resistance anyway.

So when people talk about restricting amps and allowing through only voltage, that is kind of misleading because someone could say like I did, "If you put voltage across the water gap, the water resistance will see that voltage and create current. It's Ohm's Law. To cut off that current, you'd have to cut off the voltage." -- but not so if by "voltage" you mean something more like longitudinal / scalar / temporal / gravitational energy, aka some unconventional electron behavior. I think everyone deeply interested in the Meyer technology should study up on Avramenko and this article by Tesla:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Farrah Day on February 01, 2008, 01:38:25 PM
Agreed DM

It is not quite as simple as some people try to make out is it. 

That's why I get very frustrated when people say things like, "Meyer uses high voltage pulses to pull water apart while restricting the amps". Simple as that... yeh, right!

If the gas is produced from ionisation as per usual, then we still need charges on the plates, and hence some current flow through the cct, but we may not need the heavy current flow through the water (electrolyte) which is required for normal electrolysis.

Some Meyer documents I read indicated - as MG said above - that the covalent bonding electrons were pulled off the water molecule and out of the water.  However, a Meyer document I read last night stated that the covalent bonding electron force was broken, with the two hydrogen ions taking the electrons, which leaves all neutral atoms.  This would allow the two hydrogen atoms to combine as the hydrogen molecule H2 and be given off as gas, while the oxygen atom joins with another oxygen atom also to be given off as O2 gas.  In this scenario, ionisation does not take place and no electrons are needed in the reaction at all.

The question now is the: Can high voltage pulses pull the water molecule apart that way.

Another thing that concerns me is if the latter is the case, then gases would not be given off at the electrodes, but all throughout the liquid medium - as neutral atoms they would not be attracted to either electrode.

DM, don't forget though that it is quite possible to get a voltage without any current flow. Just consider a fully charged car battery. It exhibits a 12-13V potential difference but no current flows until you put some form of conductor between the terminals.

That said, in the case of a capacitor, it is the charges on the electrodes that provide the voltage. Ie, a capacitor charges up as charges (current) flow onto the electrodes. The more charges the higher the voltage, until the voltage across the electrodes equals that of the supply.  If the dielectric had no leakage, then this capacitor would remain charged and no further current would be drawn from the supply. So there would then be a pd across the capacitor, but no current flowing. Water would certainly line up to this pd.

All good stuff, eh!

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on February 02, 2008, 03:11:30 AM
Quote from: Farrah Day
DM, don't forget though that it is quite possible to get a voltage without any current flow. Just consider a fully charged car battery. It exhibits a 12-13V potential difference but no current flows until you put some form of conductor between the terminals.

If you exposed something to only one terminal of the battery, then you would have pure potential without current, which is reminiscent of the joe cell and the north magnetic monopoles Leedskalnin claimed originated from just one terminal of a battery. But as you pointed out, it is two different voltages applied to anything conductive that induces an electric field and thus current therein. That's why I suspected earlier in the thread that roughly the two same high voltages were being applied to inner and outer tubes of the WFC so that without a voltage gradient between the two (except the one maintained by the blocking diode) there is no additional current flow through the water from the high voltage and thus water conductivity from impurities wasn't a factor.

Unless it's true, as some have suggested, that a dielectric oxide layer keeps current from flowing while still exposing the water to a high intensity electric field. I'll look into that some more...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on February 02, 2008, 08:33:20 AM
Aloha,
DeMartin, how amazing that you should mention Leedslalnin. He was doing the same thing (as Meyer) on a different media (coral). I am attempting replication of his work too. He was using protons, and his hand spun magnetic alternator and wire wrapped bottles seemed to function as part of his device. (baited, OK)
Has anyone seen the video on one of those video sites where someone exhibits an unusual phenonimon using an auto alternator to power a Meyer type cell. In the video he touches two wires, like grounding the alternator, cell production becomes rapid, and the alternator makes a grinding sound. I think he was on to something. I think the alternator was reversing flow, and it was making the grinding sound because it was functioning in a way contrary to it's design. I think that instead of pulling in current, it was pushing out current. This would confirm my belief on how Meyers accomplished what he did. Anyone have info on where this video is?
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: stanis on February 02, 2008, 07:25:00 PM
Hi,

Even this is nothing to do with is thread something to do with water and resonance

Stanis
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: stanis on February 02, 2008, 07:26:25 PM
Hi,

Sorry mis the link


http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4379593a6530.html

Stanis
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power WATER FUEL INJECTOR
Post by: powercat on March 06, 2008, 10:07:27 PM
OIL VS WATER THE WATER FUEL INJECTOR

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDtCkLxQd8&feature=related (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDtCkLxQd8&feature=related)

water is going to win

pc
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mike21245 on March 10, 2008, 06:16:55 AM
Hello all,
I tried to post this in the proper location, so someone please move it to where ever, Thanks.
I would like to share my thoughts on Meyer here. First, though, I would like to say that there are quite a few people who know exactly how this works and have operating examples performing flawlessly at over 10OU particularly at Cal-Tech and MIT. So, there is nothing new or any great secrets here. Also, the following is my line of  thought on this matter and I am not suggesting anyone change their thinking. So ,I will look at the obvious and then work my way out on a limb. I will be brief.
Look at a cross section of one concentric tube combination, dl at the bottom and follow the energy of one pulse from the outer ring to the inner, the energy density increases as it travels inward, this happening upward as the pulse travels up the outer tube reverses 180 and returns to the bottom. As the charge increases in the water the tension across the molecules increases. Consider the tension of a string gradually increasing, at some point , the ability to transfer energy most efficiently is reached. Keep this in mind as efficiency factors.

Farah asks the right question. ?what do you want this to do??
Both Meyl and Bearden describe scalar waves as emanating at right angles from the axis of the energy differential of a dipole or antenna. Meyl?s  3 dimensional vortex model fits in here nicely. 6 vortexes points in, energy traveling across any axis is through the adjoining, each at right angles to one another to the originating axis. The same is true coming back through the unused vortex pair. At equilibrium energy is balanced . Torque and stretch one axis of  the vortex matrix and let it snap back and you will cause the energy of the adjoining rt. Angled vortexes to be given off as a scalar energy burst. Regauge and repeat and essentially a scalar pump is created. Luckily, in the cell all the molecules are aligned on a radius between the tubes. The scalar radiation at right angles to the radius form interference patterns as they intersect. The scalar interference patterns traveling through the outer tube pass through magnetic fields surrounding the iron molecules and here an electrical gain is achieved. Pausing the pulsation is necessary for the breakdown of the water consume the additional energy charge. From my point of view this is brute force electrolysis where the heavy lifting is accomplished by the conversion of radiant energy.

Now, you can?t just pulse this setup and expect a miracle. If you examine some of the ou devices, weather it be Gray, Dollard, Meyl, Bedini, there is one commonality, coils that are wound mirror image with reference to one another. None of the patents will show this. Pancakes are best, but a variation of a pancake is also possible wound in equal layers and direction within, but each opposite. What is created is energy of opposite rotation which when applied torques the water vortex matrix.

At the vic, the pulse from the secondary fires the pancakes wound upon the same core. A problem here is that energy travels faster though copper and is impinged at the stainless copper junction. This problem can be resolved by a resister or lc or just stainless wire if you can find it.

 The gain in the outer tube produces a pulse out greater than the pulse in, opposing the field in the vic and input current drops. The diode stops the pulse out from resolving the charge of the inner tube. The coating on the inner tube serves nothing more than insulation preventing the charge from resolving and prolonging the scalar effect as per Bearden.  Meyer thought of using delrin in production because of the time necessary for conditioning.

There is a catch 22 here with the length of the tubes. The second harmonic of the tubes is only known after you cut  them and connect the circuit. Changing the length changes everything, so use a single short tube combination to start, an overtone of A or C or F, as multiple tubes can bring in adverse harmonics unless identically tuned. The length of the larger tubes will be a function of the vic.

I  have tried to address most of the major issues here. Once I can find time to get things up and running, I will post any changes to my scenario here.
 This is the jist of the path I am following. Print this post is a keeper.
Regards and best wishes to all.

Mike
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: starcruiser on March 10, 2008, 07:07:39 PM
@Mike,

So you are saying that you have a functioning unit? Or is this your plan/hypothesis on the function and your build plan will use this assumption?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: engineer1 on March 23, 2008, 05:23:05 AM
Come-on Guys a first year electronics student will tell you that resonance means that the hydrogen cell is really a capacitor in series with a inductor and a frequency injected into this circuit will have a resonance if the capacitance and inductance is equal and the proper frequency is found to stimulate it to oscillation making a voltage amplifier( which is the True and ONLY amplifier in the world) You can put 10 volts into a resonant circuit and you will get out 100 volts it all depends on the "Q" of the coil or inductor. The  resonance circuit will only need small amounts of voltage to perform this process and break down the water to hydrogen and oxygen. The secret guys is to find the resonance of your cell and adding the proper amount of inductance. You must first know how much capacitance your cell has and then add inductance to equal it and then find frequency that makes it resonate. Not easy but simple in theory. You need a square wave frequency generator where you can control the time and spacing of pulses and the amount of current will be small.(small current small heat generated Have a nice day!
 Study resonant circuits and how to build them. (Stan's clues are all there you just have to  look for  them)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on March 23, 2008, 10:00:52 AM
The water cell functions as a low resistor and capacitor in parallel. Without the resistor, the resonant behavior would be easy to calculate and measure. But with tap water's conductivity (four to twenty ohms) the Q is quite low and thus the resonance (in an AC series resonance circuit) is hard to pinpoint. When you run an AC signal through the inductor and water cell, then into a resistor across which you measure the voltage to gauge current, without the resistor you'd get a nice peaking of the voltage at resonance. But like I said, in practice I haven't noticed much peaking at all due to the resonance being so diffuse.

But as others have pointed out, this isn't really an AC series resonant circuit. It's said to be a DC resonant charging circuit. But the equation's still the same. See this link - http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcresist.html

I built what's supposed to be a VIC. It has the toroidal transformer, the blocking diode, the bifilar coil, everything. And guess what, it doesn't really do anything. Then I accidentally connected what was supposed to go to the beginning of the second bifilar wire, to the end instead, leaving the beginning free floating. And suddenly I was getting max power delivered to the water cell and clear resonant behavior too. If you want to see, watch my youtube video:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSmxliLwhT8

There you have clear resonance happening -- way more than with either the second bifilar inactive or connected in series. What's up with that?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Arrec on March 25, 2008, 06:40:21 PM
@demartin:

I think you created a parallel LC circuit with the capacitance between the secondary and primary. You are tuning into the resonance of that circuit, the circuit impedance will be the lowest at that frequency, allowing maximum current to flow through the electrolizer and lamp.

It looks promising, but I do not think it has anything to do with resonance of the 'water capacitor'.

Now here's my idea about the water capacitor (and much of that has been said before here)

There is no way you will get decent resonance with a 'capacitor' that has both plates in a conducting elektrolyte. Period. The resistance of the water is so low (in a typcial Meyer pipe setup (pipe 20 cms) you'll find 10 ohms or so, and if you use demineralized water about 100 ohms if you are lucky, because you will never get your hands on 100% pure water). This so called capacitor cannot ever build up a charge because it will leak away immediately. Don't get confused if you find a small potential across the plates - that must be a simple galvanic cell effect produced by the water impurities and somehow a chemical difference between elektrodes, maybe the deposits. This is how Volta discovered the battery.

Now, if Stan Meyer's invention did really work, there is something we do not know (hey, again I am stating the obvious :-) ).

Let's start with the 'water capacitor'. If you really want to make a capacitor with water as the elektrolyte, you will have to do something about the ion current, bu t still allowing H2 and O2 to form at the elektrodes (or are they not forming at the elektrodes? That we do not know for sure).

So, insulating the plates may do the trick. But then, I do not know how H2 and O2 will form.

Another option is to insulate a large part of the elektrodes, but leaves small part uncovered, to allow H2 and O2 to form there. A small leakage current will then always be present (isn't Stan Meyer in his patent saying that a small leakage current cannot be avoided?)

In his patent he also states that the pulse train causes the potential tp increase up to 1000V. This is not possible with uninsulated plates. If an elektrical field of 1000V is to be applied through the water, I'd say insulation in some way (deposits? paint? partly only?) is necessary.

Or else the notion of a 'water capacitor' is just to put people on the wrong track.

Good luck!

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on March 25, 2008, 11:49:54 PM
That is/was my conclusions also considering the cell leaks so badly. Dogs and others have shown the resonance in the circuit with the super high voltage but the gas output was still minimal. While doing some experimenting a while back with a Bedini SG, I noticed the Coil would resonate without a capacitor in the circuit. Is it possible that the chokes are designed to self-resonate while increasing the voltage at the same time, allowing us to use such a leaky capacitor? http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html

The second choke is placed after the cell for sort of a resistance without much loss to heat. Also, the greater the reactance of the circuit the higher the impedance, helping to keep the current down. http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/Physics/impedance.htm

Would this be called "distributed inductance and capacitance"? Is it possible the VIC works as one unit and not so much each component individually assuming it's common design characteristics?


Is it also possible that Stan was modulating his signals?

Cheers!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: abassign on March 26, 2008, 12:06:21 AM
You excuse the break-in in the thread, but I believe that this article is important:

http://www.iscmns.org/catania07/McKubreMfromcoldfusi.pdf

He speaks of SuperWaves applied through the cold fusion to the production of energy.  The article is very interesting and I believe that there is common aspects with the experiments of Stanley Meyer.

Best regards
Adriano

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: demartin on March 26, 2008, 01:04:40 AM
Arrec, insulating the plates was proposed in this patent:

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=DYo5AAAAEBAJ&dq=4427512&ie=ISO-8859-1

Quote
This invention relates to the decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen by the effect of ionization by collision among the water molecules. Water of liquid dielectric characteristics is contained within a solid dielectric container having higher dielectric constant relative to that of the water, the solid dielectric also having thermostability. A high voltage is then applied to the solid dielectric, creating a strong enough electric field, exceeding the covalent bond of the liquid dielectric, to decompose the water, while the solid dielectric container maintains its stability.

Only problem is that the insulator must have far better dielectric value than water (which already has k = 80). A ceramic insulator with k = 3000 was cited in the patent, and then a high voltage source up to 60kV was applied, which would require rounded smooth electrodes. As far as the Lawton tube coatings go, I suspect it forms a diode layer that helps maintain voltage across the electrodes on pulse off instead of a total insulation.

As for resonance, most agree that the water cell itself doesn't resonate, but rather its capacitance in conjunction with inductance of the chokes is what creates the resonance. And not typical AC resonance either because of the blocking diode, but a DC charging resonance which happens to have the same formula for resonant frequency.

You could be right though about my circuit using parallel LC resonance... I'm having difficulty drawing the correct equivalent circuit for an open second wire on the bifilar with its magnetic and capacitive coupling to the first wire of the bifilar. Thanks for your insight.

I've gotten max 500 ohms with deionized water. But what Meyer's technical briefing claims is that even with barefaced electrodes and conductive water, through inductive reactance on the second choke you can inhibit the current through the water cell while still maintaining a high voltage field across the water. I just can't understand or visualize this as being possible. So current and voltage may be 90 degrees out of phase on the water, would that somehow allow cancellation of the current but not the voltage? Who  knows...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on March 26, 2008, 02:34:21 AM
Guys also i got told that Dave Lawton is also experimenting with DERLIN (Meyers mentions this) as an insulator, he already applies it to one of his tubes either the - or the + and it showed a reduction in current Draw. Insulate both of them and you could probably use Salt water.

Ash

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Garfield on April 04, 2008, 08:35:13 AM
I'm new here, but after reading most of the posts in this forum I'm glad see that most agree
that the WFC is the capacitor in a series resonant circuit.
   Also most agree that a capacitor in water just doesn't work. So here are my findings.
  As Ravi stated many times, the cell has to be primed in order to get much hho. He also said this
process takes much time. In one of the videos showing the white coating on the inner tube, he uses
an ohmmeter on this coating to show that it's a perfect insulator. So once the electrodes are insulated
from the water then the cell starts acting like a capacitor should.
   There is also a current path between the bath water and the inner electrode which has to be dealt with.
Meyers uses a plastic coating (delrin) on the outside of the cell to solve this problem.
  I think this coating is much thicker than the white oxide layer and the reason for not using it on the plates of the capacitor.
    In Meyer's patent on page 11-13 you will see a circuit that he calls a "crossover switching circuit"
 What this does is it perodically switches the roles of the cathode and anode at a rate determined
by the gated pulse frequency. The advantage of course is to prime both electrodes at once and
thereby greatly increase the parallel resistance and efficiency of the capacitor. This would also
eliminate the troublesome "galvanic cell" that someone mentioned.
   Just my thinking and welcome to any criticism
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrtned on April 15, 2008, 02:32:15 AM
Ok, to raise voltage in the cell, the internal resistance of the cell has to be raised (coating on the electrodes).  Now with all this talk about making the electrodes vibrate .... how about taking zinc and electroplating it to the electrodes (zinc oxide).  Now we have a piezo electric material and an insulator all in one. Hmmmmmm.. :o
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrtned on April 15, 2008, 02:38:36 AM
Actually, right now Im trying to transfer an aluminum coating on the inside of the outer tube.  It has been observed that using aluminum and another type of electrode, you will get a diode effect.  Im trying to get this effect so I can see how much reverse bios voltage I can build across this junction before it breaks over  ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 127.0.0.1 on May 11, 2008, 10:15:16 AM
i am building a meyer tube array now, having messed around these past weeks/months with joe cells, wire, and plates.  i would like to try straight 12v DC at .5amps.  i have been using a pwm on plates and the most volts i can get on .5amps is 4.5v.  anyone have any thoughts about running 12v @ .5amps straight?

also, i would like to know if anyone knows exactly (as in chemically) what the white coating is on plates/tubes that results from running them in.  i would also like to know exactly what the brown gunk is.

thx,
j
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on May 20, 2008, 01:56:48 AM
I have been studying the Meyer's HHO design and need an expert opinion about using 316L SS tubes.  Have bought 316L SS welded HIGH polish, sanitary type and wonder if it is the wrong metal tubes?   They are welded inside and outside.  I would appreciate an answer so I can get on with my project.

Thanks,
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on May 20, 2008, 02:20:52 AM
Hi lefferdink,

If you are following Dave Lawtons and RAVI"s advice they must be SEAMLESS, not wielded, and RAVI advises to have them treated or "soaked" in inert argon gas to remove any residual magnetism. Resonance is tricky, you need conditioned tubes and cannot be heat treated.

Also i advise to try and get a 6mm gap in your anode and cathode same as RAVI, we already showed in ours that the smaller gap is the main event using LAWTON circuits.
http://rapidshare.com/files/116162892/MOV_00009_NEW.avi.html

We will have a gas flow test in a week., there is still allot of tuning we need to do, plus we have the cold current circuit to test, make sure you get the right tubes, no more then a 1mm gap, this is f your using the LAWTON circuit, if your using some thing else then i cannot comment on what works as i have not built them.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on May 20, 2008, 02:32:12 AM
i am building a meyer tube array now, having messed around these past weeks/months with joe cells, wire, and plates.  i would like to try straight 12v DC at .5amps.  i have been using a pwm on plates and the most volts i can get on .5amps is 4.5v.  anyone have any thoughts about running 12v @ .5amps straight?

also, i would like to know if anyone knows exactly (as in chemically) what the white coating is on plates/tubes that results from running them in.  i would also like to know exactly what the brown gunk is.

thx,
j

All those questions are being answered in a doc which will be on the panacea university dot org site soon, we are using our replication for validation etc. Yes in  proper tuned resonant circuit using the LAWTON circuit with 5amps should get you gas. with out stating chemically what the brown gak is, lets just say you need to condition your cells as described in the D14 document until it disappears, so brown gak is a sign of an un conditioned cell.

Read the D14 document all those Q's can be cleared up.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: razasunny54 on May 20, 2008, 03:14:55 AM
Hi,

 Does any one know if ZnO can be coated on SS 304L/316L plates. I am trying to find companies who would do this.

Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on May 20, 2008, 07:45:01 AM
Thanks for the heads up on the 316L seamless tubing. I tried to order tubing from the site that was listed in this forum and could not get past 5/8" o.d.  They also showed stainless needles.  evidently  you have to have their product number for the two sizes needed. (1" o.d. and 3/4" o.d.)  I have been looking for the name of the company again in this forum and somehow can't find it. If anyone on this forum can give me the information I would greatly appreciate it.  I have been ordering from McMaster Carr in the past but they don't have seamless 316L tubing.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on May 20, 2008, 08:42:12 AM
The experiment wont work, you need seamless ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 127.0.0.1 on May 20, 2008, 09:56:37 AM
jefferdink:

the best pricing on SS tubing i have seen is through MSC.  i bookmarked the link.  you need to be seated firmly in your chair before looking at pricing on 316L seamless SS tubing.  you can get clear cast (the good stuff) acrylic tubing through freckleface.com.  again, best prices i have seen.  if you're cost-concious (and who isn't), go with extruded acrylic through one of the ebay vendors.  here's the link to MSC:

http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNPDFF?PMPAGE=4088&PMT4NO=40028463&PMT4TP=*ITPD&PMITEM=01412758&PMCTLG=00 (http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNPDFF?PMPAGE=4088&PMT4NO=40028463&PMT4TP=*ITPD&PMITEM=01412758&PMCTLG=00)

and the link to freckleface:
http://freckleface.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/plasticmaterial.html (http://freckleface.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/plasticmaterial.html)

umm ok... on the brown gunk... does anyone know chemically what this is?  i suspect it is iron-based and perhaps FeSO4 or some such.  what i'm really interested in knowing is the exact chemical composition of what forms on the anode surface as the tubes are being conditioned.  anyone have access to a GLC or other testing equipment to determine this?  i think we should be able to get this nailed down.

j


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 127.0.0.1 on May 20, 2008, 10:08:42 AM
Hi,

 Does any one know if ZnO can be coated on SS 304L/316L plates. I am trying to find companies who would do this.

Thanks

hi raza:

on the zinc plating, you may want to take a look at:
http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/zinc.htm (http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/zinc.htm)

this is a DIY kit that could be very promising for an experiment or two.  you can look at their main page for other types of kits that are available.  SS tubes will require what's called a 'strike coat' first.  you can read more at:  http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/ssact.html (http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/ssact.html)

hope this helps.

j
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on May 20, 2008, 04:46:23 PM
Thanks guys for the excellent information.
Now I need to know:  1.  The Vessel size. (WFC size, the clear tube,Acrylic) I have and think  money wasted by me again is:4.719" inside diameter x .125 wall thickness x 3' in length.  My intent is to use 8 or 9,  18" stainless 316L tubes like Stan's.
2.  The top cap connection and the bottom cap to the WFC.
This time I  am going to be patient with the project.
 Thanks again guys
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HydraGen on May 29, 2008, 01:36:25 AM
OK everybody, it seems that there is a LOT of information scattered throughout several different forums.
At this point I feel like my brain is going to explode trying to decipher the good info from all of the B.S.
So, my question is simply this if and I repeat IF someone has a truly operational unit then why can't we just post a complete set of diagrams, schematics, parts lists and instructions somewhere so we can all get a unit built and operational thus bringing everyone to the same level operationally speaking?
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am an intelligent individual, but trying to wade through all the b.s. to get tidbits of info is getting very frustrating.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Agent_ArcAngeL on June 06, 2008, 09:29:17 AM
Greetings all,

I was wondering...  what do you all recommend for regulating the current during the conditioning process that Ravi described?

... and what is the most economical way to do so?


 ???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jokker on June 11, 2008, 08:24:52 PM
Anyway who is this guy who wants to test breakdown voltage "as diode"  :o

In diode there is this effect named "PN junction"
And the breakdown is because of some kind of ionic avalanche. That is way it is so sudden.


Anyway im pretty much into this... also

Why are ya guys so much stuck to construction, coz so far as i see it got nothing to do with the idea: breaking H2O by using resonating frequency.
Any1 have achieved something noticeable? Or lets put it this way anyone got "very" working idea how it is made and what are the problems to get it done.
Why this anode or katode need to be tube (ring form)

-Is it too complicated to find resonance frequency ?
-Is it really hard to keep this frequency?
-It is signal form ?
- anything else ?

And what it will look like if ill use looping frequency?

Where is his "Beach buggy car" by the way ? It will be very... very easy bait for ya guys.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jokker on June 11, 2008, 08:32:50 PM
Greetings all,

I was wondering...  what do you all recommend for regulating the current during the conditioning process that Ravi described?

... and what is the most economical way to do so?


 ???

Why u need current control system? So far as i now current depends on devise itself its due the Ohms law. I=U/R
Nut yea if its electrolysis and so war as i now it is driven by current ? yea ?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Agent_ArcAngeL on June 11, 2008, 08:46:52 PM
Why u need current control system? So far as i now current depends on devise itself its due the Ohms law. I=U/R
Nut yea if its electrolysis and so war as i now it is driven by current ? yea ?

Would you mind spell-checking a bit?  I'm actually having a bit of difficulty reading your responses on here.

As I stated in the question above...  to regulate the amperage for the slow conditioning process as described by Ravi.

Would anyone who KNOWS please fill me in on this one?  ???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jokker on June 11, 2008, 09:20:56 PM
Sorry for my spelling  :P

Ill try to explain it to ya easy as i can.
I=U/R

Current I depends on resistance R

But  actually there maybe is thing like that. I dunno what it is named but it is 4th passive component what was found on 2007 by HP labs.
It will make transistors work more effectively. But it way to small, coz it is in nanoscale
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: malcolm on June 18, 2008, 05:10:12 AM
to all members of this forum,

  hi, everyone i'm malcolm, a newbie here. i just wanted you all to know that i appreciate your works.  it,s been really helpful
and i wanted to thank you all for your great efforts.
  at the moment i'm working on the meyer crkts. based on what i've learned here.  i'll keep in touch and hoping you'll help me
with these projects. :D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Chucky on June 19, 2008, 11:47:21 PM
hi there  ;D, please help. is there a way to separate water using permanent magnets, or is it only theory ???
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Killer Miller on June 20, 2008, 08:40:29 AM
HiGuys

I just come across this cell on Ebay. Item number: 140241246400 Seller iztex.

Has anyone constructed a cell from the items iztex is selling? If so please post the results, circuits etc.

Thanks
KM
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on June 21, 2008, 02:48:38 AM
Hi to everyone.

I read this whole thread (only took too weeks) and find it very interesting, But what happended to all the guys that were working on this last year? Is there another forum or something? I've done Quite alot of research and I believe that the Meyers circut works and I will be building one to prove it. Let's get this show started up again.

I'm from Canada, anyone else?

Ravi, it would be nice if you could post something again. If you read this i'm building a exact replication of your system. Thanks for the help.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HydroRamPac on June 22, 2008, 02:19:34 AM
Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
? Reply #182 on: September 05, 2007, 03:28:02 AM ? Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some more pics of Paul's setup.




Does anyone know where can I find the supplier of the clear plastic container that TAO discussing on this forum?    A url would be appreciated.
Tks,
Hydro


Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on June 22, 2008, 05:25:58 PM
Sure do:  https://www.estreetplastics.com
They also have 1" thick flat stock too.  (Acrylic extruded etc)
www.usplastic.com  are a lot higher in price
I am looking for 316L flat plates or strips
Also looking for a spot welder
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HydroRamPac on June 23, 2008, 02:22:12 AM
Sure do:  https://www.estreetplastics.com
They also have 1" thick flat stock too.  (Acrylic extruded etc)
www.usplastic.com  are a lot higher in price
I am looking for 316L flat plates or strips
Also looking for a spot welder


Hi Lefferdink:

The only place I know where u can get 316L SS is at the following url:

http://www.metalsontheweb.co.uk/asp/home.asp

You can get tubes or plates.

Thanks for the update on the plastic supplier.

Hydro
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on June 30, 2008, 04:30:45 PM
Do the Ceramic/Polyester capacitors have to be 16V? If so does anyone know where I can get them, Jameco.com doesn't seem to have any.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mrgalleria on June 30, 2008, 08:54:48 PM
Aloha,
For you new people trying to get started, you may want to view my project folder at oupower.com. Some easy cell designs, and construction info. There is a huge amount of various and sometimes conflicting info out there.  Don't know how to help you, except stay away from wild theorys, try to watch the old timers and listen to and do what they say, they have already tried most of what you are discussing.
Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on July 01, 2008, 05:44:19 PM
LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO BE HAVING PROBLEMS SOURCING PARTS FOR THE WFC BUILD



Dave Lawton has just confirmed that he has authorised someone to sell his completely built & tested units and kits in the UK.
They service international customers as well.





LINK: (scroll down to the Dave Lawton Electrolyser within the link)



http://www.courtiestown.co.uk/batteries/shop.htm


Good Luck!!

Ravi Raju
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: volli on July 01, 2008, 06:05:29 PM
RAVI ?? ?? :o  :o  :o

Are u back?  8)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ravzz on July 01, 2008, 06:14:22 PM
Not Yet but probably when things cool off a bit.


Just had to get through to let people know that Dave's stuff is available and you can get everything from a single source....who else could you think can supply a better unit or kit!! Tested aswell!!

R :)

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: volli on July 01, 2008, 06:23:51 PM
Thanks ravi for all your hard work and specially for this url !
I think i will order a kit  ::)

Please tell us soon your newest developments here  :) we missed u so much.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 03, 2008, 03:14:04 AM
Yes, thanks for posting. I really appreciate it.
And yes, it is hard to get all the material, i'm sure it's easier to build the unit then get the material. Not many U.S. supplies ship this stuff to Canada, so the url will be helpful.

@ Volli
If you order a kit besure to tell us how it works eh. Post a video if you can.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 04, 2008, 11:38:49 PM
Does Anyone have a picture of a built circut? A 100nF ceramic capacitor must a 1/2" wide, no?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 08, 2008, 01:57:44 AM
Where's the best place to get a good oscilloscope? How about ferrite rod and coil wire? Any good place to get those?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lapperll on July 08, 2008, 02:16:26 AM
Here is a good place to get an oscilloscope.  http://stores.ebay.com/The-Oscilloscope-Store (http://stores.ebay.com/The-Oscilloscope-Store)  Find what you want and then I would check www.Craigslist.com (http://www.Craigslist.com)

You can try this one also.   http://www.elexp.com/index.htm (http://www.elexp.com/index.htm)

No they do not need to be 16v, but here is a link to a good online electronics store.  https://www.allelectronics.com/ (https://www.allelectronics.com/)

Hope this helps.

LapperLL



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rakerMoon on July 10, 2008, 06:07:02 AM
Im new to this forum, id like to throw out a few pics of what im working on. I am far from an electrical engineer and im reaching out for some help. Can I get some direction.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rakerMoon on July 10, 2008, 06:24:59 AM
Its a simple settup for bench testing.
Title: Ravi/Meyer Replication for Laymans
Post by: sslayman on July 11, 2008, 03:39:30 AM
Hello all!,

I have been reading these forums for the past few months gathering as much knowledge and understanding of the Meyer project and Ravi and Lawton's great replications as well. 

I have long been a student of science and at my young age cannot argue that I am a product of a technology and digital driven generation.  Having said that I understand 80-90% of the technical terminology used throughout these posts but have struggled in my own replication with certain, whether it be electrical or otherwise, lingo.  I ask all of you experts to guide me, without predetermination or judgment of my abilities. 

My cell is setup as such:
(7) 7" 316L stainless steel tubes.  Outside tube is 1" OD with wall of .065" and inner tube is .75" with .065" wall leaving a gap of .12" or 1.524 mm gap. I used small rubber i cut from a 8x8 inch sheet from the local hard ware store.  1/16" thick.  I have sanded them cross directionally with 60 grit sandpaper on the outside and did the best I could to sand the insides of each tube. 

All 7 tubes are set in a 4" acrylic tube using PVC end connectors both on top and bottom. 

I purchased the clear acrylic tube from www.usplastic.com ; it comes in 6' lengths only but is about $40.
The ss was purchased from www.onlinemetals.com and was the best price i could find after searching over 50 websites in the course of 2 weeks.

I have just now finished construction of the cell and tested a single extra tube setup of the same criteria as above for passifivation purposes.  All i currently have for a power source is a semi drained 12v car battery for this testing purpose.  It is pushing out about 9v and I applied that to the single tube for 30 minutes let to rest for 30 minutes and on again for 30.  This produces a thin white film on the anode immediately. 

I'm currently working of getting a variable pulse circuit at vptechno.com  since i don't have the electronics know how to put it all together myself.

i have a few questions that i do need answered in LAY MAN'S terms:

1)How do I make a charging choke and does it go after the pulse circuit in the circuit.

2)has anyone had any success with stan's VIC or inductors?

3)i'm using ss as leads.  will it kill me? i mean, is it going to hurt the output dramatically.  I know it has a higher resistance.

4)what should i use as a power source? a simple car battery charger?

I'll attach pictures soon and video as well of the cell.  Tell me what you guys think.

Thanks
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: smallpotatoes on July 11, 2008, 06:15:28 AM
to R.  in stan meyer's videos, i noticed in his lecture he talks about increasing the strength of the polarity of the O and the H. you can do this by using pressure. also his cell was clearly able to hold pressure. did dave lawton or you use a pressurized cell?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: rumpuscat on July 12, 2008, 01:44:58 AM
Here is a place that seems to have the stainless in pretty much any form you could want,T304 or T316, but I don't see a lot of T316L.

http://www.onlinemetals.com/merchant.cfm?id=1&step=2&top_cat=1

Stan said he used T304 in line 52 of patent # 4936961 for what ever that's worth.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 12, 2008, 04:41:25 AM
Thanks ravi for all your hard work and specially for this url !
I think i will order a kit  ::)

Please tell us soon your newest developments here  :) we missed u so much.

Yup and things are cooling down very well, we have 200+ subscribers WATCHING Ravi and the organizations and making sure Any thing suspicious gets reported to the authorities.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/newsletter/newsletter.htm

Ravi is right, you can get every thing on one page, we have endorsed these guys, they use the revenue stream for further OPEN source research.
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm

We will soon have a cell and new DYI write up coming. Thanks to all subscribers for watching.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 13, 2008, 06:08:52 AM
I have to say I feel completely safe posting on these forums. Like you said ashtweth_nihilisti (what's that name meen anyway?) there are so many people into this now it would be impossible to stop, so why would they bother trying? Anyway....

Question, I just built the D14 circut on a breadboard, no MOSFET yet and I have a LED hooked to each 555's pin 3 for testing. The Gateing 555 pin 3(output) is fine, but when it is fed into the Pulse 555 pin 4(reset) it gates that chips output ON instead of gateing it OFF.

          I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I"''
                                                                 NO GATING

          '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''""""I___I""""I___I""""I___I'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''I___I""""I___I""""I___I'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''I___I""
                                                                 GATING ON

          _________________I""""I___I""""I___________________I""""I___I""""I____________________I""
                                                                   DESIRED (but just not happening)

Is my 555 timer not the right one or something? They are both NE555P. When I run them separatly they both work correctly. I'm hoping to get a Digital Video Camera this week, then I'll upload the video of my circut and what I have done so far. I'll make sure it's in focus  ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ethospete on July 14, 2008, 06:51:45 PM
Hi,

I've been studying everything I can find about HHO Generation - could acoustic resonance possibly have a part to play...?

If you study Stan's unit carefully you will see that there are small sections that are cut out of the outer tubes - just like you do with church organ pipes to tune them to a specific frequency.

The outer and inner pipes in the HHO Generator are different diameters so maybe by cutting the slot out of one of them they can be made to resonate at exactly the same frequency...?

I've not seen these slots on any other units that people have tried so far, so maybe adding them will make a further improvement to their output.

I've just ordered a Dave Lawton PWM and wonder if anyone knows where I can order a set of pipes from to experiment, or someone that will make a set up to order...?

I hope that this idea is useful... I'm also interested in any other information that might also be useful...

Very many thanks...

All the best,

Pete...

www.dinglefoundation.com
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 15, 2008, 10:18:10 AM
endorsed kits by the non profit org i work for (they are open source engineers) can be found here
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ethospete on July 15, 2008, 12:29:40 PM
ashtweth_nihilisti - Many thanks for the link and I'll go from there. I've seen a lot of great info out there from the Panacea University but not chatted with anyone there yet. Can you reccomend who I should email there...?

All the best,

Pete...
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: xbox hacker on July 15, 2008, 10:58:52 PM
Hello everyone, I have been a member of this forum for over a year and 1/2, up until recently i have been doing more reading then posting. But now i have some questions...

I have made a lawton PWM, it works great (looks good too...lol) I also made a bifilar coil. The stainless is 316 4x4 plates.. i dont have tubes yet. I get everything hooked up and running, i have a meter measuring the amps going to the cell. Now from what i can see i have (what it think) is good production of gas, the amp meter reads .8amps .... ;D

Now how do we figure out how efficient the device is???
1. Just visual on the amount of gas comming out?
2. Collect the gas and see how long it took to fill a certain mL?
3. If 3 then, how much (or how little) should the amps be to make the mL?

I will have to say that the production of gas was BETTER with the coil i made!! I will get a video camera soon and post a vid, i want you guys (and gals) to view it and let me know what you think of the production....

@Jamie.... mine is doing the exact same thing!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 16, 2008, 02:46:49 AM
Hi XXbox and ethospete

ethospete every thig you need to is here on the forum. At this time a new Ravi document is being done, how ever every thing previously disclosed on D14 and on the forums here is enough to get you going. If you need specific technical support then you can try here and or email me off list.

Xbox, yes goto the panaceauniversity.org site and rad the hydroxy course documents, there are many make shift ways you can measure the gas.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 16, 2008, 04:35:33 AM
RAVI ?? ?? :o  :o  :o

Are u back?  8)
YOUR bro Ravzz is back baby, he has too many helping behind him now, these guys cannot spook him any more. Try it! you will have an INTERNATIONAL SCANDAL WITH MAINSTREAM PRESS.

F**K off MIB

watch out!

Ashtweth and 230+ subscribers plus 4000 members of the FREE energy OU forum community
WATCH out... >:( more to come for YOU

THINK YOU CAN KILL EVERY YOU TUBE USER? how long until you realize that the HUMAN spirit can only be pushed so far.

YOUR IN ALLOT OF SHIT MIB.
Watch and learn, dont F**k with us. TRUST ME


our cell will be ready in 2 months
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: cleanfuture on July 16, 2008, 02:08:17 PM
Stan Meyer experimenters sets forsale on ebay. Item# 130239169501 
 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 16, 2008, 06:10:24 PM
Give 'em hell Ash...

I'm new here and to the Stan Meyer WFC, my background is broadcast engineering so I have a little experience in electronics. I have been researching this technology for a couple months now and am ready to do some experimentation. I've got some test gear and parts on order. To start with I'm going to use a    
HP 3312A Function Generator for the signal generator part of Dave's circuit, I will be starting out with 2 tubes 12" long and will add more as money allows.
A couple questions I have is once  my  tubes are fully conditioned how can I determine their capacitance? and for home made inductors how do I calculate the inductance?



Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 17, 2008, 12:59:04 AM
Hi mostrander

Yes we will give them hell alright, if so much as one of them even breaths with in a Cm of any engineer i find out about. Thats all i am going to say on the matter. Its important that these MIB's know that we know they are only spooks. There is too much going on now for no one to notice.And with the price of fuel ow boy.  So they need to rely on people being afraid. Well the game is up! They are lucky, i could set a trap for them still.

Guys, look under OverUnity Research material: at the http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
Ravi's Document is now up. it will be getting updated with more as our replication progresses


mostrander, thats great newsm8, not sure how your gonna do that with out a flow meter? Naudin did one with a single tube this may be what your looking for?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 17, 2008, 02:30:23 AM
Wow! Ravi this is great. You don't have to tell us anything, but you do tell us everything! thanks
Here's my video. Working on getting my tubes now. They are coming... my tubes I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JwfFjpW0_o

If someone can clear up the gateing thing that would be GREAT.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: xbox hacker on July 17, 2008, 03:21:09 PM
Hi mostrander

Yes we will give them hell alright, if so much as one of them even breaths with in a Cm of any engineer i find out about. Thats all i am going to say on the matter. Its important that these MIB's know that we know they are only spooks. There is too much going on now for no one to notice.And with the price of fuel ow boy.  So they need to rely on people being afraid. Well the game is up! They are lucky, i could set a trap for them still.

Guys, look under OverUnity Research material: at the http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
Ravi's Document is now up. it will be getting updated with more as our replication progresses


mostrander, thats great newsm8, not sure how your gonna do that with out a flow meter? Naudin did one with a single tube this may be what your looking for?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm

Thank you for the updated PDF info!!!!  ;D

I just want to put in my cents...the bifilar coil DOES make more gas...It is a MUST!!!! I would say that my gas production almost doubled with it and kept the amps at the same spot.

Altough...my coil looks nothing like Ravi's.....
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: galkaen on July 17, 2008, 10:25:27 PM
Hi everybody !
Great work!

Im trying to get Ravi's new docs but panacea seems to be down.

if someone has them can i get a copy please?

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 17, 2008, 10:27:53 PM
Guys the site will be back up soon. Until further notice the panacea university site has been taken down and we are re editing material.

regards
Ash
Title: panaceauniversity -gone? Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: malakabayo on July 18, 2008, 03:16:52 AM
http://www.panaceauniversity.org is gone?
Just after the ravi design been published there, now the website is down? I wonder why..
I hope its just a website problem..

ahh there's the reason above.. sorry.. silly me..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: slider1 on July 18, 2008, 05:57:39 AM
So in the meantime does any one have a copy they can post? More sites that it is on the better.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 18, 2008, 06:38:00 AM
Drop me an email, Please dont put the doc up on a site till we re edit it ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 18, 2008, 07:13:22 AM
The MIB strike again.  They are everywhere.

Bill
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 18, 2008, 07:15:13 AM
Pirate88179 no not MIB's just us needing to re draw and take care of copy right issues on the site ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 18, 2008, 08:06:50 PM
Hello all (Hi HHO)
This is my first post here.(Got pretty impressed and motivated towards WFC after coming to this forum.thank you all or bringing up your respective findings and sharing with the rest of word.)
i saw all the "available" videos thru youtube and red different threads.may be here i might did some thing wrong.i red too many posts that cause lot of confusion.each person has his own way of working and his won circuit.so when i plan to begin i don't understand from where i should start.so i need some help from you guys.i hope you don't mind.

.....after going thru all the data(if i understand concept right),when a pulsed DC energy passed thru step up transformer and thru the respective inductors to WFC,it will generate enough gas by drawing very low current.of course the electrical resonance between the WFC and inductors has to be same.
1.so can i get a simple setup transformer from shop and use here?
2.is this resonance method work for plates too?
3.what is the best replacement for BUZ350
4.when i looked at RAVI's inductors they are quite lengthy.may be 100mm (am i reading right?)
5.what is the best turns and values of transformer and inductors achieved so far?
6.STANLEY's patent shows variable inductor.but i don't see any model,which uses this function
7.As per the picture in patent,the stepup transformer coil and inductors are on same core.is it possible to do that.if yes,then how?
pls help me guys.so that i can clear my mind and work more towards creating a better WFC.
thanks

*i made a picture(sorry for the quality) that focus on my doubts.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: slider1 on July 18, 2008, 09:12:51 PM
Thank you for the updated PDF info!!!!  ;D

I just want to put in my cents...the bifilar coil DOES make more gas...It is a MUST!!!! I would say that my gas production almost doubled with it and kept the amps at the same spot.

Altough...my coil looks nothing like Ravi's.....
What does your coil look like? Glad to see you working on this too!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: slowerlower on July 20, 2008, 10:14:17 AM
This may be a stupid question.  Tesla theorized that all life resonates between 6 and 8 hz.  So if we are working on a way to break or fracture the hydrogen bond by way of resonance, than couldn't that also mean that this device could also be tuned to destroy that bond in DNA as well?

This then could create a mere perfect weapon.  Silent and unforgiving, vaporizing life before one could prepare their last prayers.  This would or could create world government bent on fear, enslaving us deeper under a tyrannical thumb.

As with all great ideas someone somehow finds a way to pervert it and cause harm greater than ever imagined previously.

Please understand I am not against this technology in any way.  In fact I am building my first hho gen.  A very simple design, nothing serious yet.  But with results and news spreading has there been any talk or discussion to the degree in which this technology can be taken. 

I no longer feel that we are able to create technology without considering not only the good but the evil, that new ideas or technology could bring .  Consider only the quaint, kind, professor that the morning he heard the news of the Atom bomb being dropped he said nothing but "Oh my God"  because the bombed used his equation to fuel its theory, and on top of that it was speculated that the bombs never needed to be dropped to end the war.

Free energy could save us in poverty, but could it in any way be used to tighten our shackles.  please consider and respond

Thank You
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kinesisfilms on July 20, 2008, 11:22:56 AM
why are there so many idiots on these forums?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: slowerlower on July 20, 2008, 05:38:58 PM
Idiot? perhaps.  But you failed to provide any type of arguement that would dispute this claim.  Consider that water may onl be the starting point .  Has this method of electolysis been attempted with any other liquids.  a possible change may need to be made to the tubes because a different liquid may decompose diferently causing the tubes to breakdown.  but could it be done? 

How unfortunate it is that when one asks a question - they get harrassed and belittled.  One, on the other hand, should get used to quesstions oef all types, because in a free energy society free thought and ideas could replace oppression.  After all isn't that the ultimate goal to advance us past the need for agression.

I apologize if my question has offended - but has the final end been considered or have we failed once again to see how a noble cause could be retrofitted to create more destruction.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lerige on July 20, 2008, 08:07:44 PM
Hi all,

I found this on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/HHO-Hybrid-Generator,-Meyers-type-WFC,-Browns-Gas_W0QQitemZ250272229048QQcmdZViewItem?IMSfp=TL0807191138r25205

do you have an opinion on this product?

 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 20, 2008, 08:16:26 PM
Anything can be used for good and bad. To think that the water fuel cell technology can be used for hurting people is a very real issue, but, so can nitrogen which is used for fertilizer and so on. Are you saying not to do research because it may hurt us in some way? That to me sounds a lot like a fear tactic to keep others from finding renewable energy. Sure, we could use the technology to fuel ballistic missiles or weapons of mass destruction, but, we will find ways to do that anyway. What is the point?

I think you have posted your question in the wrong topic. This thread is about the replication of Stanley Meyer's work and making it usable for everyone who wishes to. Have you done any research yourself or are you just sitting in a chair thinking about it? Do you have any data to share with us in a positive manner?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lerige on July 20, 2008, 08:36:53 PM
ok Hearbear,

it was my first post at overunity forum, and you are right, today I am sitting in my chair trying to get a better idea of overunity systems like WFC. One day, I will surely spend time and money on these systems, but I don't know when.
If I did not post to the right forum, I do sincerely apologize and will look for another one. Nevertheless, thanks for your welcome post, I won't bore you again with stupid questions.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kinesisfilms on July 20, 2008, 10:02:47 PM
let's try to stay on topic...and fantasize about what if's for another point in time....we are talking about low input power to split water....NOT BREAKING DNA AS THE PERFECT WEAPON TO DESTROY HUMANS....you understand where im coming from? it's not suppression its pure stupidity....this topic is not how many things you can cook with a forman grill....this is about low input power stanley meyers replicas.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Kineticon on July 20, 2008, 10:21:53 PM
fever16, it seems that Meyer's system works best on pipes electrodes. I struggle with a plates system with not so good results...
For plates, it seems that Bob Boyce knows the secret.
You may use IRF740 mounted on a radiator instead of BUZ350.
Good luck!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 20, 2008, 10:50:59 PM
@ xboxHacker

I think I figured out why the gating is not working correctly. Pin 4 needs between 0.2 and 0.7 volts to hold the output off. When you apply a higher voltage it holds it on. Then you drop to 0 volts at pin 4 and it resets the whole pulse cycle. This would make the length of the Gating 555, pin 3, ON state irrelevent, since the reseting is done while swithing to OFF. Does that make Sense?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 20, 2008, 10:56:58 PM
I don't think the labels Frequency and Mark Space are accurate in the D14 circuit diagrams. Both pots control Frequency and Both contribute to Mark/Space.

Mark/Space -    

Mark/Space is a ratio measurement. Mark being the ON state of a pulse, and Space being the OFF state between the pulses in a square wave. This means that if you have a square wave that's high for 3 seconds and off for 1 second you have a 3 second Mark(ON) to 1 second Space(OFF) ratio or 3/1. In the lawton circuit both pots contribute to the mark space because one controls Mark and one controls Space.

Frequency -   

The number of repetitions per unit time of a complete waveform. Frequency is therefore equal to Mark + Space, because a Mark and a Space completes a full cycle.

Here is how I think the pots would be better labeled:
(Note: I replaced both pots on the pulse chip with one to produce a 50% duty cycle which Meyers calls for in U.S. patent # 4,936,961.)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: xbox hacker on July 20, 2008, 11:10:28 PM
@ xboxHacker

I think I figured out why the gating is not working correctly. Pin 4 needs between 0.2 and 0.7 volts to hold the output off. When you apply a higher voltage it holds it on. Then you drop to 0 volts at pin 4 and it resets the whole pulse cycle. This would make the length of the Gating 555, pin 3, ON state irrelevent, since the reseting is done while swithing to OFF. Does that make Sense?

Yes it does..So just make the voltage to pin 4 less, like  0.7?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 20, 2008, 11:22:14 PM
Don't get me wrong I think it works the way it's supposed to, but I thought you were supposed to be able to adjust the gating length.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 21, 2008, 05:20:38 AM
@Kineticon
thanks for the reply i'll do that.

iam quite worried abt one more thing guys.what ever the research is done on WFC till now(on different forums ) is mostly during end of 2007 and beginning of 2008.after that i don't see any impressive results.is that mean people start thinking that this technology is not going to work?  :(
bcz most users like hydrocars,steev(from waterfuelcel-com),ashtweth(and others) did quite good research.but i don't see any further developments from them.
is that mean
the secret  is already cracked
or Ravi's issue with MIB's caused this silence
or something else?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 21, 2008, 06:08:51 AM
fever16, and the rest , ask WHY your result don't work, DO YOU FOLLOW EVERY THING WE SAY TO FOLLOW?

???

No? My replication is doing this at this time, if i cut corners it wont work. So FOLLOW THIS PDF IN EVERY WAY DON'T MAKE ANY COMPROMISES.
http://rapidshare.com/files/131258913/Ravi_Cell.pdf.html

Then you have a case to ask  ;), Ravi, and i cannot understand why people expect results when they don't do the same.

Do the same Bro. :-*

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 21, 2008, 06:42:12 AM
thanks bro.
i got it.but i haven't started building my stuff yet.
till now i was collecting and reading all the data and experiments you guys did.
but i got curious when i saw very less research results in recent days.

once i start building my experiment(that will be soon) i'll sure follow the rules made by you.but as i said before recent progress made me little depressed.  :-\
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 21, 2008, 06:49:41 AM
My brother, don't get depressed get INSPIRED, You have help here as a collective force, a community, get inspired by Tesla, and others..

STEFAN, is our BROTHER here, and he has done Fkn well man, i know you have felt  hardship and pain, we all have  :-X, so we are all here and in this together . You know what man?

If you devote your life to doing tiny bits of good in the world, like Stefan, and OU forum as a collective brothers and sisters, you will never be a victim. >:(

so man, you are not alone. We and you are here lets fight!
Any probs with your rep, let ME know, il PERSONALLY HELP YOU BRO :-*

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 21, 2008, 08:27:28 AM
ASH,

     You are a true inspiration to this forum and all others you post on but... Can you personally confirm that Dave's and Ravi's results are the real deal? Please don't take this the wrong way, because, I am an avid researcher of Stan's work for a few years now, and I have replicated Dave's/Ravi's work to the "T". BUZZ350 and all. It works, but, only to a certain degree. There is still heat generated from long periods of use. Plus, the gas output is no where near what Stan has shown. I am not convinced that the Lawton style diagrams will achieve the results Stan had demonstrated hundreds of times before his death. Long live Stan Meyer!

     I do admit, I was hooked in by Dave's work until I replicated it, and Ravi gave me new inspiration, but, neither will even run a small moped engine(49cc) for longer than when the gas pressure dies off from low production. There are too many discrepancies and barely any real measurements of both replications to show true replication. As always, MIB is mentioned when replicators who claim victory are bombarded with emails and such asking the details. I am truly awaiting this new info from Ravi. I can't wait! If the Indian gov came looking for him from just a few videos on youtube, then we have a much bigger problem than most of us can imagine.

     Is this Tesla tech? How? The bifilar choke coils? Is that it? A couple of coils wired in a certain way is the answer to this puzzle? So show me the same tech in a Tesla invention. A Tesla Coil you say? Sorry, that is a "Lodge" coil, not the same thing. Just because you can make a streaming spark doesn't mean you replicated his work. As far as I know, publicly, without any show of evidence, Dollard has been the only documented case of any Tesla replication written on paper. No person that I know of that will come forward will show Dollard's replication. That is if he released any pertinent info to replicate, which he didn't. Well, maybe Bedini did it, but, he aint talkin more than his motors and battery charging.

     Why does every electronic engineer say Stan's work won't work? Stan admittedly never released the true wiring diagrams of his work to obscure it from take over by any entity. He was absolutely paranoid! I would be too if I was held at gunpoint from a shady investor! You can see the guy in Stan's dune buggy video being powered by his "Rotary Pulsed Generator". Panacea has the whole story on it's web site. I love Panacea! The best resource of info any where! Never the less, the subject matter, mostly, is unsubstantiated claims. Still, Panacea is the best site for inspiration and has the best and most accurate info available. Keely's site is also in the ranks.

     Can any of us answer the question, "How do you make a circuit work with a dead short?" That's what Stan asked and claimed it was how his devices worked when he found how to do it. I have shorted out a Lawton Ravi circuit a few hundred times. Sure, the oxide layer is resistive and can improve electrolysis, but, it can still short out and fry from just a couple of volts of a dead short.

     NEXT!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 21, 2008, 09:07:23 AM
My dear HeairBear, Nonononooo. it is YOU tinkers that are an inspiration to the forum, not us, don't forget that my friend. :)

Now,

>Can you personally confirm that Dave's and Ravi's results are the real deal?

YES

I have known and PROTECTED Ravi now for along time, he is a metal urgy GENIUS, he knows his stuff man, Dave Lawton also is not an average tinker, these guys are well qualified and i trust them. I am in the middle of a cell now, but i don't need to wait to know Ravi got what he got, he did a gas flow test, they TRIED to spook him. What more proof you want Bro? (try the rep)  ;)

>Can any of us answer the question, "How do you make a circuit work with a dead short?"

My friend, answer this with YOUR REPLICATION, don't doubt your own abilities, can you replicate it? YES , YES you can, you only need to try and apply your self, you have the answers ;).

Ash

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 21, 2008, 10:51:30 AM
I mean no disrespect, but, I have to question all of my sources. You are one of those sources and I must question you to better understand my quest for knowledge. Your responses are inspiring, only tinged with mysticism and the trust of your word which I cannot accept after replicating the works and beyond. So, let's talk shop! What Tesla technology is at work here? The bifilar chokes? How are they connected and why? Why do Stan's drawings and pictures of the "Rotary Pulsed Generator" demoed in all videos show only a variable transformer, un-regulated alternator, electric motor, and tube cell array? No PWM, no chokes. The "Electrical Polarization Process Resonant Charging Choke Circuit" was a totally different device with a variable spacing of two plates, not tubes. Also, Stan shows his chokes wired in a non-inductive manner where the magnetic field would be canceled.

     Is Ravi's or Dave's previous works non-functional and we are waiting for you to release the actual diagrams? I don't' understand why you say the info is coming, but, we should have had it already in the previous releases. What is so crucial to the design that we all have over looked? When people hide the truth, I smell doodoo! Sniff, sniff... Do you smell that? What are we waiting for? The real diagrams? There is not much left to hide in this replication, or should I say recreation of Stan's work. Compare the diagrams and judge for yourself. I can see absolutely no resemblance to Stan's work. None... If RAVI is an expert metallurgist, why is his electronics being highlighted? Is he an electronics engineer too? What does metallurgy have to do with it?

     I'm sorry I have so many questions, but, most of this seems like hype. I'm waiting for the info, till then, I'm not holding my breath. I have been down this road and it leads to two people who are crying wolf. Where is the wolf?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 21, 2008, 11:45:56 AM
No mysticism in this doc, it shows you how to connect the Chokes
http://rapidshare.com/files/131258913/Ravi_Cell.pdf.html

>Why Stan's drawings and pictures of the "Rotary Pulsed Generator"

The same reason why EVGRAY drew his his way, (i cannot tell its not of relevance here)

> Is Ravi's or Dave's previous works non-functional and we are waiting for you to release the actual diagrams? I don't' understand why you say the info is coming,

All info you need is in the document, the panacea university site is back up, we are updating the RAVI doc with our experimental findings.

>What is so crucial to the design that we all have over looked?

Every thing in that document

>f RAVI is an expert metallurgist, why is his electronics being highlighted? Is he an electronics engineer too? What does metallurgy have to do with it?

He has been able to analyze the metal  and comment on the conditioning progress which Aaron confirmed, plus other things listed on the document.

Every thing you have to get started is in that document, if you have doubt, then i cannot convince you.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 21, 2008, 06:36:19 PM
No mysticism in this doc, it shows you how to connect the Chokes
http://rapidshare.com/files/131258913/Ravi_Cell.pdf.html

>Why Stan's drawings and pictures of the "Rotary Pulsed Generator"

The same reason why EVGRAY drew his his way, (i cannot tell its not of relevance here)

> Is Ravi's or Dave's previous works non-functional and we are waiting for you to release the actual diagrams? I don't' understand why you say the info is coming,

All info you need is in the document, the panacea university site is back up, we are updating the RAVI doc with our experimental findings.

>What is so crucial to the design that we all have over looked?

Every thing in that document

>f RAVI is an expert metallurgist, why is his electronics being highlighted? Is he an electronics engineer too? What does metallurgy have to do with it?

He has been able to analyze the metal  and comment on the conditioning progress which Aaron confirmed, plus other things listed on the document.

Every thing you have to get started is in that document, if you have doubt, then i cannot convince you.

Ash


Ash,

Thanks for that Ravi_Cell document. It answered a lot of questions for me on the conditioning process.
Can I assume that during conditioning, operating currents listed can be adjusted directly proportional to the surface area?
For example: Using Ravi's inner tube dimension of 3/4 inch dia., 9 inches long and 9 tubes comes out to be ~190 sq. inches.
If flat plates are used with an effective area of 380 sq. inches being conditioned, then I just double the listed conditioning currents?

TIA
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 21, 2008, 08:01:49 PM
Has Ravi or anybody with a successfully Stanley replication taken any measurements with an oscilloscope?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 22, 2008, 02:54:02 AM
insane4evr

Okay, the best criteria as stated in the doc, is to do LOW amp conditioning, WHY? The coat is most likely to stick better. The magic number is .02 amps. dont Do high amp conditioning no matter what size tubes.

Still to the one listed in there regardless.

Now as for the oscilloscope, Dave showed the Square waves coming off yes. Naudin (JLN labs) did one i think. I can as soon as ours is ready.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 22, 2008, 04:41:53 AM
insane4evr

Okay, the best criteria as stated in the doc, is to do LOW amp conditioning, WHY? The coat is most likely to stick better. The magic number is .02 amps. dont Do high amp conditioning no matter what size tubes.

Still to the one listed in there regardless.
.................
Thanks for the response.

However, I am confused. Page 18 of the document says to start with 0.5 amp at step 1 up to 3 amps at step 6. In page 20 it mentioned that if you want the best coating to use 0.2 amp and not .02 amp. Maybe response is a typo?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 22, 2008, 04:58:16 AM
No not a typo, this is the best way to condition them, but it takes the longest on .2 amps. Ravi still did low amp conditioning even after he got good gas. So what i suggest for 4 weeks (yes it takes that long) start with the Normal one you described, then and only then after you have no brown gak being produced, try low amp of .2amps when not using your cell  ;).

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 22, 2008, 05:34:01 AM
No not a typo, this is the best way to condition them, but it takes the longest on .2 amps. Ravi still did low amp conditioning even after he got good gas. So what i suggest for 4 weeks (yes it takes that long) start with the Normal one you described, then and only then after you have no brown gak being produced, try low amp of .2amps when not using your cell  ;).

Ash
Ahh. Now I understand. Thank you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Visual Echo on July 22, 2008, 07:07:29 PM
Hello!  I'm having some trouble understanding part of the new Ravi design document.  I'm interested in the way the 9 individual bifilar chokes and tubes are connected to the rest of the VIC.

Are all of the chokes and tubes connected in parallel after the VIC diode?  This is how I would assume, but they could each have their own diode, or even their own VIC transformer.

Here is my real problem... I'm trying to recreate the PLL circuit Meyer describes in WO 92/07861.  The PLL chip 'A27' in Figure 7 is a 4046 PLL, the modern equivalent is a 74HC7046 which has the lock detector circuit built into the chip (notice the similarities between Figure 7 and figure 2, page 99 of "The Forrest Mims Circuit Scrapbook: V. 1").

Figure 8 is a 555-timer warbler circuit, like a siren which cycles through frequencies and gets fed to the PLL VCO input when the PLL is not locked.  When the resonance frequency is found and lock is achieved, the logic gates switch out the siren and switch in the PLL phase comparator.  I don't quite understand how the uni-polar transistors work there, so I may experiment with replacing them with logic gates.

Figure 9 processes an additional tap on the VIC coil (labeled "PULSE PICKUP COIIL" in Figure 1), this signal gets cleaned up and fed into the PLL signal input.  According to the WO 92/08761 text, "The ferromagnetic core of the voltage intensifier circuit transformer suppresses electron surge in an out-of-resonance condition of the fuel cell."  This is the key to the PLL feedback signal, but I'm not completely clear on the effect of splitting the VIC into a separate step-up transformer and a bifilar choke.  If the two coils aren't on the same core, I'm not quite sure how this will work.

If I can take a PLL feedback tap another way, like putting the pulse pickup coil on one large choke for a multiple tube cell, instead of using separate chokes per tube, that might work. If I try and make separate chokes for each tube, this would tend to suggest that I need a separate PLL circuit for each tube, which isn't economically feasible or time efficient for me right now.  If I make one big honking 4 inch toroid with all 5 windings... well, that's probably my most logical next step.

I'm building a cell using a Lawton (LM556) circuit, then I'll be breadboarding the PLL circuit.  If that succeeds, I'll probably work out a PCB using Eagle PCB CAD.  I've got a few pictures of the cell posted at the reference below.  Nothing special.

Thanks very much in advance for any insight anyone can provide, I'm having a *LOT* of trouble getting any response from anyone on the topic of PLL integration.

References:
WO 92/07861 ( http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/wo92.htm )
4046 circuit ( http://books.google.com/books?id=STzitya5iwgC&pg=PA99&dq=4046+mims&sig=ACfU3U1_4pFpUe_E8pprcV7ZEZgIkcswNA )
NXP 74HC7046 ( http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/74HC_HCT7046A_CNV_2.pdf )
my own cell ( http://pyroflatulence.tv/?p=46 )
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on July 22, 2008, 08:07:32 PM
Have you seen what our Brothers Down-Under are making?  hydrogenwfc@optusnet.com.au   They have come up with a REStar module wfc-004. This thing has a key pad and much much more.  They also sell everything but the big 18" tube wfc.   Have to re-read it one more time.
 The only problem that I have is a bad time burning up my components with a temperature controlled soldering iron. Have set it to 625?F.  Maybe the pencil point on the iron is the wrong type.
Visual Echo: what type of soldering point do you use?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Visual Echo on July 22, 2008, 09:00:05 PM
what type of soldering point do you use?

I use an "Aoyue 2702 SMD Professional Repair & Rework Station".  I had to get serious about some surface mount work a couple of years ago, and that station has been a terrific investment.  It is pretty cheap for how well it works.  If you actually want to start working with surface mount, plan on buying an observation microscope.

http://www.thehydrogenshop.com (referenced above) looks pretty good.  As far as I can tell, it's still just one-way PWM, no PLL closed-loop feedback is involved.  The microprocessor version is cute.  He's open about the design, that's great!

I have some pretty lofty plans if this works, like completely overbuilding the control unit.  PIC chips and ASCII LCD screens are one way, but you can get a lot more control and real estate using a microcontroller with wifi and a web server.  Here is a pic of my last project: ( http://www.darkhq.com/bb/files/pimp-a-sketch-linux.jpg ) which might become the control computer for this one (see http://www.gumstix.com/ ).  Meanwhile, I don't even have a cell working yet, much less a working PLL circuit.  Money talks and BS walks, so back to my workbench I go!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 23, 2008, 03:12:01 AM
Guys , we are now re drawing the VIC and putting in about the inductors, we have re drawn the schemo's and added in new and updated info.

Yes, Rod from down under is also helping us make Ravi's cell, this will be under open hours and used to support Ravi's research and other open source engineers under the Org's help.

wont be long prob 2-3 days till new doc is up.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 23, 2008, 03:23:43 PM
Here ya go guys, Ravi has advised us what to re draw for the Meyers VIC.

Ravzz' full VIC
http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2397/completecellwiringdiagrdj9.gif

(He is proof reading it now)

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/4058/74501320xm0.gif (inductor Schemo)
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/4612/17573941so2.gif(Alt)

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7576/coldcurrentcircuitgn6.gif
(cold current)

WE will test this when our new cell is ready

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/9173/freqgennn9.jpg
our Freq Gen

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7866/setup1kr8.jpg

This is our [old] cell and Freq gen too. These will be going in the
new write up, we have a guy working with us and Ravi to get this OPEN
source replication done.


Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Visual Echo on July 23, 2008, 04:11:50 PM
Beautiful!  And answers my question, thank you!!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 23, 2008, 04:15:14 PM
Ash,

Thanks for the schematic.
Some comments:
1. Even though it won't make much difference, R2 should probably be the same as R1 (100 ohms), minimizes on different resistor values.
2. Picture shows that rotary range switches are being used, i.e., S5, S6, S7 is just 1 rotary switch, so C8, C9, and C10 should probably be different values.

In my test, Q1 drain has random spikes of over 100 volts, so would be a good idea to add a capacitor between 13.8 VDC and ground if circuit is installed in a car to avoid interference with car electronics.

Impressive.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 23, 2008, 04:21:26 PM
My brother.

Let me quote john Bedini

Get it working first before you change any thing.
-end

 ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 23, 2008, 05:07:20 PM
Ash,
Great information, thanks.

I'm currently in the process of ordering components to begin testing, I do have one question I will be using a HP 3312A function generator to delver my pulses, my setup will be very similar to what JLN is doing do you see any problem with going this route?

Thanks,
Matt
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 23, 2008, 06:42:48 PM
Thanks ASH
ur post is quite helpful.
i have some doubts.
1.what is the dimension of ferrite core(imean dia and thinkness),to get good results.
2.we have different frequency ranges in circuit. (c1-c3 and c8-c10) which capacitance range is efficient.
(i just want to avoid running behind the values,so that i can work more over tube construction )
thanks once again.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 24, 2008, 12:40:24 AM
Thank you Ash, for the info.I appreciate your efforts. I noticed in the Ravii pdf, the chokes are wired in a way to enhance the magnetic flux. The current is flowing in the same direction in both windings. I have also noticed, Stan used a non-inductive style coil drawn for the original VIC circuit. shown here...
(http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/1892/meyerbifilarfq4.jpg)

Remember the Genesis Project? http://www.geocities.com/nayado/  A quote from that page...

"By sending an electric current into the non-inductive coil around which electrified into negative, it is possible to induce the opposite self-induction phenomenon. In this time, positive and negative energy are pulled apart from nil. The positive energy appears as an electric power, and the negative energy appears as the effect of cooling and anti-gravity."

Is this why Stan wired the chokes this way? Would it solve Ravi's heating problem? Come to think of it, the GEET utilizes this Tesla technology too, only with vapors. Scalar waves perhaps?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 24, 2008, 03:17:06 AM
This seems like a good source for ferrite toro?dal core and wire https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/7 (https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/7) now which core should I get?

They also have ferrite rods, which one of these would be the best https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6 (https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6)?

Thanks,
Matt
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 24, 2008, 04:21:38 AM
Not exactly Stanley replication as WFC is made of flat plates. Anyway, here are some scope screenshots:

Top trace is the gate. Note: Choke is actually not bifilar but junk box TV EI ferrite core line filter.
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/6861/gatedcelldrivebifilarchml0.jpg

Across the cell electrodes at a certain low frequency.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9990/celldrive1aanodeandcathoe3.jpg

Across the cell electrodes at higher frequency.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9341/chokedhighfreqdrive1akv1.jpg

All of the above from this setup which is just starting to be conditioned.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2600/img5068ahb7.jpg
WFC is 24 parallel plates immersed in tap water inside a used plastic candy jar.
Flat wire to electrodes is heavy gage speaker wire.
I know I should have potted the exposed copper wires in RTV, but I am too lazy. lol. ;D

This is fun learning this stuff. Thanks to all who are contributing.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: lefferdink on July 24, 2008, 04:39:06 AM
When you guys get the chance, can you please give us the manufacturer's name to purchase the exact rods and torroids  I am tempted to buy the rods from amidon....but don't want to stray and waste my hard earned cash.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 24, 2008, 04:39:23 AM
This seems like a good source for ferrite toro?dal core and wire https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/7 (https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/7) now which core should I get?

They also have ferrite rods, which one of these would be the best https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6 (https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6)?

Thanks,
Matt
Good find. I am going for the rod as it is hard for me to hand wind on toroids.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on July 24, 2008, 06:57:48 AM
@insane4evr

your conditioning process will fail with the copper cable in the water. It creates a chemical element in touch with the ss plates.

Look for some ss wire, bolt or stripes to connect to the ss plates and then connect your copper cable outside the water.



good luck,

atlantex
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: atlantex on July 24, 2008, 06:58:16 AM
*** double post ***
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 24, 2008, 07:26:34 AM
@insane4evr

your conditioning process will fail with the copper cable in the water. It creates a chemical element in touch with the ss plates.

Look for some ss wire, bolt or stripes to connect to the ss plates and then connect your copper cable outside the water.



good luck,

atlantex

Maybe. The one connected to the +12 (anode?) now has a green coating (cuprous oxide). But the other one does not. Also, the cathode plates are slightly whitish and less glossy compared to the anodes. So, maybe it is growing the white stuff (calcium?) despite the copper in water. Conditioning cycle is on and off for 3 days now as I do it only during my short 'hobby' hours. I will keep it as is until the weekend and then do your advice and see if there is any change. Will post the results later.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 24, 2008, 08:13:04 AM
Before I return the DSO I borrowed, I captured these. It seems that opposing phase connection lowers spikes at mosfet turn off compared aiding phase connection.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/387/celldriveopposingchokepto2.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6894/celldiriveaidingchokephbw5.jpg

Question is are spike'y drive voltages beneficial or not. I wish I know the answer.

That's all for tonight.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 24, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
New doc is back up 8)

http://www.panaceauniversity.org/

Look under over unity research material. This has new VIC material in it by Ravi himself.We will be adding in our results from our new cell in that document in 2 months. Also new WFC video coming in a few weeks. Thanks for finding all the suppliers, ill add in your faculty comments as we get further

let get this baby rolling ;D

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 24, 2008, 11:43:48 PM
Has anybody tried powder coating the tubes to eliminate the conditioning process?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 25, 2008, 01:30:32 AM
I think someone suggested that awhile back but nobody ever tried it. It would sure be nice to be able to skip that condition process (which I won't Ash, this is going to be an exact Ravi replication.) It would sure save alot of electricity too, which would be good.

Ravi, what grade and gage of SS did you use as leads to your tubes? I understand the wire should be as big as possible, less resistance, but I don't know how the grades effect the resistance. Did you just use regular SS? I'm just exiting the WFC with the leads like your setup.

For anyone looking for a way to make tube holders without a CNC machine or anyone following my replication here is a video of the making of the tube holders and my acylic tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNNjmtz9goo

The Tubes are on the way, I will make a video of them in the next few weeks. 

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 25, 2008, 01:40:29 AM
J, the tubes are listed in the Doc 316L, plus we need ot fix a few things on that Schemo, so don't use the wiring diagram yet guys, Sorry wont be long.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 25, 2008, 03:35:28 AM
I just wanted to know what the leads were, not the tubes. I know they aren't 316L


They also have ferrite rods, which one of these would be the best https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6 (https://www.amidoncorp.com/categories/6)?


Matt since no seems to know which one to use, I dug up this chart:
https://www.amidoncorp.com/specs/2-02.PDF
Now we have three choices, 33, 61, 71. These come in 3/8" It appears the higher numbers are for higher frequencies. Someone said Dave was running his cell at 5714Hz and 33 ferrite material is good for 1 KHz to 1 MHz, everything else seems to be in the Mega Hertz range so I think I'm going with 33.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 25, 2008, 03:49:07 AM
J, sorry about that, yeah the leads were 316, Ravi advises to use Copper and silicon, its in the Doc ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on July 25, 2008, 04:26:39 AM
@ Ash

Oh I see now, thanks for the clarification. Then what drill and tap for the copper I guess? I don't like the thought of drilling the tubes much though. Maybe I could silicone them right on  :-\, but I don't think that will be good contact. I'll look in to this.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 25, 2008, 05:34:57 AM
Jamie,
Thats what I was looking at using the 33 rods for the inductors and the J Material Ferrite Toroids for the transformer.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Visual Echo on July 25, 2008, 02:50:10 PM
using the 33 rods for the inductors and the J Material Ferrite Toroids for the transformer.

That was also my conclusion.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 26, 2008, 02:48:36 AM
Guys if your making the VIC form the document, can you post a snap for it ;D so we can help newbie thanks.I am still conditioning the old cell, seems like we had it hooked up wrong and it may need more conditioning, guys patience is the key here... ;)


j, thanks for that Vid man!! ill add it in the Doc with your credits.

Ash
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 26, 2008, 12:49:21 PM
Would it work to carbon coat them with a gasflame?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 26, 2008, 01:14:54 PM
Updated doc with more clarity on the Schemo
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/

Alan, advice is to get it working first before changing the rules ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 26, 2008, 02:16:03 PM
I am new to this thread, going to skim through it first.

My comment was based on a youtube video I seen a while ago btw.
It's still there, all his video's are interesting:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qm4uP-twgoA
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 26, 2008, 07:02:08 PM
today i started my experiment with different and wearied hand made inductors.(only bi-filar no setup coil)
and came to conclusion that conditioning is the only answer to get more gas.i just used 2 plates glued by quick fix and 2 nylon made washers.i used dave's 555 and some coils.
but when i concentrated more on conditioning it worked.at the end of day i was getting more gas at 0.5 amp consumption.don't know why inductor never worked.may be after full conditioning i shld go for VIC circuit(step up transformer and bi-filar coils).

one thing is bothering me..
ravi told us to do the conditioning at different amp for different times.but my setup is not drawing that amp at all.its always staying at 0.5.how can i increase the current consumption?.by adding more electrodes or by tuning the 555 circuit?
and guys pls help me to find the proper range of  frequency.at what capacitor ranges your getting good gas out put.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 26, 2008, 10:00:20 PM
Hi fever16,

I am no expert and this is just my opinion.

Maximum current draw for your setup can be measured if you bypass the PWM and apply fused 12VDC across your WFC. This could help you determine if your PWM is working or not.

Current draw depends upon the number of plates, their size, and the distance between them. What are they. 

Did the conditioning water turn brown? Are you seeing a change in the surface of one of the plate?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 27, 2008, 03:55:13 AM
i did some 15-20 trails for conditioning,at first all of the water turned brown and cell keep building some sort of slag.but when i reached my 18 and 19th trial i can observe a thick layer of slag only at the top.rest of the water is quite clear.i started the conditioning at at 0.4AMP and final one ended up at 0.6AMP.but during this gas production surely gone up.
may be as you said,more plates will draw more current.i shld try that.

*has any one made some good working PCB layout for this 555 circuit?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 28, 2008, 01:38:03 PM
Did you use an electrolyte?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: sanmankl on July 28, 2008, 06:18:13 PM
@All,

This may be OT but I did a replication and my video is on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV6EZA2yVGQ

I can't afford ss tubes so I have to make do.

I'm using 5 round sink strainer plates (stainless steel) bought at the local hardware shop, 3" in diameter. DC power via a 555 PWM at 53% duty cycle, 10.7KHz. The funny thing is that if I use the plates the other way round i.e. "a concave" or shallow "U", there's not much gas but when I invert it, gas production is pretty good considering it's only a single frequency at 10.7KHz. Tried other freq., 20KHz, 42Khz; not as good as 10KHz.

This is plain tap water, no additives.

I conditioned the plates by running it in the same frequency with water for about 10 minutes, stop, start again 10 mins 5~6 times. 1st few times, the water turns brownish.

Comments/suggestions welcome.

cp
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: sanmankl on July 28, 2008, 06:21:45 PM
i did some 15-20 trails for conditioning,at first all of the water turned brown and cell keep building some sort of slag.but when i reached my 18 and 19th trial i can observe a thick layer of slag only at the top.rest of the water is quite clear.i started the conditioning at at 0.4AMP and final one ended up at 0.6AMP.but during this gas production surely gone up.
may be as you said,more plates will draw more current.i shld try that.

*has any one made some good working PCB layout for this 555 circuit?

Hi,

I'd made a few with eaglecad. PM me and I'll email it to you. You can have the schematic and the layout so that you can modify it to suit your style.

Regards, cp
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 30, 2008, 03:31:42 AM
Guys, here are some new snaps of one of our most talented engineer's set up.


A thing just occurred to me, after 5 week of conditioning , once per day, the brown muck stopped, but after i put it on low amp conditioning, the muck returned, it is going to take a whole to condition these guys, I know form a successful replicator that he did "almost 10 weeks.... 6 days a week....about three to four cycles a day."

Point is, keep going!!, you might not think your getting god gas, you need more conditioning !
I have an old cell (new one ie being made) which i am back conditioning.

Any ways here are some snaps and new vids from Ravzz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leAtiaCygng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7E-QJf-xRQ

Snaps
Variable Inductor.....
Plus an Old Toroid Winding ..

See also what it should look like after  -10 weeks.... 6 days a week....about three to four cycles a day
Thick coat, makes better gas!

I am adding the in the document on the uni site for all.

Ash

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 30, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Man, those are very thick coatings. Shows that I have a long ways to go.

Thank you very much.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on July 30, 2008, 09:57:57 AM
Ravzzz is the shit man!! 8)
Gotta love this brother ;)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 30, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
This coating, is it from minerals in the water?
Resistance is high, so a higher electric field could be estabilished before breakdown or current flow.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on July 30, 2008, 03:02:28 PM
Coupla pics 4 u guyz!!

1st pic: Tubes as removed after conditioning with an un-conditioned new tube in between.
2nd pic: Tubes cleaned with hard fibre bristle brush n cloth.

Gh. J.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: fever16 on July 30, 2008, 07:54:58 PM
don't take me wrong guys.iam not against conditioning .but are we going in the right direction?
every one seems working or worried abt only conditioning part.(i'll agree that conditioning of the tubes gives more output).but none of the meyer patents mentioned abt conditioning(ok he might be hiding it).but in the original video of meyer i don't see any coating on the inner tubes.slots are there,i'll agree.
don't you think we shld be working more towards resonance and VIC stuff.

meyer said any tap water can be used.but most of us will be using same water(from home) for all the conditioning cycles.iam sure once your conditioning is over(and u start getting good amount),use water from different area(not from home),you won't get the same amount of gas.give it a try.

nothing personal guys,but such a big project stuck at only conditioning made me little worried.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 30, 2008, 08:08:59 PM
I think conditioning could be the key, because the watercapacitor can now be pulsed with the VIC to a higher charge, to the KV's, before current starts to flow.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kinesisfilms on July 30, 2008, 08:34:54 PM
 agree that people on this forum are just overworrying about conditioning....if you want to use high voltage then just insulate your inner tube as jlnaudin did.....stop conditioning you are going in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on July 30, 2008, 09:05:57 PM
Anyone tried spraying the inner tube with insulating varnish or humiseal or polyurethane paint, etc?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 4Tesla on July 30, 2008, 11:15:24 PM
How many times is this going to be scrapped up off of the basement floor?

I don't want to be a pessimist or anything, but really, why is there any rhyme or reason to believe that pulsed (essentially AC) electricity will somehow fracture water molecules any better than regular DC. There is no electrical resonant frequency of water to be found. It physically does not exist.

H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy. The simple reaction occurring during electrolysis is merely extra electrons being transfered to form gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen (diagrammed below):
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2

The reason there is less energy use is because of the minute gap between the electrodes. The smaller the gap, the less distance the electrons and ions have to move to form new molecules.

The reason the water heats up is because when the water molecules fall apart when extra electrons are supplied, the various atoms must migrate through the water itself to the various electrodes, where it finally forms the gaseous form. As these particles move, they bump into other molecules and atoms, and add entropy (in the form of heat) to the system. This is INEVITABLE and ALWAYS occurs no matter what kind of frequency is used. The less gap, the less chance for the particles to bump into each other, therefore creating less heat, but heat will ALWAYS be produced.

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

Stanley Meyers had a flawed understanding of the process of electrolysis, and his theory was debunked by the patent office.

Electrolysis does not magically break apart water molecules wherever they stand. The particles must move extensively, and whilst doing so they always add entropy to the system.



I'm begging everyone who reads this: PLEASE learn the rudimentary science before running off go blindly believe somebody. Most, if not all, of the theories here are flawed in some basic way (it goes without saying that the laws of thermodynamics are excluded from this, as every theory violates this).


Enough of Stanley Meyers. He was a fraud. His theory was flawed. He was weighed, measured, and found guilty. What does it take to get people to realize that water is NOT an energy source. At most its an inefficient energy carrier.

Hydrogen is only the future of MOVING energy, NOT making it. Please people, understand this!

I believe the resonant frequency changes as the amount of mass changes.. so the resonant frequency would be slightly different for 1 litter of water vs 2 liters of water.  HHO is real and easy to make.. the problem is that it doesn't have a powerful enough explosion to run a 4 cycle engine.  I believe that a 2 cycle engine might work or this engine http://www.haw-system.jp/English/indexE.html would work.

If you don't believe in resonant frequencies.. check out some of Tesla's work!

Jason
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: slider1 on July 30, 2008, 11:55:00 PM
I believe each atomic structure has a resonant frequency, a molecule also would have a resonant frequency. I don't know how you can say that HHO does not have enough energy to power a 4 cycle engine. HHO has almost 3 times the amount of energy per weight of Octane......
As far as Dyamios comments, they are not even worth to argue!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 12:28:08 AM
hello fellows. i am new to the block from norway, old sivilengineer i electronics and physics before i jumped the boat over to daoism and acupuncture and tcm stuff, also indepth understandg in ozone generation and treatment. anyhow i am now into overveiw and study periode here now, have followed t.beardens work over the last decade.
I had an idea as i envisioned my unit in my head one night: to make this unit more compact and still remain the same characteristics, how would it work to make instead of two concentric pipes... then instead make it with three concentric pipes, anode or chatode in the middle one. i have a theory but depending how i puls it alternating or not.  how do you think that would actually behave teoretically. any brave comments  ::)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 12:40:47 AM
Something like this?

(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7861/stephenmeyerscellxz8.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 4Tesla on July 31, 2008, 12:42:38 AM
I believe each atomic structure has a resonant frequency, a molecule also would have a resonant frequency. I don't know how you can say that HHO does not have enough energy to power a 4 cycle engine. HHO has almost 3 times the amount of energy per weight of Octane......
As far as Dyamios comments, they are not even worth to argue!

I only say it can't power a 4 cycle as I haven't seen anyone able to get one to run on pure HHO.. if you have info on a 4 cycle engine running on pure HHO.. please provide a link.. thanks!

Edit:  HHO produces more heat.. that is a form of energy.. I'm talking about exploding HHO to push the piston through the full cycle.

Jason
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 12:44:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmB6-wZSh8

Hey look! he has some orange gunk in his cell! He must not have conditioned it enough. LOL.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 4Tesla on July 31, 2008, 12:50:09 AM
Hehe.. I haven't seen that video before.

Jason
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 12:59:54 AM
Something like this?

(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7861/stephenmeyerscellxz8.jpg)

yes the mechanical setup excactly, even with more sets of tubes. your voltage coupling i am not so sure of. could it be that you can keep the original settings only changing the values of the bifilar and such, i have to look into it, but the thing is that in principle i dont see any problem. and it would save space coniderably. savin one extra tube per surface reaction. what you think..
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 01:09:40 AM
The picture I posted is from Stephen Meyer's patent. He is Stan's twin brother, still alive and living a few miles from me. I say go for it! If you think you can get it to work the way you like, then, I don't see any reason why you can't. I'm sure you will have to do some trial and error, but, isn't everything in life that way? Good luck and God's speed!
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 01:11:25 AM
I only say it can't power a 4 cycle as I haven't seen anyone able to get one to run on pure HHO.. if you have info on a 4 cycle engine running on pure HHO.. please provide a link.. thanks!

Edit:  HHO produces more heat.. that is a form of energy.. I'm talking about exploding HHO to push the piston through the full cycle.

Jason

hey jason
the answer to that pusle i think you can find if you can get the information about the propogation speed of HHO, for excample hydrogen has a propogation speed 40 times that of octane, this is what is so advantageous about hydrogen in multi combustion, it function as an ignition for the fuel whatever kind, petrol or diesel in a gasolin engine for example. so... what is the propogation spee for HHO.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 01:15:49 AM
The picture I posted is from Stephen Meyer's patent. He is Stan's twin brother, still alive and living a few miles from me. I say go for it! If you think you can get it to work the way you like, then, I don't see any reason why you can't. I'm sure you will have to do some trial and error, but, isn't everything in life that way? Good luck and God's speed!


ahhaaaa. that why i picked it up from the ether, do you have the link to this side. i think i will try that i have been keen for three, two is union three is sacred. thank you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 01:29:30 AM
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_tOQAAAAEBAJ&dq=0246059
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 4Tesla on July 31, 2008, 01:34:42 AM
To make it more compact would you use three units with three pipes each instead of six units with 2 pipes each?

Jason

Edit: I noticed that in the schematic.. outer pipe "-" and the second pipe is ground and the third pipe is "+"..

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 02:23:58 AM
To make it more compact would you use three units with three pipes each instead of six units with 2 pipes each?

Jason

Edit: I noticed that in the schematic.. outer pipe "-" and the second pipe is ground and the third pipe is "+"..



one could use any configuration with the sets. i thought one center and six around, or sig sag the outer cirlcle with 8 sets, ie into a square and total of nine. hmm with a proper isolate coating on the outer pipe they could almost even be stacked. but then i might interfer with the resonanse. and if the resonanse is important i would tune them with different lenght, thus on the bottom the inner would be longer and the outer shorter, this would make the wire attachment easier to. aha "-" _ "ground" _ "+" have to look at that. i thought "+"_"-"_"+". i see meyer alternate phases, in the first attempt i would go simpler. have any of you got hold of T. bearden: energy from the vacuum. surely what we are attempting here is a 4 space asymetri and regauge and resonanse is very important, so i am curious how the inner capasitor of the pipes set differ to the outer set. hm
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: 4Tesla on July 31, 2008, 02:35:25 AM
I remember Meyer talking about tuning the pipes.. I think it helped.

Jason
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 02:49:00 AM
I remember Meyer talking about tuning the pipes.. I think it helped.

Jason

there is two types of resonances according to my understanding, the mechanical standing sound waves - helping the bubbles to release from the surface, and the impedance tuning. you mentioned plasma electrolysis from japan i scanned it briefely, interesting wonder if we can pick up some principles onto this one. 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 02:52:53 AM
I remember Meyer talking about tuning the pipes.. I think it helped.

Jason

someone even mentioned meyer had insulation on one of the tubes. the oxydation layer is probably better, with insulation we get in to bubble problems attaching to the smoot surface.
well thank you all for responding. god speed
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 04:21:11 AM
The way I see it, is, there may be multiple resonances in both the circuit/electrical and the tubes/sound. If the tubes are tuned to, let's say A @ 440 cps in the audio spectrum, the circuit can be designed to resonate at the same frequency or harmonic of the A. I suspect it has something to do with Sympathetic Vibrations. The electrical resonance, in my opinion, must be in parallel to achieve high voltage and low current. Series is just the opposite where the current is high. So how do we get a parallel resonance out of a series circuit like Stan's VIC? If we find the resonance of each coil in the circuit we also find that the coils alone can resonate with parallel characteristics. We can calculate with distributed capacitance and inductance also to find the most efficient frequency for your particular build. Each persons will be different unless we can follow a strict bill of materials to set a standard to go by. Does RAVI's circuit resonate? I may have missed that info but I didn't see it if it was in the documentation.

Stephen's patent was designed after Stan's "Voltage Sync-Pulse Circuit" on page 177 or so in the Tech Brief. Although Stephen's circuitry is much more complicated probably for obscurity as usual. Most inventors obscure their work for good reason, So it can't be easily stolen by replication and modification.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 04:45:22 AM
I forgot to mention a really easy experiment you can do with an ATX power supply from a computer and some distilled water without any electrolyte. The power supply will have a negative 12V line and a positive 12V line but the current for each is different. Therefore, more bubbles will come from the side with more current. You can use three tubes/plates or even two and a grounding wire, or even three wires. This is a pseudo "Voltage Sync-Pulse Circuit" but it demonstrates the idea. It can be incorporated into RAVI's design quite easily.

(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5204/syncpulsedi5.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on July 31, 2008, 05:55:14 AM
HeairBear,

That is what I'm going to experiment with the + and - voltages pulsing. I'm was wondering when you did this did you get and bubles from the ground or just the + and - voltage leads?

Matt
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on July 31, 2008, 06:21:44 AM
I did it with three tubes, and two plates with a ground wire to the water bath. Bubbles came from all surfaces but the lower current side seemed not as strong. You get the same effect when you have multiple tube sets wired in series. the tubes on the end of the circuit produce less bubbles. In this case we are using a voltage differential of 24V. 12V on each side. Only the currents are different  for some reason. In Stan's drawing he uses a voltage divider type deal to get the effect with equal power on each side. A bifilar secondary may at least double the voltage.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 12:07:38 PM
goodmorning_
you know meyer did not have t. beardens work and visa versa. yet he is thouching upon the very details of giant negentropy. but there seem to me that we are missing something. often it is good to go out of the box and take a overlook.
THINK TANK: are we operating as a closed loop ie killing our dipole incessantly? or can we make an open system, negative resistor types and tesla solutions. we all are trained in classical em and that is our problem we allways look from the 3 space view. we have to figure out how the dipol charges transduce time like longitudinal EM energy. meyer pionted to a direction but i dont intuit he has the final soulution we need much higher COP. of the top-for example adding stresses in the vacumm by magnetism. or what the heck do we know about crystals- stress a crystal with sound it gives out static electricity or EM. vica verca. 
like cold fusion there are no quantum or classical models to explain its behaviour. yet by opening the negentropic portal of 4 space by creating a TIME REVERSAL ZONE, we can explain why. maaaaan if we could have a lab. i feel we need to go into more excotic solution. like in cold fusion the precious metal and beardens TRZ solution, i also want to ad that what actually kick it into that high gear is the palladium rod. temporaly operating as a high spin element. platinum is for example used in acupuncture to heal cancer. once it conect with the salts of the body and with dc current we create small amounts of orme elements into the tissue. its inventor had no idea of why.
now--- the electron need to be transported of the dieletrum, here i am thinking cooper pairing and resonance tuning to - of the top- lets say a platinum coated pipe and salt added to the water. or some sort of temporal semi superconduction operating element. this is where we meet the wall. but i am posetive that until we upgrade our flatland we will allways be operating low COP. give me some years to think about it, am still gasping for the understanding of hypersymetri.
Food for thought
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on July 31, 2008, 12:26:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmB6-wZSh8

Hey look! he has some orange gunk in his cell! He must not have conditioned it enough. LOL.
Hehe, I've noticed that too, or could it be ..... electrolyte?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on July 31, 2008, 04:53:07 PM
Herez a ref from you know who to the above discussions    :o


The followin attachments r frm Stan Meyer's Canadian Patent  1,234,774                         Gh. J.



Fig. 8 is for gas generated with various kinds of water and the Amp loading.


Fig. 12 is about using plates vs concentric tubes vs cluster array        >>>Stephen Meyer Concentric Ring Array is 150% less efficient than Cluster Array Tubular!!


Fig. 13 is about the gap vs generation
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: onormanns on July 31, 2008, 06:39:00 PM
Herez a ref from you know who to the above discussions    :o


The followin attachments r frm Stan Meyer's Canadian Patent  1,234,774                         Gh. J.



Fig. 8 is for gas generated with various kinds of water and the Amp loading.


Fig. 12 is about using plates vs concentric tubes vs cluster array        >>>Stephen Meyer Concentric Ring Array is 150% less efficient than Cluster Array Tubular!!


Fig. 13 is about the gap vs generation

sorry, how do you arrange the cluster arrays tubular? 
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Adi on July 31, 2008, 07:45:48 PM
Hello everyone,

I am new to the forum. by way of introduction I have been researching the Meyers wfc for about 6 months now. I have a background in mechanical engineering. I also worked as engineering manager for 2 printed wire board manufacturer and assemblers. I spent 2 years designing nuclear decontamination equipment and 1 year engineering uranium processing facilities. I am also a computer programmer and I have learned around 17 different languages. Last year I developed a couple of robotic work stations.

 I do a lot of tinkering in my basement and have assembled some 2 cycle engines to run on compressed air from paintball tanks. All that to say, I am not an expert in any field. I started as a factory worker, learned welding, fabrication and use of shop tools and equipment (shear, brake press punch, mill lathe etc..). 

My electronics is rudimentary but I understand most of what you are discussing. I think that this is fantastic. I am building my first HHO generator. I have bought the PWM controller from Hydrogen garage and I have some stainless tubes left over from drops at the last job.

At first I though that it was simply a matter of using a high frequency power supply but now I see that it is much more complicated.

I was in the process of designing after market kits to run cars on compressed air but overcoming the poor efficiency of an ICE requires dramatic changes, nothing simple.

As I studied your progress I began to wonder, now please forgive my poor understanding, I hope this doesn't sound too foolish, it sounds an awful lot like Stanley was designing a high voltage generator for a microwave oven,especially when he starts talking about the wave guide and resonant chamber.  the discussion is also reminds me of the operation of industrial cutting lasers especially CO2 lasers which use high frequency, high voltage to generate RF that excites CO2 molecules into emitting light.

 It certainly strikes me that his experiments took place well before Microwave ovens hit the market, or Industrial lasers for that matter. Maybe some of his research was part of the development or refinement of those technologies.

Maybe broadening the scope of consideration to other seemingly magical technologies developed in the last 20 years will add insight to the process. I can see a focused microwave exciting the water molecules combined with an ultrasonic blast and a strong magnetic field the possibilities are interesting.

Have any of you noticed the microwave connection and explored the ramifications? What if you started with a magnetron and wave guide from a microwave oven and did a few experiments from that angle?

Hmmmm??

Oh well, for what it's worth I was just wondering. Maybe someone who understands more about the process can straighten me out quickly before I spend too much time chasing down that rabbit trail.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Adi
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Gheller J on August 01, 2008, 10:33:48 AM
onormanns:

Here u go                              Gh. J.

These two could help:

Fig 2: Tubular Cluster Array and Concentric Ring Array at the bottom


Fig 7: Tubular Cluster Array unit




Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: alan on August 01, 2008, 01:52:28 PM
Hello Adi,
have you read the Meyer technical brief?
Meyer didn't use RF frequencies and high-voltage (KV) transformers, his circuit is similar to this:
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html
You seem very qualified with your background.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Adi on August 01, 2008, 10:02:33 PM
Hi,

Actually I am just beginning to scratch the surface and I am very interested. I am convinced that this is legitimate and I am very disappointed at the narrow minded nay-sayers who use the same old arguments. For instance I have read where someone claimed that you couldn't get more energy out than you put in since it goes against the laws of thermodynamics but I guess that didn't stop Einstein. His device certainly liberated more energy than was invested heh heh. Who would have thought years ago that you could shatter a crystal goblet simply by reproducing the correct frequency. I am always amazed at the ones who quote big general principles that may have nothing to do with a specific issue. Some skeptics are always complaining that perpetual motion devices are not possible, but if it runs for 100 years and I can extract work from it what do I care if it is not true perpetual motion?

I can understand that Stanley does not address Microwaves or RF, however,  I get the feeling that he wasn't really aware of all of the effects being created with his circuits. You?re not going to get RF from DC unless you do something to make it pulse and modulate like AC. In fact that is what happens in some high power industrial laser designs.

I have a good friend who is an electrical engineer and he is helping me to understand some of the issues. I am slowly learning. As I read more and begin to understand the concept better I'm sure many of my silly questions will go away. On the other hand, it has been my experience that some of my most elegant design solutions have evolved from someone outside the project asking a "stupid question" that would lead me to think outside the box as they say.

One way or another, this is certainly going to be fun.

Adi


   
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jokker on August 01, 2008, 11:39:58 PM
Whats all about big words ...
I acctually been into it for some time, just as interesting thing. Yesterday i bought some components to build up circuit.. and I'm pretty sure that i will do it. Putting circuit together is simple as it is plain  ;).
So far as i learned is ... that u need to understand things... how they work and how to act in certain situations.
Atm im learning automatics at school and i can say that it is is going quite well. On the other hand it is way complicated... PN junction, magnetic flux ... and so on. It takes time to understand stuff and far as u go ur starting to understand that it is bigger ... it is more complicated ... there is things u dont know.
Ppl use to believe what they want to believe and usually follow things what they believe is true.

Idea im trying to follow is that one thing is building up devise .. what is is most important one and other is to get it work what is obviously tricky...

What about perpetual motion ? heh  :P . I thought that PWM circuit is just for increasing efficiency of electrolysis.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Visual Echo on August 02, 2008, 12:40:40 AM
Here is a pic of Amidon ( https://www.amidoncorp.com/ (https://www.amidoncorp.com/) )  R33-050-750 1/2 inch diameter by 7.5 inch long 33 material ferrite rod, and the FT-290-J 2.9 inch OD type J ferrite toroid.  The coins are a US gold dollar and a US penny for scale.  These should make dandy inductors for my Meyer cell.  They also sell magnet wire.  I had no problems with ordering or delivery.  Special thanks to mostrander on this forum for clueing me in to these guys.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: mostrander on August 02, 2008, 05:00:08 AM
I ordered mine yesterday should have them next week.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on August 02, 2008, 10:31:08 PM
Thank you mostrander, I just ordered my ferrite material as well.

In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn8EBy7RK9Y&feature=related Meyers talks about two of his books and a video, if anyone knows where I can get them please tell me. I would like to read them. And by the way, if you haven't seen that YouTube series, watch it. Meyers explains his technology. It's excellent for new people, to get a quick understanding of what is happening. Also if anyone here is new too electronics (since everyday there seems to be a new person) or if you can't remember an equation this site is a great resource: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/index.html

Jamie
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on August 02, 2008, 10:31:27 PM
Sorry, double post. And by the way Ash it's fine with me if you use any of my videos. I should have one in a few days about the endcaps. It's hard to make clear, removable ones that seal.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on August 03, 2008, 01:05:30 AM
Hi Gheller,
Is it possible to post a link to that canadian patent 1234774?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: insane4evr on August 03, 2008, 01:53:47 AM
Never mind, found it.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 05, 2008, 04:35:47 AM
J thanks mate, will update the Doc with your credits when done ;D
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kinesisfilms on August 05, 2008, 09:00:00 PM
did anyone notice figure 2 on page 15-2 of the canadian patent as in the image above that the positive electrode is in the middle surrounded my the negative....is this just a mistake?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: HeairBear on August 06, 2008, 03:02:17 AM
No, Stan had changed it later in another patent. The patent stated why he changed it, but, I forget which patent and exactly why he changed it. Stan also was paranoid from previous stolen patents and started to obfuscate his wording and drawings. Anyone know what this is a picture of?
(http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7952/stanepgfj6.jpg)
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: kinesisfilms on August 06, 2008, 09:45:14 AM
almost looks like some sort of steven marks tpu.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Jamie on August 07, 2008, 04:07:58 AM
I got my MOSFET hooked up. I put a Watercell like:

http://www.overunity.com/hho.htm

 that I built, unit on it for a load and so I could see the gating working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUzJ6BhJSkQ

I now realize that the pulsing coming from the MOSFET is a inversion of the pulseing coming from the 555's. This makes sense considering that a N-channel MOSFET needs a + voltage to make it's channel.

@ HeairBear, were'd you find that picture?
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on August 08, 2008, 05:33:36 AM
Resonance is key, yes. The propogation speed of sound in water is also a clue.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/SOFAR.png)


Note the curve itself, and it's lack of linearity.

Read the bits recently on physorg.com about the SECOND RESONANCE of water being recently discovered and room temperature freezing of water via micro-crystallization across very short distances.

The resonance of the inner tube and the spacing and then the resonance of the outer tube. Plus, any complex LCR characteristics of the tubes when electrically excited by frequential AC considerations. dumping inductively stored loads works best, with regards to output vs consumption. Fast switching is key.

At about 1520m/s as the propagation speed of sound in water, combined with the frequency known to be most effective in ultrasonic sealers, then you get the gap size between the tubes, in DI (or whatever) water.

So, 1520mx39.34(inches)= 59800, then 59800in/41500hz=1.44inches, then divided by 2, for a gap of 0.72, or an even fractional thereof.

The speed of propogation in the given stainless vs it's acoustic resonances.... which of the two tubes - MUST be complimentary. Connect the bell aspect of the tubes in complimentary resonance along with the spacing..and you'll be getting somewhere.

When it comes to understanding the effect at the surface of the tubes themselves, where the disassociation occurs, then the issues of microwave propagation come into play with regards to what frequencies best transmit energy INTO or through water. All the cell phone and cordless phone and microwave oven frequencies were specifically chosen due to their effects on water. This becomes the electrical propagation considerations of tube wall thickness and sizing as a secondary (or third concern)

After all, it's a resonant amplification process to create the intensity of swing to get the break down of the water most efficiently.

So pile on those resonances.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Prophmaji on August 08, 2008, 06:06:01 AM
No, Stan had changed it later in another patent. The patent stated why he changed it, but, I forget which patent and exactly why he changed it. Stan also was paranoid from previous stolen patents and started to obfuscate his wording and drawings. Anyone know what this is a picture of?
(http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7952/stanepgfj6.jpg)

Likely an capacitively loaded ring, for an inductive pulse dump of said ring. Inductance = mass...and shutting the outer rings on and off faster than the inductive dump, is no big deal. The 79 to maybe 82 or more rings are capacitive, I'd guess. Zero current loss, or energy loss. But the bigger ring takes on an inductive mass consideration when modulated by the smaller rings. Look at the angular components for the interactive vs the interference considerations.

Could be levitational in nature, which would arise out of overunity characteristics, or vise-versa, whatever works for you.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: ashtweth_nihilisti on August 08, 2008, 06:10:11 AM
Anon message sent to Panacea

Message: I have duplicated Stan Meyer's work, and have taken it several steps
forward. First, during assembly of the generator, I have found that you must
&quot;tune&quot; the tubes to the same pitch. I do it with a simple guitar tuner.
Just clip it to the tube and strike it with a small brass (to prevent polarization)
hammer. The easiest way to change the pitch, it's always the outside tube, grind a
notch in it like Stan did. Second, oscilate it with high voltage, low amperage
voltage. Water resonates at 926khz, and will disassociate at that range. Before
conditioning the generator, briefly dry modiluate it in 5 second bursts, with about
2 min between bursts for about 10 min. You should be able to hear it hum, and with a
practice ear, tell if one set is out of picth. I also added a toroid coil, to
produce parahydrogen. Tube size is determined by the diameter of the cell, be it 4,
5, or 6&quot;, but the optimum gap between tubes should remain .045 to .060. Try to
maintain the
 low side. You are correct, in that it takes at LEAST 2 to 3 months to condition
your tubes. I don't add the toroid until final assembly, and try to maintain a
1/8' gap from the top of the tubes to the toroid. I am currently running 70psi in
the generator.
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: LtBolo on August 09, 2008, 07:52:32 AM
I have duplicated Stan Meyer's work, and have taken it several steps forward.

Pretty bold. Any proof? Ratio of power input to gas output, perhaps?


Water resonates at 926khz, and will disassociate at that range.

Really? Again, any proof? I don't see that in the textbooks?


Hi all. Long time lurker. Electrical engi-nerd by education and vocation. Actively experimenting. Gunk-R-Us.

Let me first start by saying...I very much want for Stan's work to be verified and commericalized....but....I am growing very impatient with the lack of scientific skepticism that is accepted and encouraged in the OU community. Be skeptical. It's good for the science. Every statement like the above that is flippantly tossed into the public becomes accepted as fact. At the least, it is a distraction. At the worst, it destroys results.

Naudin replicated!! No, he didn't. Murakami replicated!! No, I don't think so. Ravi replicated!! Well maybe...he is closest to solid science that I have seen. To be totally sure, you really need to see an inline current measurement off of the main, and really need to see a scope trace. He has neither, and his power supply is well capable of producing enough power to brute force his demonstrated result. The clamp on current looks good...although not very accurate...but with exceptional results must come exceptional proof. Be skeptical.

I design stuff for a living. We have as good equipment as any company out there...all the toys. Even so, I believe nothing I hear and only half of what I see....and that is when it is my own work, much less when it is someone elses. When it seems to defy physics...it usually does. Be skeptical.

It seems to me that excess gas from a tubular array will come from one or both of two mechanisms: 1) Some variation of Randell Mills hydrino theory or some other cold fusion-esque process, and/or 2) accoustically induced cavitation triggering hydrino production or micro-hot fusion. I wouldn't be holding out much hope for vacuum energy or water cracking with voltage.

Plate conditioning may be nothing more than slow motion electroplating where nickel liberated from the anode is slowly deposited on the cathode. Eventually enough nickel is deposited on the cathode (but no iron) to allow a process like Dr. Mills hydrinos to be produced. Incidentally, the gunking is the natural process of the chromium passivation layer breaking down with current and possibly chlorine or flourine in the water and allowing tiny areas of rust. The anode puts out iron, chromium, and nickel oxides before the passivation layer can re-form and stop the process. I suspect that with enough time, current, and chlorine you can condition your anode completely away. Conditioned, indeed.

I do not buy into the belief that the calcium scale that builds up on the cathode does anything useful. While highly resistive out of circuit, it is crystaline and porous and seems to make no measureable change to the cell's in-circuit impedance. Red herring, I think.

Another annoying thing...series LC circuits are not resonant in the way people endlessly describe. They are band pass filters that hit minimum impedance, and therefore maximum current, at the so-called resonance point where XL == XC. It isn't resonant. Period. Now parallel LC tank filters will resonate nicely...but serve no practical purpose in a pulsed DC application. It is an interesting point that the bifilar chokes have some nice self-resonance due to their distributed capacitance...they are mini-tanks, but I can't see how they do anything useful by doing so. There might be some cool stuff that happens when they are placed in opposition and at the self-resonance freq...but that isn't what is being described ad nauseum.

Ravi's system could easily have contained everything necessary for a cold fusion or hydrino style process. Months of conditioning turns the 316 SS cathode into a nickel plated cathode. Small amounts of potassium in the water serve as a catalyst. Light water from the tap. Pulsed DC with enough current to pass the reaction threshold...which according to Dr. Mills is 1-100ma per cm^2 of plate area. Due to the tight plate spacing and the comparatively higher voltage per unit distance than most fusion configurations, his produces excess gas instead of excess heat. Not hard to see the possibility.

To the extent that the burst frequency coincides with the tube's chime frequency, the tubes can begin resonating very nicely. In Stan's 1/2" by ~15" interior tube, the resonant freq would about around 477Hz in air and about 382Hz in water. The outer tube would be 746Hz in air and about 597Hz in water. Yeah...the bigger tube is higher freq. Counter-intuitive, but correct. The chime freq is related to the inverse of the ratio of the length to diameter. Bigger diameter, same length, higher freq. Not sure what the effect of the slot is on freq...up or down. Gut says up...but as I said, counter-intuitive...so maybe down. If it were down, that would allow it to be tuned to the same octave as the inner pipe. More likely it is up, but that would make it possible to tune the inner and outer pipe to the same note, but one octave apart...still very accoustically interesting. In fact, maybe more so.

So with a nice bit of accoustic resonance one can very easily get cavitation, which has already be proven to cause micro-hot fusion or some other unknown highly energetic reaction if the bubble size gets large enough. It is not difficult to conclude that cavitation in the presence of electrolysis could enhace the result.

It seems to be that between the known cavitation effects, and Dr. Mills work with hydrinos, the excess gas reported by Stan, Ravi, and possibly others, will be found to be driven by one or both of these processes. Again, Stan's lovely prose filled with pseudo-scientific jargon seems very unlikely to me...although I'm sure it impressed folks. There is a big difference in seeing and understanding. Be skeptical.

All right...I'll stop now. Flame away...but be skeptical.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: stephenafreter on August 09, 2008, 08:38:50 AM
It seems to be that between the known cavitation effects, and Dr. Mills work with hydrinos, the excess gas reported by Stan, Ravi, and possibly others, will be found to be driven by one or both of these processes. Again, Stan's lovely prose filled with pseudo-scientific jargon seems very unlikely to me...although I'm sure it impressed folks. There is a big difference in seeing and understanding. Be skeptical.

Hi,
 I'd like to give some links relative to possibly others :

- Dave Lawton's version : http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_meyer_lawton.html
- H2Hearth' version: http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_meyer_h2earth.html
- Aaron's version : http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_meyer_aaron_qiman13.html
- Hydrocars' version : http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_meyer_hydrocars.html
- Panacea's version (working with Ravi) : http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/meyerswatercell.htm

- Bob Boyce's version : http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_boyce.html
- Peter Lowrie's version : http://waterfuel.100free.com/wf_lowrie.html

And many others that are not on these websites ...

you can check also : http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/
and : http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1

For those interrested in BLACK LIGHT POWER by Dr Randell Mills :

- The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml
- introduction : http://radiant.100free.com/zpe_blacklight.html

Very interresting commentaires indeed. One day we may clearly understand how all this systems are working....

MDG
Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: Sparky345 on August 09, 2008, 09:19:17 AM


Everyone is going after HHO for 20-30% more effeciency..  I was talking to someone that compresses air thru a membrane that only allows Oxygen thru, and has simular results as these HHO companies are having, power conversion and emission reduction, 10x less grief possibly...

Mixing Aluminum and Gallium (Heat sink paste for Computers)  causes the aluminum not to skin, and gives off Hydrogen..  no oxygen though..  no other gases at all...  make H2, alumia (Alumia Oxide completely prepared for re-electrolysis) and gallium is re-usable with no conversion.  http://www.instructables.com/id/ECB3EDDF2FRVK4R/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/ECB3EDDF2FRVK4R/)

I am more interested in this technology than most, as I have a gas hog, I get 2 Gallons to the mile.. to convert over to a Fuel Cell or magnetic flux or whatever bleeding edge technology would cost me $100k+  if not more.. dealing with weight differences, engineering etc...    where a Hydrogen Boost or HHO conversion solution costing me less than $5 or 10k    pay for it self in less than a year....




All nonsense.

'"everyone (is) going after hho for 20-30% more efficiency"

efficiency of what?  Those "hydrogen generators people are sticking on cars are nothing but a scam.
These stupid things may make some bubbles that make it look like it's doing something, but please think a little.<p>

If your car has a v8 engine, (lets use a 302 cu in. for example) do you realize how much HHO you would have to generate per minute  to get a 20% increase  in fuel efficiency? It would have to generate 720 cubic feet of HHO gas just to supply enough to feed that engine at idle for one whole minute.

Never mind trying to feed all that gas through a tiny little hose that these "kits" provide.
You have to add a pint of water to the 'reaction vessel" every time you fill the gas tank. Do you really tthink you would get  millions of cubic feet of HHO gas from a pint or quart of water?

HHO especially in the tiny, minute quantities these little bubble jars produce will not, can not, by any means, magic or otherwise, improve fuel mileage. Adding what amounts to literally a few molecules of HHO gas to the stream of intake air, which an engine working at 2500 RPM going 55 mph requires around 63,541 cubic FEET of air per minute. For a 20% increase of fuel mileage, that little jar would have to produce a whopping 12,708 cubic feet of HHO per min.  Ain't going to happen.

"I was talking to someone that compresses air thru a membrane that only allows Oxygen thru, and has simular results as these HHO companies are having, power conversion and emission reduction"

And that is just a funny as those HHO companies claims.  What you are really talking about here is a medical device called an oxygen concentrator.  Generally, a bedside oxygen concentrator which cost around  $1800, and are a little more complicated than just a "membrane" can barely concentrate air to 91% pure oxegen at rates beyond 5 liters per min.  Plus the compressor takes POWER to run.  You'd need a very large compressor and concentrator bed array to produce 63,541 cubic feet of oxygen per minute. <p>

If you really want to make some  cheap hydrogen, why don't you just buy a case of beer (can's of course) and as you drink them, toss them into a sealed container with some sodium hydroxide (lye and water)  run a tube to your intake, poke a hole in your intake, tape the hose securely, and drive.

Then you will find out (cheaply at least) that this simply doesn't work, but you will at least get a cheap drunk out of the deal.  Don't forget to tape up that hole in your air intake. That air leak will make your engine run lean because air is by-passing the air flow sensor. (and there you have the answer to how these HHO generators work, the don't, they just make you poke a hole in your air cleaner causing a lean condition, which could cause engine damage over time)

The best part is the black sludge left over from the beer cans at the bottom of your reactor vessel  can be made back into a beer cans again, with enough electricity of course.

You can also skip the hydrogen process, and just make electricity from your beer cans, which is probably the safer thing to do.

Title: Re: Stanley Meyer replication with low input power
Post by: stephenafreter on August 09, 2008, 09:37:15 AM
" Those "hydrogen generators people are sticking on cars are nothing but a scam.
These stupid things may make some bubbles that make it look like it's doing something, but please think a little."

Hi,
here is a quote from : http://waterfuel.100free.com/hydroxy.html

## Here is a synopsis of a sampling of the research that has been done: http://www.chechfi.ca/tehisyst.htm

- In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine".

- In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline."

- In the eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He affirms: "A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage."

- In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham University of Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing, demonstrated the advantages of "Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming." The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.

- Roy Mac Alister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the "Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions" ? Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions."

- At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, 1995, scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel? "Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions."

- In 1997, ? scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen, the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained?

- California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: "CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines."

- The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: "Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized." Again, zero emissions were observed on CO.

- Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower.

- Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, "The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage." ? For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award.

- We also conducted extensive testing in our facility in order to prove reliability (MTBF, life expectancy, etc.) and determine safety and performance of the components and the entire system