Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83568
  • *Latest: XR IX

  • *Total Posts: 514936
  • *Total Topics: 15320
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Stanley Meyer Explained  (Read 206458 times)

Offline Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #390 on: November 09, 2019, 12:54:42 PM »
This video on above cloud extreme electrical discharge to the ionosphere I thought may have context here. https://youtu.be/H8HpKIUdki8

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #390 on: November 09, 2019, 12:54:42 PM »

Offline MasterPlaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #391 on: November 14, 2019, 06:07:21 PM »
Hi Edward

I have just made one of my ideas public. It is about a new kind of WFC.
If you like you can take a look here:
https://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3500.msg53812#msg53812

Regards

M

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #392 on: November 14, 2019, 06:52:02 PM »
This video on above cloud extreme electrical discharge to the ionosphere I thought may have context here. https://youtu.be/H8HpKIUdki8


Basically when I look at what mainstream science seems to understand about thunderstorms and their total effect on the air I find that they really don't understand them all that well: [size=78%]https://www.theclimatepress.com/thunderstorms-and-lightning-in-a-changing-climate[/size]


If you look at what they don't talk about it becomes clear that a technology such as this can exist without their ability to being able to understand it. Thunderstorms are the earths natural air cleaners when it comes to greenhouse gases like methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide, and so many more as thunderstorms break these molecules down. Us humans have upset the balance by putting far too much air pollutants into the air than the ecosystem can cope with.
I do find it interesting that some scientist do understand that thunderstorms break the bonds of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and some even Water molecules but can't make the connection of the role thunderstorms play in the earth's ecosphere. It is this lack of understanding that has lead us down to this dark path we are on as when solutions like this come out those scientist that don't understand this, and many that depend on their funding from fossil fuel industries, all team up to put these technologies down. It's just interesting to see that some scientist do understand that thunderstorms have the ability to break down molecules and others haven't a clue but as I stated this lack of understanding is the problem as it leads to funding problems when technologies like these try to be used to solve our climate change problems.


In time I see this technology coming out but it seems those times will be really hard when it does for all life on the planet. It seems to be humanities fate to suffer through these climate change disasters in our future as they are too slow to change and thus will be weeded out like everything else in nature that is too slow to change. Just imagine if this technology had been accepted back in 1968 when it first hit the scene what would our earth look like and how would it have changed our lives? Cars running around cleaning the air as they are driven instead of polluting it and everyone being in full control of their own energy needs no longer having to pay to power their automobiles or homes is just what this technology will do once it makes it into our lives. But the lack of support for this technology is what will slow it's adoption into our lives and I feel not until people are actually facing starvation will they then move to support people like me. I must thus be patient and wait until those moments arrive which seems to be my part in all of this.


For those whom wish to give their support before times get truly hard they can do so here: https://www.gofundme.com/energytothepeople


Much thanks to all those whom choose to willingly support my efforts to bring this technology into the marketplace  ;D
[size=78%] [/size]

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #392 on: November 14, 2019, 06:52:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3101
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #393 on: November 15, 2019, 06:38:48 AM »
There’s a gap between the ionosphere, and the part of the atmosphere which
has enough atoms and molecules to store a significant charge.


This area can be considered an insulator.
An opposite charge is induced in the upper atmosphere.
Far above cloud formation.


Because the ionic wind is variant, the strength of the charge can drop drastically
When this occurs And there still exists a large charge in the upper atmosphere,
An upwards discharge event can occur.
And even more rarely, when there is a great enough difference between the two charges
A ‘beam’ of charge can be observed shooting off into space

Offline kolbacict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #394 on: November 18, 2019, 07:47:56 PM »
And in the simplest construction, for example, like this one, will it be possible to get gas in excess of the Faraday law? (over current) If everything is done correctly.At least twice.So that you can fix, measure?
I have not succeeded yet.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #394 on: November 18, 2019, 07:47:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline onepower

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #395 on: November 19, 2019, 07:01:26 AM »
Kolbacict
The diagram shown is from the "practical guide to free energy devices" which is incorrect so far as I know. You would be much better off to look at Stanley Meyers original patents and work from there.

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #396 on: November 19, 2019, 02:36:18 PM »
And in the simplest construction, for example, like this one, will it be possible to get gas in excess of the Faraday law? (over current) If everything is done correctly.At least twice.So that you can fix, measure?
I have not succeeded yet.


Interesting that this same circuit is on page 15 of this thread minus the chokes which were added in latter by Dave Lawton latter on. I built and tested that circuit many years ago and it was good for getting my feet wet in this technology as I learned quite a bit from using it. But no it will not get this technology to work correctly as the voltage intensifier circuit must be used along with a circuit similar to or just like Meyer's circuit. I think the 8xa circuit can be made to work but it's difficult to control everything with that circuit but as before I did build and test it and learned a lot from using it. Now that I understand what Meyer was actually doing, IE, mimicking the earths Global Electric Circuit I can see the technology far more clearly than I use to do in the past when I started this thread.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2019, 08:38:41 PM by h20power »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #396 on: November 19, 2019, 02:36:18 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline kolbacict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #397 on: November 19, 2019, 03:56:28 PM »
Well, good people told me how to prevent some mistakes.I do not need 3000%, at least twice the current output is more than Faraday.That there was an incentive for further success.

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #398 on: November 19, 2019, 09:00:23 PM »
Well, good people told me how to prevent some mistakes.I do not need 3000%, at least twice the current output is more than Faraday.That there was an incentive for further success.


Not sure what you are getting at with your last post as nothing can be seen. But to me it seems clear that you seem to reject the science I have shown and chosen a different path of your own making based on the words of those "Good People," which perhaps in your view I am not? Anyway I posted what I learned from hands on experiments dealing with this technology over the coarse of several years. In my humble view it is better to know where you are going instead of just picking a direction and going for it when trying to get someplace. Getting at the core science behind the technology was my way of doing just that as now I know what is to be done and most importantly why it is being done in this manor. Without the core science behind the technology I had no hope of getting the technology up and running as it was more or less like trying to guess up a solution.
Now that I have an understanding of why things are being done this way and what part of nature is this technology trying to mimic I have true hope as I can clearly point out to any scientist how the technology works now. I can even do the math up to certain point showing clearly why there is no current being pushed through the water bath as is the case with Faraday's electrolysis method. In fact Dr. Faraday's method of water decomposition is the total opposite of how this technology goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules as what makes electrolysis work better has the opposite effect on this method of water decomposition and vise versa as what makes this technology work better totally messes up how electrolysis works. Since one method of water separation is coming from man and the other from nature it should be clear which method is the most efficient as nature always tends to do things with the least amount of wasted energy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #398 on: November 19, 2019, 09:00:23 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline onepower

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #399 on: November 20, 2019, 07:37:35 AM »
h20power
Quote
In my humble view it is better to know where you are going instead of just picking a direction and going for it when trying to get someplace.

Not unlike the difference between a shopper and a browser, the shopper is looking to find something specific of value they want while the browser is just looking to fulfill an impulsive need. Sure they may appear as the same thing however the context and the goal are not the same.

Quote
Getting at the core science behind the technology was my way of doing just that as now I know what is to be done and most importantly why it is being done in this manor. Without the core science behind the technology I had no hope of getting the technology up and running as it was more or less like trying to guess up a solution.

I think you nailed it, and I have found there are two kinds of science/experiments. One is the most common which I call the "Hail Mary" where we just throw some stuff together we don't understand and hope something happens which is seldom if ever the case, lol. However the second kind is when we can literally see what it is we want however were not quite sure how to get there. In this case there is a predetermined method and progression always acting forwards towards our goal.

In my opinion science is when we have already nailed down all the understanding and theory we need at which point the experiment is just an exercise in proving what we already know for others. There is only one real proof which is ... real proof, the rest is speculation at best.

Offline kolbacict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #400 on: November 20, 2019, 10:36:09 AM »
Excuse me if not. It’s just that you really need to get something.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #400 on: November 20, 2019, 10:36:09 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #401 on: November 20, 2019, 12:59:49 PM »
kolbacict, Just what do I need to get? I mean I know what I need to get and have in fact been asking for it for awhile now, but I am curious in learning just what you think I need to get.


Onepower I hear you loud and clear. When I jumped off the bandwagon of those employing the "Guess Method," I began to notice that my experiments completely diverged from theirs. Back then I think most of them where getting around 5-400 volts to their WFC's with the vast majority of them getting around 10-15 volts while in a very short time after leaving the guess methodology behind I started getting voltages unheard of to my WFC. I clearly remember talking about it and having people think I was pulling their chain telling them tall tales. When that video interview of me taken by John Fraser hit YouTube it was clear I wasn't telling any tall tales as the voltage readings were easy to read when watching the video. I clearly had the differential probe hooked up to the WFC, both leads, and was driving the WFC with VIC transformer. All of the sudden the bar of high voltages got pushed to levels no one had ever seen before as 7.3-7.4 kv was a far cry from 5-400 volts.
What saddened me about all of that was the way the Open Source community reacted to seeing someone get true high voltages the likes talked about in Stanley Meyer's technical brief and patents for the first time ever and since if my memory serves me correctly. People started resorting to all kinds of foolishness in trying to show their experiments were also producing high voltages, like not hooking up both the probe leads to the WFC, and some even reprogramming their oscilloscopes to read higher than it was actually reading. As I improved upon my results I'd show screenshots of the waveform and voltages being applied to the water fuel cell but each time I did so it seemed to make everyone else more and more angry so I stopped showing my work at around 8.8 kv reached to the cell.
I even pointed out just where in Meyer's writings where it stated that in order to get this technology up and running the voltages to each individual cell had to be around 1 kv or more, but again it just seemed to make the Open Source community even more angry so I just stopped sharing altogether. In time my experimental results were so far outside of theirs that they simply could not believe it and rejected my work telling people I was cheating somehow.
Now it seems things are getting heated up again because I actually shared the core science behind the patents letting people know just what it was Meyer was mimicking in nature. And I did so showing many different examples of how mother nature goes about breaking the bonds of the water molecules as well as other types of molecules. But it seems it's all for not as that same old record is still playing on their music boxes. Now it seems I just need to wait and give people a chance to truly go over some of the things I have posted.

Offline massive

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #402 on: November 21, 2019, 09:15:28 PM »
not seeing anything in those screen shots unless that is the message ??

H2 from water is still the biggest threat to oil and the electric industries, so any research or should further research is important.
what Ive always thought of the lightning model is that there is open circuit until ionization but when the strike hits the earth is what interested me. the earth plate at zero R.
Meyers never went into the short circuit condition in any of his talks … which is zero R

this is where I look at Teslas tower or wooden tower with conductive top. the concept people believe of broad casting is ridiculous.
most tall buildings around the world have Lightning rods as conductive path to EARTH, the zero R.
IF Tesla broadcast anything it would be better as a positive charge to attract negative strike, then transform it and feed it to usable level.


PS: Heretical builders was the site , and damn good too. Ive even forgotten the owner name, oh well he did a service for us having that site.


Offline kolbacict

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #403 on: November 23, 2019, 08:19:32 AM »
sorry for the bad pictures, it was meant.

Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Stanley Meyer Explained
« Reply #404 on: November 23, 2019, 02:04:26 PM »
Excuse me if not. It’s just that you really need to get something.


So, that is what you think I need to get is it? Wrong! The way you show the pulsing should be is drawing far more current from the supply as it's on more than it is off verses Meyer's off more than it is on. Anyone versed in adding up energy can easily see that as the math will show it loud and clear. But if that doesn't convince you then just put an analog amp meter in line with the power supply with one circuit pulsing the way you show and the other the way Meyer shows on the same transformer at the same voltage input and take some current readings.


You really should try and show people like me a little more respect as I have already done those test I mentioned for you to try and do many years ago.


Here is what you simply don't get and that is how to interpret the readings on a oscilloscope for allow me to ask you a question, yes? What does the area under the curve represent on the oscilloscope?

 

OneLink