> >> Show one that works, then we can discuss HOW it works.
> > Meyer did. Others have. Discuss away...
> I must have missed the part where he produced the actual measurements on
> a system
> examined/reviewed by a disinterested third party.
> All I've seen is vague hand waiving.
> The man had the dune buggy. It would have been trivial to demonstrate the
> actual results on a cross-country trip.
Then he would have had demand for something he couldn't provide.
He was working on the injector system and other products for mass distribution.
"We will sell no wine before it is time."
> > But I don't talk about anything but mine
> That's convenient.
> and other's results that are posted. You can question them. That's
> what I do.
> How do you question good ole Stan?
I'm talking about other experimenter's results.
I can only tell you what I saw as an EYEWITNESS to Meyer's demonstration numerous times.
> Anything more than that IS overunity...by definition.
> I still
> have to prime the system.
> > I'm not going to fool around with my car or free flow a lawnmower engine to prove
> I can make 5 HP with a Meyer size cell. He did it in with a 1500cc engine.
> If we make the giant leap that Meyer was being straight with us...
> That video demonstrated that a car battery can overcome the system
> losses long enough to idle a VW engine for six minutes.
The car battery wasn't running the cell.
It is being run by an alternator sitting on the ground belt driven by a small electric motor.
He could have run it all day if he added more water once the car was running.
> In your terms, priming the system is charging the car battery.
It means using some force to produce the power to run the alternator running the cell full of water until the running engine ca take over powering the alternator.
> In round numbers...if a car battery contains 500 watt hours of energy,
> then it could produce 1hp for 40 minutes. That should be plenty to idle
> a VW engine for six minutes.
I wasn't running on the battery.
> You gotta measure energy out vs energy in. Watching a car idle
> is not a measurement.
See the engine run and knowing it can power the original alternator clearly demonstrates that his cell could run a Genset.
> >> Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but it's a damn good
> >> indicator...especially if it requires a branch of physics
> >> that's not yet been invented.
> > It doesn't require that but specialties are everywhere.
> > It plasma physics.
> > It's harmonics.
> > It's high voltage.
> > It's electrostatics.
> > It's inductance.
> > It's nuclear.
> >> It is logically impossible to prove that something doesn't work.
But NOBODY here has ever built a basic Meyer circuit per Ted Zs instructions to prove his patented circuit doesn't work with VOLTAGE as the dominant force in the dielectric breakdown.
> > Is it more efficient than "Electrolysis" by Faraday?
> > Look at the input. Measure the output.
> > Can you use the gas pressure and combustion to make electricity?
> > How long will it take to prime the system?
> >> It's incumbent upon the inventor to prove that it does work...by example...a
> >> prototype...some math that predicts it in terms of accepted physical
> >> principles.
> > Stan had prototypes coming out of his ass.
> > He wasn't going to pay a University to "verify" his work.
> > He wasn't versed in the math beyond what he published in his manuals and memos.
> > He had the US and PTO under Chap/sec. verify his claims:
> > Ever read this?
> > 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
> > "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
> > convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
> > invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
> > Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
> > ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
> > He had to bring his cell in because it dealt with the DECOMPOSITION OF MATTER.
> > He didn't figure he needed to pay a University or anyone else to verify his work after the patent Examiners under Special Review did. There are serious business patent issues in everything one discloses after that.
> > I'm sick of everyone saying, "The patent office patents all kinds of things that don't work." Show me one. Many impractical things get patents but if it doesn't look like it functions as claimed you are toast.
> >> I went to the standsdream.com site.
> >> I couldn't find a way to purchase a fully assembled working system.
> > Ididn't say he sold working systems. I said, I got my 8xA and 9xA circuits from him.
> > You can get the 8xA and 9xA circuits there assembled or not.
> > You have to wind at least one coil (Resonant Charging Choke) and get some stainless for a tube or so. Meyer's original had 9 tubes about 18 inches long.
> > Why not? Stan had 50 million coming in to do just that. It took him years to get those type of investors after showing people plenty.
> > Meyer spent a million or two on prototyping, engineering, production engineering, and new products for about 20 years. His first patents were maybe before 1980.
> He was ready with the Super Heated Steam Generator to go into production
> when he died. There are pictures of just about everything in the Estate
> > There was a place to download much more at www.globalkast.com but they have been shut off for "over bandwidth' for a few days now.
> > Detroit and the rest of the Biggies had run away from Stan's ability to keep up with computers on all the cars and difficulty making mass retrofit
> systems to more complicated cars but they were close with the injectors.
> > A few million dollars to design and manufacture drop in E-Proms and Meyer might have kept up. Building a company takes big money.
> Meyer needed hundreds of millions to have any effect.
> > Retrofitting an existing platform is not easy. His buggy was primitive even ten. You have a new plastic tank and new electronics to install somewhere different on every car. Meyer ran a VW with nothing but a new tank, retrofit Distributor, and a few valves. His platform was his test bed. Try it on a new Cadillac. It has to be built in.
> >> There are millions of people in China just waiting to stuff boards.
> > There are Americans building them now and plenty would like a job here.
> > I spoke too soon. This is worse than the last one.
> > If you like to listen to people throw switches, it's great.
> > I want my 11 minutes back...
> > Any of those waveforms would be trivial to generate with a microprocessor.
> > And some stills of winding a coil...wow...
> > Where's the picture of the full apparatus generating gas and the actual
> > measurements of power in vs power out?
> >>> I'm open to new discoveries. I just want to hear actual measured
> >>> numbers,
> >>> not vague interpretations.
> >> So do I and no one here has ever lifted a finger to help since 1998
> >> when Ted Z posted his experiment.
> >> Great science.
> > I'd be delighted to help.
> > Bring it by and I'll instrument it.
> > I've got lotsa free time.
> > And I have a masters in EE.
> > And a lab full of equipment.
> > And a long history designing commercial test equipment.
> > Or just have your EE contact me directly and I'll help him design the
> > instrumentation.
> > Won't be difficult at all.
> > Just to get me started in the right direction...
> > What's the energy content of a liter of Brown's gas?
Calling it "Brown's gas" is a purposeful misdirection. Brown's gas requires CHEMICAL. Meyer's process works best with little to nothing in it. It is NOT electrolysis.
> Assume we set it
> > on fire and measure the heat out.
> > What's your target power consumption for the generator?
10-15 watts.
> > What's your target Brown's gas volume output at STP for the generator in
> > liters/minute?
I don't know anything about Brown's gas.
The cell under discussion is a basic "Electrical Polarization" cell based on Meyer's 8xA circuit. Get it? Don't know how many liters/min. I am going to see what I get and what I can do with that. I don't yet know what I need to run another device that can produce more than 10-15 watts. I need to measure water consumption too. How much to prime my mechanical system.
Where's your circuit test results Doony?
Why didn't you ever take Ted Z. to task about his experimental results?
Where's your buddies Conover, Krasner and the rest?
> And a long history designing commercial test equipment.
Great.
> Or just have your EE contact me directly and I'll help him design the
> instrumentation.
> Won't be difficult at all.
He's already trying to improve the 8xA board. He didn't like some of what he was seeing.
> Just to get me started in the right direction...
> What's the energy content of a liter of Brown's gas? Assume we set it
> on fire and measure the heat out.
There is no Brown's gas.
> What's your target power consumption for the generator?
> What's your target Brown's gas volume output at STP for the generator in
> liters/minute?
> Let's do this!
I've never turned down assistance.
Understand this though.
The 8xA circuit is not an over unity circuit.
It just is used to show that voltage takes over in the process and it is not current driven.
More advanced 9xA circuits are for more gas production and resonance.
We have to assemble the 9xA circuit we have yet for testing.
On 10/1/2012 11:21 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Fine. So can you build a device like Meyer's that can take over for a 1 HP motor to drive an alternator?
It's not that difficult. You don't really care about the 1HP motor.
All you care about is how much electrical power is going into the cell.
Hook the cell up to the car's electrical system. It will take what it
needs from the battery and the car's alternator will put it back.
Drive it down the road until it's "primed" then shut off the gasoline supply.
It should drive as long as you keep putting water in the cell.
>>> How long must you prime the system with HP/electricity to kick start it?
>>> How much water and watts will it take to prime the system?
>>>> It's the overunity part that needs a demonstration. How it works is
>>>> irrelevant if you can mass produce it.
> Someone needs to make a Genset that runs on his system.
> That isn't me.
>>> I don't get into Overunity discussions.
>> Also convenient. Overunity is the ONLY thing that matters.
> a heat pump is overunity.
That's a very interesting statement. I can see how people could
be swayed by it. I took a double-take.
You're confusing coefficient of performance with conservation
of energy.
>>> When a basic cell can be measured (2100 degree flame)
>> That's a misdirection. Temperature is irrelevant...within limits. It's
>> the energy that matters.
> 10 watts of power to produce a 2100 degreeF flame after about of minute of startup priming.
>> that will power a device (pump/steam/elect generator?) that will
>> generate more HP than an
>> alternator needs (1/2hp?) to power my cell someone else can figure out
>> the math.
>> Ok, I'll have a go at it for you.
>> 1/2hp will produce 375 watts out of an alternator at 100% efficiency.
> So you only need 10 Watts to run his cell.
And that's my point. If you can input 10 watts of power into the cell
and get more than 10 watts out by burning the resultant gas, it would be
EASY/TRIVIAL to demonstrate that to the patent office, investors,
even me!
> You have 365 Watts left already.
It would be interesting to learn how much energy it takes to idle a VW.
You could just measure gas consumption, but the efficiency of the engine
won't be very high at idle.
>> That 375 watts into a motor at 100% efficiency will produce...wait for it...
>> 1/2hp.
> How many watts in a 2100 degree flame?
There are ZERO watts in a 2100 degree flame.
Watts is a measure of power. Energy is watts times the time you use the watts.
It's easy to confuse the concepts.
You can look up the amount of heat you get out of burning a gas per unit volume of gas burned. That's the input.
The output depends on what you do with that. If you're boiling water,
with 100% efficiency, the flame temperature is irrelevant over a wide
range. Contemporary physics/thermodynamics suggests that a BTU
if energy input will raise the temperature of a pound
of water by 1 degree F over the range between 32 and 212F.
How fast that happens depends on the size and temperature
of the flame, but the total energy required is the same.
>> Anything more than that IS overunity...by definition.
>> I still
>> have to prime the system.
>>> I'm not going to fool around with my car or free flow a lawnmower engine to prove
>> I can make 5 HP with a Meyer size cell. He did it in with a 1500cc engine.
>> If we make the giant leap that Meyer was being straight with us...
>> That video demonstrated that a car battery can overcome the system
>> losses long enough to idle a VW engine for six minutes.
> The car battery wasn't running the cell.
> It is being run by an alternator sitting on the ground belt driven by a small electric motor.
> He could have run it all day if he added more water once the car was running.
My bad...see my first paragraph about the electrical system. If you can run it off
a 1/2HP motor, you can run it off the car battery and drive it across country.
>> In your terms, priming the system is charging the car battery.
> It means using some force to produce the power to run the alternator running the cell full of water until the running engine ca take over powering the alternator.
>> In round numbers...if a car battery contains 500 watt hours of energy,
>> then it could produce 1hp for 40 minutes. That should be plenty to idle
>> a VW engine for six minutes.
> I wasn't running on the battery.
Yep, but you can measure the energy input to the cell.
>> You gotta measure energy out vs energy in. Watching a car idle
>> is not a measurement.
> See the engine run and knowing it can power the original alternator clearly demonstrates that his cell could run a Genset.
I agree. What requires proof/demonstration is that the energy out of the genset
is greater than the energy input to the cell.
>>> He had the US and PTO under Chap/sec. verify his claims:
>>> Ever read this?
>>> 35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
>>> "The Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish a model of
>>> convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his
>>> invention. When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the
>>> Commissioner may require the applicant to furnish specimens or
>>> ingredients for the purpose of inspection or experiment."
>>> He had to bring his cell in because it dealt with the DECOMPOSITION OF MATTER.
>>> He didn't figure he needed to pay a University or anyone else to verify his work after the patent Examiners under Special Review did. There are serious business patent issues in everything one discloses after that.
>>> I'm sick of everyone saying, "The patent office patents all kinds of things that don't work." Show me one. Many impractical things get patents but if it doesn't look like it functions as claimed you are toast.
>>>> I went to the standsdream.com site.
>>>> I couldn't find a way to purchase a fully assembled working system.
>>> Ididn't say he sold working systems. I said, I got my 8xA and 9xA circuits from him.
>>> You can get the 8xA and 9xA circuits there assembled or not.
>>> You have to wind at least one coil (Resonant Charging Choke) and get some stainless for a tube or so. Meyer's original had 9 tubes about 18 inches long.
It's a missed opportunity.
I'd pay $10,000 for a working prototype that convinced me
that it was putting out more energy than it took to drive it.
Assuming it's a practical/usable amount and could be scaled up
to run my water car.
>>>> That would be a BIG money maker...why not a complete system?
> Ask him. He's a busy man. Others may be doing developments.
>>> Why not? Stan had 50 million coming in to do just that. It took him years to get those type of investors after showing people plenty.
>>> Meyer spent a million or two on prototyping, engineering, production engineering, and new products for about 20 years. His first patents were maybe before 1980.
>> He was ready with the Super Heated Steam Generator to go into production
>> when he died. There are pictures of just about everything in the Estate
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com writes:
>> A 9 tube cell near replicating Meyer's is near completion using the 8xA
>> circuit from www.stansdream.com and a Resonant Charging Choke wound on a
>> E-Core just like the one in Meyer's black box for the test cells as
>> shown in the Estate photos and spec sheet from Meyer's Memo.
> "near completion" - I looked at that circuit, it would take about an hour
> to solder one together. Why aren't you DONE yet?
>>> How did you measure the inputs? How did you measure the outputs?
>> My tech has a Masters in Electrical Engineering. We have an oscilloscope
>> and multimeter.
> In other words, you agree with Don that you don't have the right freaking
> equipment, and your measurements aren't good for shit. Thanks for
> confirming that, nitwit. *
I'm gonna disagree with that.
He's got plenty of equipment.
What he needs is an understanding of how to use it to
measure relevant quantities.
The scope will measure input power. You'll need a pencil
and paper to do the graphical integration of volts x amps.
A garden hose, bucket of water, a watch and 1-liter pop bottle
will measure the output gas volume.
Another pencil for some division.
You're not measuring six decimal points.
50% accuracy will be plenty to let you decide whether
to proceed to the next step.
You won't have to define the next step yet,
cause you won't be needing it.
Name calling is not called for...especially when you spout nonsense.
> mike<spam...@gmail.com> writes:
> Mike, you're writing some interesting stuff, but your quoting is so
> messed up that's almost not worth trying to prise out of Chewie's
> bullshit. Please see if you can do something about that. *
Don't know what's going on here.
It might be a consequence of the original formatting.
Not worth my trouble to worry about it.
Read it, don't read it, I don't care much.
On 10/2/2012 12:11 AM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:08:10 PM UTC-7, Don Lancaster wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 2:55 PM, mike wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Just to get me started in the right direction...
>>> What's the energy content of a liter of Brown's gas?
> Calling it "Brown's gas" is a purposeful misdirection. Brown's gas requires CHEMICAL. Meyer's process works best with little to nothing in it. It is NOT electrolysis.
No misdirection intended, purposeful or otherwise.
Brown's gas doesn't require ANYTHING. It is a RESULT.
Brown's gas is a mixture of gases that when caused to combine, typically by what
most would call an explosion,
releases energy and produces only water as a chemical byproduct.
If the Meyer's process produces something different, please describe
exactly what that is and tell us what you would like us to call it.
I'm very easy...
>> Assume we set it
>>> on fire and measure the heat out.
>>> What's your target power consumption for the generator?
> 10-15 watts.
>>> What's your target Brown's gas volume output at STP for the generator in
>>> liters/minute?
> I don't know anything about Brown's gas.
> The cell under discussion is a basic "Electrical Polarization" cell based on Meyer's 8xA circuit. Get it?
No, you don't! You're confusing the process with the result of that process.
Once you have the gas in the pipe aka the result, you don't really care where it came from.
Could be fairy farts and it wouldn't matter one iota.
The only person who'd care would be the person feeding beans
to the fairies aka the process.
> Don't know how many liters/min. I am going to see what I get and what I can do with that. I don't yet know what I need to run another device that can produce more than 10-15 watts. I need to measure water consumption too. How much to prime my mechanical system.
You can calculate exactly how much water consumption you will need for a given
amount of gas output. The number is irrelevant, because water is cheap
and plentiful. It just doesn't matter how much water.
> Where's your circuit test results Doony?
> Why didn't you ever take Ted Z. to task about his experimental results?
> Where's your buddies Conover, Krasner and the rest?
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:47:48 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 12:11 AM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:08:10 PM UTC-7, Don Lancaster wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2012 2:55 PM, mike wrote:
> >>> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Just to get me started in the right direction...
> >>> What's the energy content of a liter of Brown's gas?
> > Calling it "Brown's gas" is a purposeful misdirection. Brown's gas requires CHEMICAL. Meyer's process works best with little to nothing in it. It is NOT electrolysis.
> No misdirection intended, purposeful or otherwise.
> Brown's gas doesn't require ANYTHING. It is a RESULT.
Brown's gas in name given the result of his process using chemicals and freaky wave forms.
You will be distracting and obfuscating using that term.
Brown's gas is claimed to have other properties and Meyer claims nothing of the sort.
> Brown's gas is a mixture of gases that when caused to combine, typically
> by what
> most would call an explosion,
> releases energy and produces only water as a chemical byproduct.
Brown's is a chemical process using current and chemicals to make the water electrolyze easier.
Meyer's process is voltage dominant and works better the more pure the water.
> If the Meyer's process produces something different, please describe
> exactly what that is and tell us what you would like us to call it.
> I'm very easy...
Water gases and how are they combined when you first spli the water?
H, O, and O.
Do any of the recombine immediately into HH and OO?
> Could be fairy farts and it wouldn't matter one iota.
> The only person who'd care would be the person feeding beans
> to the fairies aka the process.
> > Don't know how many liters/min. I am going to see what I get and what I can do with that. I don't yet know what I need to run another device that can produce more than 10-15 watts. I need to measure water consumption too. How much to prime my mechanical system.
> You can calculate exactly how much water consumption you will need for a
> given
> amount of gas output. The number is irrelevant, because water is cheap
> and plentiful. It just doesn't matter how much water.
It matters to me if I need to prime the system that will take over for my device to run only needing more water to separate.
> >> Assuming Brown's Gas is in fact a stoichimetric hydrogen oxygen mix
> >> ( it NEVER has been demonstrated otherwise ), its energy content is a
> >> laughable 2.7 watt hours per STP liter.
> > You can misdirect about Brown's gas just like the good ol' days huh Doony?.
> > I have nothing to do with chemicals in water for the process.
> Pick a name for the gas.
Meyer's gas.
It's from his process. And that is what is under discussion.
He never called it anything but hydrogen and oxygen. He never called it HHO, or H2 and O2 gases.
On 10/2/2012 12:29 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:55:41 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> He's studying all the info available to understand Meyer's processes.
That would be a major breakthrough.
>> You only need two measurements.
>> 1) power in volts x amps if it's DC power in to the entire apparatus.
>> AC power in requires some phase info, but easily doable.
> The A/C just goes to the step down transformer.
>> 2) the volume of Brown's gas delivered per minute.
> There is NO BROWN'S GAS.
> Brown's gas requires CHEMICALS.
Ok, OK, chill out.
What do you wanna call the gas, and how do its composition/properties
differ from Brown's gas...see my other response?
>> The rest is simple math.
>> I'd be delighted to help.
> Send me your phone number.
Just send me an email. It's in the "from" field.
>> Bring it by and I'll instrument it.
> Where do you live?
Portland, Oregon
> He's already trying to improve the 8xA board. He didn't like some of what he was seeing.
That's a serious mistake!!! Don't do it.
Build it EXACTLY as described. Once the cell is verified working,
and producing gas at levels achieved by Meyers, only
then look at improving it.
The Meyer's process uses techniques that supersede known
principles of chemistry/physics/thermodynamics.
It's ludicrous to assume that we mere mortals can improve
on it without first making it work as designed.
>> Just to get me started in the right direction...
>> What's the energy content of a liter of Brown's gas? Assume we set it
>> on fire and measure the heat out.
> There is no Brown's gas.
Ok, give it a name and disclose the energy content of a liter of whatever it is.
>> What's your target power consumption for the generator?
>> What's your target Brown's gas volume output at STP for the generator in
>> liters/minute?
>> Let's do this!
> I've never turned down assistance.
> Understand this though.
> The 8xA circuit is not an over unity circuit.
Then, I'd skip it and go right to the 9xA.
Nobody cares about a process that produces less energy than it consumes.
> It just is used to show that voltage takes over in the process and it is not current driven.
> More advanced 9xA circuits are for more gas production and resonance.
> We have to assemble the 9xA circuit we have yet for testing.
If the process requires high voltage, but near zero current, that's nearly zero
power input. The process would be extraordinarily overunity and trivial to demonstrate. We'll be running your house off it in no time.
I skimmed some of it.
Lots of hand waiving and conjecture.
Lots of math from seemingly smart people...except for that pesky
conservation of energy problem.
This caught my eye...
___________________
I've been following this topic on various threads for a while and saw this paper, has any one read it? I think Meyer was right that he could produce gas but his end product was browns gas not pure diatomic hydrogen and oxygen. This even after my training as a qualified physicist and engineer.
___________________
I don't doubt that there are many yet undiscovered processes.
I do doubt that Meyer found one that will help increase the
world's usable energy supply in the near term.
>> NO. "Electrical Polarization" REQUIRES "pulsed voltage under amp
>> restriction.
As Fourier Series clearly tells us, there is NO SUCH THING as "pulsed voltage".
Instead, you have an EXACTLY EQUIVALENT repetitive waveform having dc and ac harmonic terms.
By Faraday's Law, only the DC term can perform electrolysis.
For the concept to work, fundamental flaws in both Faraday's Law and Fourier Transformation would have to be clearly, unambiguously, and falsifiably demonstrated.
Instead, clearly demonstrated was a total lack of understanding of fundamental physical and mathematical concepts.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:30:31 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 12:29 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:55:41 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > He's studying all the info available to understand Meyer's processes.
> That would be a major breakthrough.
> >> You only need two measurements.
> >> 1) power in volts x amps if it's DC power in to the entire apparatus.
> >> AC power in requires some phase info, but easily doable.
> > The A/C just goes to the step down transformer.
> >> 2) the volume of Brown's gas delivered per minute.
> > There is NO BROWN'S GAS.
> > Brown's gas requires CHEMICALS.
> Ok, OK, chill out.
> What do you wanna call the gas, and how do its composition/properties
> differ from Brown's gas...see my other response?
> >> The rest is simple math.
> >> I'd be delighted to help.
> > Send me your phone number.
> Just send me an email. It's in the "from" field.
There is no "from" field for any of your posts.
I only see my own address partial.
email me:
knews4u2chewatyahoodotcom
I'm way way far from Portland.
It's not like there aren't qualified people near me.
Everyone is pretty busy these day working to pay for $4.00 gas and food inflation....
Interesting article.
Typical free energy speak.
Talk about some naturally occurring process that
you can tap without considering the consequences
of the tappage.
Let me summarize...
You have a pond with fish jumping out of the water all over the place.
Fishing is a lot of work, so you construct some platforms so that when the
fish jump out, they land on the platform and are trapped. You just collect them.
Problem is that the process depletes the fish. Eventually, they're gone...
unless you have some process to put in new fish.
The article claims in the exact words that the process is overunity.
As for my offer of help...I offered to help instrument the process
to verify the overunity...I can't help much with the design beyond
generating the voltage/current waveforms YOU define and instrument
the project to verify success. The whole overunity theory is beyond
my experience.
I do have one overunity theory.
I theorize that black holes are the result of successful overunity
experiments elsewhere in the universe. You wanna be very careful
when you open the door to infinite energy.
On 10/2/2012 3:14 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Pick a name for the gas.
> Meyer's gas.
> It's from his process. And that is what is under discussion.
> He never called it anything but hydrogen and oxygen. He never called it HHO, or H2 and O2 gases.
Ok, I have a tank of pure oxygen gas.
And another tank of pure hydrogen gas.
I got them for FREE.
Can I produce Meyer's gas from the two tanks?
If not, how does a mixture of Hydrogen gas and
oxygen gas differ from Meyer's gas?
I'm not the least bit interested in how Meyer's
gas
was generated. All I care about at this point is
the properties of the resultant Meyer's gas
after it's in the exit pipe.
Baby steps...
mike <spam...@gmail.com> writes:
>I'm gonna disagree with that.
>He's got plenty of equipment.
>What he needs is an understanding of how to use it to
>measure relevant quantities.
Well, yeah.
>Name calling is not called for...especially when you spout nonsense.
You know, I appreciate that you're trying to call his bluff and be
reasonable here, and you've added good stuff to the conversation (despite
a kind of messed-up quoting style). However, bear in mind that the
entity I call "chewie" is a pretty vile character, and has long since
cashed in his respect chips with most of usenet (he's also a "truther",
to give you some idea). Good on ya for not being around for that, but for
most of us, he's just a serial windbag that waits until there's a long
enough lull in a newsgroup to post his crap again, hoping the people who
have proven him wrong before have gotten sick of him and left. *
-- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:02:33 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 3:14 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Pick a name for the gas.
> > Meyer's gas.
> > It's from his process. And that is what is under discussion.
> > He never called it anything but hydrogen and oxygen. He never called it HHO, or H2 and O2 gases.
> Ok, I have a tank of pure oxygen gas.
> And another tank of pure hydrogen gas.
> I got them for FREE.
> Can I produce Meyer's gas from the two tanks?
I don't know. They are pure and not generated from "natural water" that has other things in it. Are they H2 and O2 when released?
Do any combine when you mix them? Do they combine with anything outside?
HHO? H2,O2?
Watch this video.
http://s1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/?action=view¤... There is ambient air and other mixed gases in Meyer's gas when released from "natural water."
> If not, how does a mixture of Hydrogen gas and
> oxygen gas differ from Meyer's gas?
I don't know.
What do you think?
According to Meyer when from "natural water "they are just "hydrogen and oxygen gas with a percentage of "non-combustable gases."
> I'm not the least bit interested in how Meyer's
> gas
> was generated. All I care about at this point is
> the properties of the resultant Meyer's gas
> after it's in the exit pipe.
> Baby steps...
It matters from what it is generated.
So what is it?
All I know is what I saw which is in this video.
I burned steel just like at min 5:30 in the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Y-p1BbwUA
I didn't do any analysis on what it is.
All I care about is what I can do with it.
Can I run a gen-set that will power the cell and close the loop?
> Talk about some naturally occurring process that
> you can tap without considering the consequences
> of the tappage.
> Let me summarize...
> You have a pond with fish jumping out of the water all over the place.
> Fishing is a lot of work, so you construct some platforms so that when the
> fish jump out, they land on the platform and are trapped. You just
> collect them.
> Problem is that the process depletes the fish. Eventually, they're gone...
> unless you have some process to put in new fish.
> The article claims in the exact words that the process is overunity.
> As for my offer of help...I offered to help instrument the process
> to verify the overunity...I can't help much with the design beyond
> generating the voltage/current waveforms YOU define and instrument
> the project to verify success. The whole overunity theory is beyond
> my experience.
> I do have one overunity theory.
> I theorize that black holes are the result of successful overunity
> experiments elsewhere in the universe. You wanna be very careful
> when you open the door to infinite energy.
Everything Meyer did is "under controlled means."
It isn't like he is letting a nuke loose in the atmosphere.
Many worried about what you are saying when they did that.
By the way, how much "energy" did they put in that material to "release" all that thermal nuclear energy. Seems to me they were supposed to put more then they got out.
Hmmmmm?
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:59:31 AM UTC-7, PV wrote:
> mike <spam...@gmail.com> writes:
> >I'm gonna disagree with that.
> >He's got plenty of equipment.
> >What he needs is an understanding of how to use it to
> >measure relevant quantities.
> Well, yeah.
> >Name calling is not called for...especially when you spout nonsense.
> You know, I appreciate that you're trying to call his bluff and be
> reasonable here, and you've added good stuff to the conversation (despite
> a kind of messed-up quoting style). However, bear in mind that the
> entity I call "chewie" is a pretty vile character, and has long since
> cashed in his respect chips with most of usenet (he's also a "truther",
> to give you some idea). Good on ya for not being around for that, but for
> most of us, he's just a serial windbag that waits until there's a long
> enough lull in a newsgroup to post his crap again, hoping the people who
> have proven him wrong before have gotten sick of him and left. *
> --
> * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
> like corkscrews.
And YOU contribute so much to the advancement and use in hydrogen as fuel?
This s a NEWSGROUP.
I post articles, videos, and forum posts relating to just that as well as my own work.
You on the other hand contribute NOTHING.
I see how much goes on here when there is no posting by me about Meyer.
SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, and MORE SPAM.
You idiots including all the dead ones long gone never contribute.You detract and distract which is why there are more and more forums to discuss these topics elsewhere.
Why don't you read and argue with actual experimenters and their math there?
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-exp... Why don't you write a paper about the Math in the Dublin University math?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf “Where does the energy come from?
Effectively the water molecule is marginally unstable in water solution and is constantly acting as a “radioactive’ molecule tossing out H+ AN OH- ions. The energy of the process comes from the formation of these ions.”
Why don't YOU write a paper disputing their theory?
You could shut down the Meyer "scam" once and for all.
It will save millions of dollars in "wasted time" and bandwidth.
You'll be famous.
@blueroomelectronics
Quote:
as such the energy or "work" performed in the working circuit will always be greater than the input energy.
Umm what is that supposed to mean? I know how crazy this sounds Im not stupid nor delusional ---most of the time LOL. You know exactly what it means.
I will break the basic effect down in terms I hope everyone can understand. The resonant charging choke does not utilize EM induction(ie.. a magnetic field) it utilizes electrostatic induction(the electric field) like a capacitor.
If you take a balloon and rub it in your hair the balloon becomes electrostatically charged through friction. If you bring another balloon near the original one there will be an attractive force between the two because the charged balloon induces an opposite charge in the approaching balloon. The laws of electrostatic induction state the originally charged balloon will NOT lose charge but will charge the other balloon in an opposite sense---google electrostatic induction for yourself if you don't believe this. We can say the two balloons are now a capacitor---two oppositely charged objects(conductors) with a dielectric between them (air). There is also an issue of "net" charge whereby electrons must move to the approaching balloon from a source but that is not an issue here.
There is no difference between the balloons and metal conductors such as copper wires the only thing that matters in surface area. The two separated balloons form a capacitor, two metal plates can form a capacitor or two copper wires separated by a dielectric(the insulation). Physics states one object can charge another in an opposite sense and the object inducing the charge will not lose charge thus it has lost no energy. Read whatever you wish into this, It is a scientific fact and I did not make this up for your benefit.
The main problem is that nobody other than Tesla has bothered to understand what might happen if a very high voltage(electrostatic) short duration pulse were applied to two conductors separated (a capacitor) by there insulation( the dielectric). Also what happens when the two plates are connected in series? Potential moves on the surface of the conductors before one milliamp of current moves so there is an instant when the two separated conductors wound one the same core have a huge potential difference between them. One conductor has a surface charge in motion but the next winding ahead of it has yet to be charged thus an opposite charge is induced in it creating a potential difference, when the circuit voltage drops this inter-winding capacitance is discharged as an electric current. But the current is a product of electrostatic induction not a changing magnetic field as in EM induction. In which case--- the source of the charge(the line voltage)inducing an opposite charge in the secondary windings can lose no energy in the process" as physics states. Only extremely short duration/high voltage pulses manifest this effect, such as high frequency square waves at high voltage which is exactly what Meyer's was using in his working circuit.
Stanley Meyers and Zero-Point energy It's been said that Stanley Meyer's invention which split water into hydrogen and oxygen on demand violates the second law of thermodynamics.
"Scientists' current understanding of the universe and all its particles and forces is called the Standard Model and is now over 35 years old. It does not explain why some particles, such as protons, are relatively heavy, while others, like photons, have no mass at all. In a theory that dates to the early 1960s, a British physicist named Peter Higgs sugessted that there was a mechanism - alternatively described as a field, boson, a particle, a whaddayacallit - that makes some things heavy and other things lite."
What do the detectors do? "They will also look for "dark matter" believed to make up most of the universe, antimatter that mirrors all known matter, and the elusive Higgs-boson particle - sometimes called the "God particle", because is is believed to give mass to all other particles."
William Booth, Washigton Post, on the (LHC) Large Hadron Collider built near Geneva Switzerland and now in the testing phase.
The second law of thermodynamics only applies to linear systems and the behavior of the particles involved are based on the Standard Model, which is incomplete.
John Archibald Wheeler who just died recently, worked on the Manhattan Project (Atom bomb) and Matterhorn project (Hydrogen bomb) and was first to coin the phrases, blackhole and wormhole.)
"Then however, I discovered the two chapters of Misner, Thorne and Wheelers's "Gravitation" that in quantum mechnics there existed an all-pervading energy imbedded in the fabric of space consisting of fluctions of electricity. It was called the zero-point energy. Zero-Point energy refers to absolute zero degrees Kelvin. Wheeler's "Geometrodynamics" showed that the energy density was enormous: 10^93grams/cm^3. Quantum mechanics showed that this energy was constantly interacting with matter and elementary particles in what what is called vacuum polarization."
"Modern physics may allow the posibility of tapping energy out of the fabric of space. While studying physics as a graduate student, I ran into a most interesting set of papers.[1-8] they stated that totally empty space was filled with fluctuating energy. As as engineer caught in an energy crisis, two questions arose. Was energy really there and, is so, could it be tapped as a source? I talked with many scientists on this matter and discovered a remarkable thing: Most did not believe this energy existed. However I did run into some physicists who were already familiar with the concept. When I asked them, "Why can't this energy be tapped?" the reply was, "It would violate the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. Random fluctions must forever remain random." To them, there was no way to influence this energy. Then I discovered the work of Dr. Timothy Boyer who showed that matter influenced this fluctuating energy. And recently, I discovered the work of Dr. Ilya Prigogine, the 1977 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, who expanded the second law of thermodynamics to show how certain systems may evolve from randomness toward order. Combining their work opens up the possibility, in principle that the fluctuating energy of space may be cohered into a source."
"The recent work of work of Procaccia clarifies the second law of thermodynamics. He demonstrates that nonlinear systems under certain conditions may evolve toward macroscopic order. A simple example of this thesis is the rectifier circuit ( Figure 1). Here thermal noise from the resistor is channeled through the one-way valve of the diode to charge up the capacitor. This, energy in a random state (thermal noise) is channeled to produce energy that can be used for work (charged capacitor)."
"Since a nonlinear system does not exhibit linear superposition, a combination of inputs often produces suprising, synergistic effects--the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. A striking example of this comes from the field of plasma physics. When sufficient energy (e.g. an electric impulse) is added to a gas, it ionizes into plasma. If more energy is added, the electric charge undergoes violent, random, turbulent motion. If still more energy is added, a surprising thing can sometimes occur:
The violent turblent plasma forms up into a meta-stable vortex ring called a plasmoid.[11-13] Figure 2 is a cross-section diagram of the current flow in the plasmoid. Such a structure cannot be predicted by a linear thermodynamic model, but can be predicted by a nonlinear magnetohydrodynamic model. the nonlinear interactions produce macroscopic coherence form random turblence. This plasmoid vortex ring may produce a cohering resonance with the zero-point energy as the zero-point energy interacts with the plasmoid. This interaction occurs in a nonlinear system evolving toward meta-stable order. Could the plasmoid slightly cohere the zer-point energy by vacuum polarization so that it provides tha energy fux needed to maintain the system? Are ther any examples in nature that imply such a thing could occur? Ball lightning has been modeled as a vortex ring plasmoid[15,16] and its suprising persistence implies it is interacting with some source of energy."
Tapping Zero Point Energy
ISBN: 0-931882-00-2
Moray B. King
REFERENCES
ETHER, ZERO POINT ENERGY
1. M. Rutherfer, "Neutrino Structure of Ether." Lett. Il Nuovo Cimento 13, No. 1, 9 (1975)
This paper references various Lorentz invariant ether thories.
2. H. C. Dudley, The Morality of nuclear Planning, Kronos Press (1976), Glassboro, NJ 08208
This monograph describes a neutrino ether and its relation to radioactivity. Also "Is There an Ether"", Science Digest, (May 15,1975).
3. G. Gamow, Thirty Years that Shook Physics, Doubleday, NY (1966)
This text contains a simple description of Dirac's vitural pair vacuum.
4. C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Graviation, W.H. Freeman and Co. (1970)
Chapters 43 and 44 contain description of zero-point fluctuations and superspace. Also John Archibald Wheeler, Geometrodynamics,
Academic Press Inc. (1962) describes vacuum fluctuations and wormholes.
5. T.H. Boyer, "Random Electrodynamics: The Theory of Classical Electrodynamics with Classical Electromagnetic Zero-Point Radiation." Phys. rev. D11, No. 4 790 (1975)
6. M.O. Scully, M. Sargent, "The Concept of the Photon." Physics Today, 38, (March 1972)
7. E. G. Harris, A Pedestrian Approach to Quantum Field Theory, Wiley Interscience (1972). Chapter 10, " The Problem of Infinties in Quantum Electrodymanics." This text references experiments tha detect the zero-point energy.
10. P. Glandsdorff, I. Prigogine, Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability, and Fluctuations, Wiley interscience, NY (1971).
15. P.O. Johnson, " Ball Lightning and Self Containing Electromagnetic Fields." Am. J. Phys. 33, 119 (1965).
16. M. B. King, "Energy Source Implications of a Helicon Toroid Model for Ball Lightning." QPR No. 18, Valley Forge Res. Center, Moore School, University of Pennsylvanna (1976)
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:02:33 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
>> On 10/2/2012 3:14 PM, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Pick a name for the gas.
>>> Meyer's gas.
>>> It's from his process. And that is what is under discussion.
>>> He never called it anything but hydrogen and oxygen. He never called it HHO, or H2 and O2 gases.
>> Ok, I have a tank of pure oxygen gas.
>> And another tank of pure hydrogen gas.
>> I got them for FREE.
>> Can I produce Meyer's gas from the two tanks?
> I don't know. They are pure and not generated from "natural water" that has other things in it. Are they H2 and O2 when released?
> Do any combine when you mix them? Do they combine with anything outside?
> HHO? H2,O2?
> Watch this video.
> http://s1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/?action=view¤... > There is ambient air and other mixed gases in Meyer's gas when released from "natural water."
>> If not, how does a mixture of Hydrogen gas and
>> oxygen gas differ from Meyer's gas?
> I don't know.
> What do you think?
> According to Meyer when from "natural water "they are just "hydrogen and oxygen gas with a percentage of "non-combustable gases."
>> I'm not the least bit interested in how Meyer's
>> gas
>> was generated. All I care about at this point is
>> the properties of the resultant Meyer's gas
>> after it's in the exit pipe.
>> Baby steps...
> It matters from what it is generated.
> So what is it?
> All I know is what I saw which is in this video.
> I burned steel just like at min 5:30 in the video.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Y-p1BbwUA
> I didn't do any analysis on what it is.
> All I care about is what I can do with it.
> Can I run a gen-set that will power the cell and close the loop?
I agree completely. It's the result that matters.
If you give me a working system, I can figure out what to do with it.
But here's the rub...
Most real problems are far too difficult to solve.
You build the thing and it doesn't work. You have no idea why.
That's exactly what's happening with Meyer's work. The documentation
is so vague and there's so much conjecture that nobody can make it work.
"it almost works except..." "You musta got the coils wrong"
So, what you do is partition the problem into smaller chunks and define
the interfaces. Some stuff you know how to do. You work on the stuff
you don't know how to do. As you learn more, you might repartition
the problem. But you're working on a smaller chunk of the process with defined
inputs and outputs.
I chose to arbitrarily split the problem in two at the gas.
One team can work on injecting purchased mixed gases into a VW and optimize
the miles per liter of gas.
The other team can work on generating the gas with maximum efficiency
in the water cell.
The literature suggests that Meyers claimed no more than
hydrogen and oxygen in his gas. Let's start there.
So, let's take a look at the engine.
Car 1 runs on gasoline.
Car 2 runs on gasoline augmented with Meyer's gas.
Car 3 runs on Meyer's gas alone.
We know all about car 1.
For car2, there might be some benefits to injecting Meyer's gas.
You could put the car on a dyno and do the measurements.
I suggest that the experiment has been done multiple times
and literature should be available.
Many people like you claim to have done it. if only there
were some real measurements published for a real-world
application.
If it were cost-effective, I think it would be on every car.
For now, let's assume conspiracy theory and move on.
Car 3 is the holy grail.
Much research has been done on hydrogen-air power.
I've not read anything that suggests more energy out
than theoretically contained in the hydrogen.
For now, let's assume that the overunity part ain't in the
use of the Meyer's gas.
That leaves us to prove that the overunity is in the generation of
Meyer's gas.
Here's where it's important to DEFINE/ASSUME the properties
of Meyer's gas. There's nothing in the water. Barring alchemy
or transmutation of elements, there can't be anything but
hydrogen and oxygen in the Meyer's gas.
By this definition, Brown's gas is Meyer's gas with trace impurities
due to the electrolyte used in the dissociation process.
I'm gonna claim that the impurities in Brown's gas have ZERO
effect on any overunity properties of the process.
Brown's gas and Meyer's gas are FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.
This is CRITICAL!!! If Meyer's gas is MAGIC, we need to figure
out what that magic is and create some. Forget the meyer's cell
for now, just mix up some gasses and process them as required
to get the overunity properties and let the car team get on with it.
You can accept this and move on, or we can argue it until
you define exactly how Meyer's gas is different then move on.
Your move.
Ok, so we gotta generate some gas.
We know that electrolysis gets us the RESULT we want, but
fails the overunity test.
The project boils down to developing a theory on how
to dissociate water using a LOT less energy than electrolysis.
Several of the links you posted suggest possible theories.
There are plans...sort of...for building a Meyer's cell.
Here's another fork in the road.
1) you can assume that all the people who have failed
are idiots and redo the same experiments they did.
2) you can try something different. What would that be?
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:59:31 AM UTC-7, PV wrote:
>> mike<spam...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I'm gonna disagree with that.
>>> He's got plenty of equipment.
>>> What he needs is an understanding of how to use it to
>>> measure relevant quantities.
>> Well, yeah.
>>> Name calling is not called for...especially when you spout nonsense.
>> You know, I appreciate that you're trying to call his bluff and be
>> reasonable here, and you've added good stuff to the conversation (despite
>> a kind of messed-up quoting style). However, bear in mind that the
>> entity I call "chewie" is a pretty vile character, and has long since
>> cashed in his respect chips with most of usenet (he's also a "truther",
>> to give you some idea). Good on ya for not being around for that, but for
>> most of us, he's just a serial windbag that waits until there's a long
>> enough lull in a newsgroup to post his crap again, hoping the people who
>> have proven him wrong before have gotten sick of him and left. *
If you don't read it and don't respond, your blood pressure won't go up.
I enjoy tinkering with stuff.
While I have to admit that I don't think overunity will be achieved
in my lifetime, I can't escape the feeling that most of what we
know today as "science" was once "magic".
Some day, someone you think of as a nut-job will invent something
interesting. I have time, I like to tinker, what the heck.
I have this nagging feeling that black holes are the result of
successful overunity experiments elsewhere in the universe.
Be careful what you wish for. ;-)
>> * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
>> like corkscrews.
> And YOU contribute so much to the advancement and use in hydrogen as fuel?
> This s a NEWSGROUP.
> I post articles, videos, and forum posts relating to just that as well as my own work.
> You on the other hand contribute NOTHING.
> I see how much goes on here when there is no posting by me about Meyer.
> SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, and MORE SPAM.
> You idiots including all the dead ones long gone never contribute.You detract and distract which is why there are more and more forums to discuss these topics elsewhere.
> Why don't you read and argue with actual experimenters and their math there?
> http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3217-stanley-meyer-exp... > Why don't you write a paper about the Math in the Dublin University math?
> http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf > �Where does the energy come from?
> Effectively the water molecule is marginally unstable in water solution and is constantly
acting as a �radioactive� molecule tossing out H+ AN OH- ions.
The energy of the process comes from the formation of these ions.�
Remember my discussion about the fish pond?
It's also like watching a woman have a baby and assuming that's the way it works.
If you don't consider the "donor" who vanished 9 months ago,
you're gonna develop a faulty process theory. You have to
consider all the inputs to the process.
The water is a closed process...unless you put energy in or take it out.
> Why don't YOU write a paper disputing their theory?
The answer is always, "you can't prove a negative". So a paper won't help.
Somebody has to build one that works to prove the theory.
> You could shut down the Meyer "scam" once and for all.
Not gonna happen, cause the Meyer "scam" is not based on logic.
