Meyer Water Fuel Cell Explained

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174

Some good experiments continue everywhere.
Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?

[mike]

On 9/30/2012 9:42 AM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.

Looks like a plan to try to duplicate Meyer's gizmo and then take it to a
University.

If you can produce a device that takes water and energy in and outputs
something that can be reconverted to usable energy that's much greater
than you put in, it will be OBVIOUS that it works. And if you can
build it in your garage, so can others and it will be replicated
instantly all over the world.

You need a scam debunker and some smart people looking at it
for half a day.
University can't hurt, but by the time they get into it, you'll
be buried in development money. And whoever holds Meyer's
patent rights will be well on the way to becoming very rich.
A $2000 or $20,000 or $200,000 investment is peanuts.
Don't even ask for financial help. That just dilutes the return.
Mortgage your house, spend the kid's college fund and get on with it.

> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?
>

Well, yes...but...
A simple practical example would go a long way to getting started.
Drive your water-powered dune buggy over here and let's take a road trip.
Then, let's remove the gizmo in my garage and test outputs vs inputs.
Won't take a rocket scientist to verify that it works really well.
Measure the watts going in. Take whatever comes out and set it on fire.
Measure the equivalent watts coming out of the fire. Any useful device
will have SIGNIFICANTLY more out than in. You'll be able to verify that
with equipment you've already got around the house. I'll supply the
water and the thermometer and the wattmeter.

Let the universities argue about efficiency and the new branch of physics
that you developed.
We'll all be driving our water-powered dune buggies and waiting to
be murdered by the energy industry.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

That isn't the way it is going to happen.
The "scientific community" screams "peer review, peer review!"
So, that is what they are going to get, their damn paper.
Meyer and others ran the car 100% on the HHO.
Here is Meyer's video of the first time he did it with the basic Demonstration cell being duplicated for the University Certification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOo1f_864c
Listen carefully to what Meyer says.
13 lbs of pressure.
Same cell used for the patent examiners.
The cell on the ground is powered by the alternator on the ground, belt driven.
Ask yourself, "Can a running car run an alternator to power the cell?"
Try the basic experiment.

Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zet...@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100

John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn$1...@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>

VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen

Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.

The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.


The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.

By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.

AT FIRST:

You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.

In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.

In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.

Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.

HOW TO?

As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.

If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.

The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.

The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.

Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.

Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.

For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.

Have a nice trip to Ohio!

Ted

[Don Lancaster]

Here are nine of the more blatantly obvious fatal flaws in the concept.
Iffen the right one don't git ya, the left one will...

Here's a summary of why the concept is not even wrong...

1. What part of "Gross and Egregious Fraud" don't you
understand?

2. A fundamental thermodynamic principle called exergy
absolutely GUARANTEES that hydrogen produced from
high value grid, pv, or alternator electricity flat out ain't
gonna happen. For the simple reason that a kilowatt hour
of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a kilowatt
hour of unstored hydrogen gas.

3. There are EIS or Electrochemical Impedance Spectrocopy
instruments readily available. These "run the experiment"
many millions of times daily with uniformly negative results.

4. The resonant frequency of water is ONE MILLION TIMES
higher than proponents claim, applies only to water vapor,
and is not in any manner overunity.

5. Stainless steel is wildly inappropriate for hydrogen production
devices because of the hydrogen overpotential of iron. and
because of its low energy and low area passivated surface.
Special Platinized Platinum Black normally is required for
efficient devices and demands careful repeated renewing.

6. Because of Faraday's Law, only the Fourier Series direct current
term of any complex pulse waveform can contribute to electrolysis.
High frequency ac components primarily create bunches of waste
heat and inefficiency.

7. It is trivially easy to mismeasure the energy in pulse waveforms.
So much so that this is Beginning EE Student Blunder 001-A.
Such measurement is almost always ridiculously low.

8. It is similarly trivially easy to mismeasure that actual dry
STP hydrogen content in any vapor. Such measurement is
almost always ridiculously high.

9. Surprisingly, electrolysis can in fact be up to one sixth endothermic
and can produce "runs cool" effects. But such operation only can
happen at very low and unamortizable production rates.

Curiously, the Ohio trial court fraud proceedings have never been
transcribed, owing to admin costs and a near total lack of demand.

--
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

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

Yet after 14 yeas Donny you have refused to do the simple experiment to prove once and for all that it doesn't work.

I understand the things work differently on the quantum level.
There is NO VIOLATION of any laws of physics in Meyer's processes.
Everything is accounted for in some way.
I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment about it.
Great science.
Do you guys ever do any real experiments or do you just sit around detracting from real experimental and proven work?
For years jamokes like you have been saying, "I won't believe it until I can get it at K-Mart. Well you can buy a circuit here:
www.stansdream.com
So why don't you wind a coil and do some testing yourself to PROVE that Meyer is wrong when he states "Voltage can positively disassociate the water molecule."
It is funny, not really, that when I spoke to the Director of the Electronics Engineering Dept. at a Major University, after he looked at the Wikipedia blurb about Meyer that his first comment was, "Nobody has proven that his process doesn't work."
So there you go.....spew, spew, spew, but no experimenting.
Nice science.
Start here.

Ted!

So Donny, why didn't YOU ever take Ted Z. to task about his results 14 years ago. You've never done his basic experiment.
Look at the original post.
You will believe a "judge" that knows nothing about electronics yet you don't listen to someone WHO KNEW Meyer's expert witness, who was ignored and maybe not even recorded by the Judge who was related to the plaintiffs.
The reason, if any, that Meyer had to pay all of ONE DOLLAR for this "fraud" was because he kept telling investors "soon" and soon never came because of Meyer's underestimation of his ability to produce a product for production in time to satisfy TWO people who had invested for more than ten years.
Funny though, NOT, that he died while sitting at the dinner table with investors with whom had just inked a 50 MILLION DOLLAR development contract 2 years after his court case. Seems the "judge" didn't think his "fraud" was gross enough to issue a Cease and Desist order for Meyer to stop taking investor funds.
Thankfully none of these guys are listening to you Donny.
You're an antique.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Meyer+fuel+cell+replication&oq=Meyer+fuel+cell+replication&gs_l=youtube.3...1774.10335.0.10805.27.26.0.1.1.0.145.2635.13j13.26.0...0.0...1ac.1.aP1SXJSPOZc

[mike]

When you personally did this experiment, what were the results?
How did you measure the inputs? How did you measure the outputs?
Got a picture of your successful water car?

I don't want to be surprised by the results. I want to be CONVINCED
by the numbers measured as the results.

I'm open to new discoveries. I just want to hear actual measured numbers,
not vague interpretations.

[mike]

On 9/30/2012 6:50 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
>> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>>
>> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>>
>>
>>
>> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>>
>> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
>>
>> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>>
>> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?
>
> Yet after 14 yeas Donny you have refused to do the simple experiment to prove once and for all that it doesn't work.
>
> I understand the things work differently on the quantum level.
> There is NO VIOLATION of any laws of physics in Meyer's processes.
> Everything is accounted for in some way.

If you can't show one that works, what's your definition of "everything"?

Show one that works, then we can discuss HOW it works.

I don't doubt that you can construct a Meyer's system that makes bubbles.
It's the overunity part that needs a demonstration. How it works is
irrelevant if you can mass produce it.

> I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment about it.
> Great science.
> Do you guys ever do any real experiments or do you just sit around detracting from real experimental and proven work?
> For years jamokes like you have been saying, "I won't believe it until I can get it at K-Mart. Well you can buy a circuit here:
> www.stansdream.com

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 is logically impossible to prove that something doesn't work.
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.

I went to the standsdream.com site.
I couldn't find a way to purchase a fully assembled working system.
That would be a BIG money maker...why not a complete system?
There are millions of people in China just waiting to stuff boards.

I did find some statements about the polarization process.
I stripped out everything but the specs:

begin snipped quote

This is our replication of Stan's "Electrical Polarization Process"
control box.
The current to the cell is approx. 1 Amp. The voltage at
the cell is approx. 89VDC, and gas production is excellent.

this cell produces VERY LITTLE heat, and lots of gas.

end quote

So, we know 89 watts in.
Output is "lots of gas".

If everything were 100% efficient, that represents .12 horsepower
worth of energy.
By golly, that's amazing...sign me up.
If it outputs more than .12 horsepower, that's overunity and I'd like
to see the measured results in a real system...using numbers, not
vague statements like "lots of gas".

As for experiments...I met an alternative energy enthusiast.
As a favor to him, I built a small pulsed cell to his specs.
I used a pulse generator to generate the waveforms so I didn't
need any of the magic coil stuff. By eyeballing the bubbles,
I couldn't tell the difference between pulsed waveforms and DC.

I met a HHO enthusiast with a cell running in his car.
He had a commercial-looking website hawking his technology.
Turns out that the only performance data he had was that
his Honda went from 30 to 55MPG with the HHO turned on.
He did this by tweaking the ECU until the engine died
and then richer till it continued to run. A process
illegal in the States and not conducive to long engine life
or driveability.
And the only data he had ever collected was on one run of
less than one gallon measured by fill-ups at different stations.

I offered to build him an instantaneous MPG meter that ran off
the injector timing, but by the time it was ready for testing,
he'd vanished.

The most interesting part of the whole process was his story
about how he forgot to turn off the HHO generator one night
and blew the valve covers off his engine next time he tried to
start it.

Are we having fun yet?

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:34:09 AM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 6:50 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
>
> >> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>
> >>
>
> >> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
>
> >>
>
> >> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>
> >>
>
> >> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?
>
> >
>
> > Yet after 14 yeas Donny you have refused to do the simple experiment to prove once and for all that it doesn't work.
>
> >

The ORIGINAL Meyer sketch that came out is posted here.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=2375
with the recitation:
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=2376.

>
> > I understand the things work differently on the quantum level.
>
> > There is NO VIOLATION of any laws of physics in Meyer's processes.
>
> > Everything is accounted for in some way.
>
>
>
> If you can't show one that works, what's your definition of "everything"?
>

I account for priming.
You have to start the pendulum moving.
Molecular ringing need a kick start before it cascades.

>
>
> Show one that works, then we can discuss HOW it works.
>

Meyer did. Others have. Discuss away...
But I don't talk about anything but mine and other's results that are posted. You can question them. That's what I do.

>
>
> I don't doubt that you can construct a Meyer's system that makes bubbles.

Fine. So can you build a device like Meyer's that can take over for a 1 HP motor to drive an alternator?
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.
>
>

I don't get into Overunity discussions.
When a basic cell can be measured (2100 degree flame) 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. 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.

>
> > I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment about it.
>
> > Great science.
>
> > Do you guys ever do any real experiments or do you just sit around detracting from real experimental and proven work?
>
> > For years jamokes like you have been saying, "I won't believe it until I can get it at K-Mart. Well you can buy a circuit here:
>
> > www.stansdream.com
>
>
>
> 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.
>

Make a Meyer basic circuit as posted.
Make 1 tube.
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.
You can get many components here.
http://www.thehydrogenshop.com

>
> That would be a BIG money maker...why not a complete system?

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 Pictures taken.
http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/stanley-meyers-wfc-tec/photograpic-evadance-of-stanley-meyers-work/
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.
You can do your own assembly.
www.stansdream.com
www.globalkast.com

>
>
> I did find some statements about the polarization process.
>
> I stripped out everything but the specs:
>
>
>
> begin snipped quote
>
>
>
> This is our replication of Stan's "Electrical Polarization Process"
>
> control box.
>
> The current to the cell is approx. 1 Amp. The voltage at
>
> the cell is approx. 89VDC, and gas production is excellent.
>
>
>
> this cell produces VERY LITTLE heat, and lots of gas.
>
>
>
> end quote
>
>
>
> So, we know 89 watts in.
>
> Output is "lots of gas".
>
>
>
> If everything were 100% efficient, that represents .12 horsepower
>
> worth of energy.
>
> By golly, that's amazing...sign me up.

Can you use the flame to generate .12 HP?
Can you use it to generate more?

>
> If it outputs more than .12 horsepower, that's overunity and I'd like
>
> to see the measured results in a real system...using numbers, not
>
> vague statements like "lots of gas".
>

Meyer could make a 2100 DegF flame in about a minute. Can you build a device that will move an alternator to electrify the cell at 10 watts? How long will you have to prime the system?

>
>
> As for experiments...I met an alternative energy enthusiast.
>
> As a favor to him, I built a small pulsed cell to his specs.
>
> I used a pulse generator to generate the waveforms so I didn't
>
> need any of the magic coil stuff.

You need the coil for efficiency. Wave forms are not everything.
These are recent though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI
Look at the harmonics.
You cannot have a voltage forced reaction without the coil which disturbs the amp flow and voltage intensification with amp restriction.
The inductance must be equal or greater than the capacitance.

>By eyeballing the bubbles,
>
> I couldn't tell the difference between pulsed waveforms and DC.
>

Pulsing is only art of the force involved. Voltage is dominant.
Pulsing actually makes the device use less power does it not?
It's on and off.

>
>
> I met a HHO enthusiast with a cell running in his car.
>
> He had a commercial-looking website hawking his technology.
>
> Turns out that the only performance data he had was that
>
> his Honda went from 30 to 55MPG with the HHO turned on.

Not bad.
HHO enhancement works to a degree. Better on small engines.
You have to mix the gas down after a point of saturation.
Those devices take installation and maintenance. It's not for everyone.
That is why Stephen Meyer patented "Fuel Cell Service Stations."
He thought the technology would be prevalent in his lifetime.

>
> He did this by tweaking the ECU until the engine died
>
> and then richer till it continued to run. A process
>
> illegal in the States and not conducive to long engine life
>
> or driveability.

The car companies did that on purpose. They want you using oil.
Why do you suppose that is when every HHO system I know of reduces pollution by a big amount? My own cell reduced the pollution by about 80% as tested in a California Referee Inspection Station back in about 1990.

>
> And the only data he had ever collected was on one run of
>
> less than one gallon measured by fill-ups at different stations.
>

I ran mine with straight electrolysis with tap water (no other additives) and an alternator for pulsing and got about 10% improvement in millage after months of driving and measuring gas refills but it was a 350ci engine and a small cell eating 1400 watts of power. I had to empty the sludge every week or two. It was not anything like a Meyer Circuit or cell.
You can hear Meyer say in the video, "2 amps and 5 volts" running his cell at "13 lbs" of back pressure "for more than 6 minutes" which is running the 1500 cc motor.
I put my hands on that very cell many times. Cool as a cucumber after running 15 minutes or more powered by an alternator belt driven. No secret tubes, no secret tank.

>
>
> I offered to build him an instantaneous MPG meter that ran off
>
> the injector timing, but by the time it was ready for testing,
>
> he'd vanished.
>

Nice try.
I've had a few experimenters vanish. Meyer was right out front until the day he died.

>
>
> The most interesting part of the whole process was his story
>
> about how he forgot to turn off the HHO generator one night
>
> and blew the valve covers off his engine next time he tried to
>
> start it.
>

The only thing I blew up was sandwich bags and once a dry cleaning bag that rattled all the windows in the whole neighborhood. Hydrogen and Oxygen is knarly.
Meyer almost blew a hole in th ceiling of his lab once.
That is why Meyer invented Gas Choking Circuit tubes and flame fittings to manage the gas. But he was also filling NASA's requirement of making the gas on demand. Faster production means less storage.

>
>
> Are we having fun yet?

It hasn't been fun trying to lead horses to water for 15 years.
Meyer was very close to production of products when he died. Probably close means a year or two. I thought it would take a few years since his patents expired for any products to come out and it's already 4 years.
He didn't leave a crew of 1000 people who knew the circuits and engineering. He didn't leave ONE except his brother who is going senile. His brother was given a Cease and Desist Order in 1998 to not use or talk about the technology.
That's the story for now.

[PV]

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> writes:
>Curiously, the Ohio trial court fraud proceedings have never been
>transcribed, owing to admin costs and a near total lack of demand.

Of course nobody's done that, because then they would be on the record
and the whole issue would have a stake in its heart for good.

If he really had nothing to fear, Chewie would start a kickstarter to get
all that info. If it works for video games, it will work for world
changing energy technology (except for the not existing thing).

Chewie, it's still not safe to spout your shit here. People are watching,
and will make fun of you all over again so long as you try to tout this
nonsense. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

[PV]

knews4...@yahoo.com writes:
>I understand the things work differently on the quantum level.
>There is NO VIOLATION of any laws of physics in Meyer's processes.
>Everything is accounted for in some way.

Three words: Bull. Fucking. Shit.

>I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment
>about it.
>Great science.

Except that the supposed theory that this supposed technology supposedly
works on violates measurements made in REAL science every day. *

[Don Lancaster]

On 10/1/2012 9:28 AM, PV wrote:
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> writes:
>> Curiously, the Ohio trial court fraud proceedings have never been
>> transcribed, owing to admin costs and a near total lack of demand.
>
> Of course nobody's done that, because then they would be on the record
> and the whole issue would have a stake in its heart for good.
>
> If he really had nothing to fear, Chewie would start a kickstarter to get
> all that info. If it works for video games, it will work for world
> changing energy technology (except for the not existing thing).
>
> Chewie, it's still not safe to spout your shit here. People are watching,
> and will make fun of you all over again so long as you try to tout this
> nonsense. *
>

I was once willing to put up several hundred dollars to get the "Gross
and egregious" trial transactions online.

The Ohio court bureaucracy wanted $19,000.00 at the time in admin costs.

This was a tad too high for me to pay for an outcome that is not even
remotely the least in doubt.

More on bashing pseudoscience at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf

[PV]

Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> writes:
>I was once willing to put up several hundred dollars to get the "Gross
>and egregious" trial transactions online.
>
>The Ohio court bureaucracy wanted $19,000.00 at the time in admin costs.
>
>This was a tad too high for me to pay for an outcome that is not even
>remotely the least in doubt.

Of course, but that doesn't stop Chewie and company from starting a
crowdsourced fundraiser to get it done, if there was actually anything
anyone cared about in there. Of course, the opposite is true, if that
nonsense came to light it's no longer a big MYSTERY.

>More on bashing pseudoscience at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf

Keep on bashing. *

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

I never did this basic experiment. Others started out like this and posted videos on youtube years ago.
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.

> 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.
We are looking for a cheap gas flow meter. Don't know of any better way that isn't a primitive bubbler to a liter bottle or some such.
That is the reason to take it to University. They can do the all the input and output measures on the cell, gas, and temps.

> Got a picture of your successful water car?
>

No plans for any car.
I told you I am not fooling with that.
Meyer's cells need to be built in to new platforms.

>
>
> I don't want to be surprised by the results. I want to be CONVINCED
>
> by the numbers measured as the results.
>
>

That is what the University Certification is for.
I am not going to defend my "measuring crazy wave forms or bad coulometry"
I don't have a lab full of equipment.
But these guys have interesting results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI

>
> 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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

> Please visit my GURU's LIAR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

You're a joke Doony.
You'll put up a "few hundred" to get a sham trial transcript devoid of Meyer's expert's testimony but you won't spend a few hours building an experiment like Ted Z. showed you 14 years ago.
Great science.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

I don't care about sham court trials.
Ted Z. told you how to make a basic Meyer circuit to test for yourself.
All I have ever cared about doing is replicating Meyer's gas production in a basic 9 tube cell like I saw him demonstrate many times and that he used to run the 1500cc motor in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOo1f_864c
"13 lbs of pressure"
"2 amps, 5 volts"
"More than 6 minutes running time so there is no way for any other fuel to be in the engine since the gas tank is laying on the ground."
That video is from about 1985 or earlier.

[mike]

That video is the most egregious waste of time I've ever encountered
related to free energy.
10 watts in.
pressure implies storage
no output measurement.
No actual measurement showing that the battery is still charging.

Why would anybody with a working model make such a video???
If it were me, I'd bungee the generator on the back
and drive the VW down to the TV station and talk a reporter
into following me on a cross-country road trip.
No measurements, nothing behind the curtain...just the ability to
drive across country for the cost of water.
It's a no-brainer.
If it worked, it would be trivial to demonstrate.

[mike]

On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
> My tech has a Masters in Electrical Engineering. We have an oscilloscope and multimeter.

That's adequate if your EE knows what he's doing. You just have to publish
exactly what he measured and how he measured it and how that got
translated into
energy out divided by energy in.

> We are looking for a cheap gas flow meter. Don't know of any better way that isn't a primitive bubbler to a liter bottle or some such.

Primitive bubbler into a liter jar is more than adequate to demonstrate
failure. It's a direct measurement of what you want to know under
the exact conditions you want.
Don't waste your time/money on anything more sophisticated.

> That is the reason to take it to University. They can do the all the input and output measures on the cell, gas, and temps.
>

You've got all you need. Only reason for the University is peer review and
some credibility. You don't need that until your own measurements
demonstrate
success.

>> Got a picture of your successful water car?
>>
> No plans for any car.
> I told you I am not fooling with that.
> Meyer's cells need to be built in to new platforms.
>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to be surprised by the results. I want to be CONVINCED
>>
>> by the numbers measured as the results.
>>
>>
> That is what the University Certification is for.
> I am not going to defend my "measuring crazy wave forms or bad coulometry"

You have all the equipment you need if your EE is competent.
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.
2) the volume of Brown's gas delivered per minute.
The rest is simple math.

> I don't have a lab full of equipment.

You don't need it to demonstrate failure. It will be VERY obvious when you
actually measure power in and power out.

> But these guys have interesting results.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI

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? Assume we set it
on fire and measure the heat out.
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!

[Don Lancaster]

There is no point whatsoever in a coast to coast demonstration.

All you need do is demonstrate a valid and reproducible ( and, of
course, falsifiable ) anomaly in an electrochemical measurement.

Such measurements are made millions of times daily by EIS (
Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy ) instruments.

EIS anomalies are and remain conspicuously absent.

[Don Lancaster]

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.

More real science at http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.shtml

[mike]

On 10/1/2012 5:31 AM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
> I account for priming.
> You have to start the pendulum moving.
> Molecular ringing need a kick start before it cascades.

That shouldn't affect the numbers much for a long-term experiment.

>
>>
>>
>> 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 many had the dune buggy. It would have been trivial to demonstrate the
actual results on a cross-country trip.

> 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 don't doubt that you can construct a Meyer's system that makes bubbles.
>
> Fine. So can you build a device like Meyer's that can take over for a 1 HP motor to drive an alternator?
> 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.
>>
>>
> I don't get into Overunity discussions.

Also convenient. Overunity is the ONLY thing that matters.

> 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.

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.
That 375 watts into a motor at 100% efficiency will produce...wait for it...
1/2hp.
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.

In your terms, priming the system is charging the car battery.
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.

You gotta measure energy out vs energy in. Watching a car idle
is not a measurement.

I can do better than that in an instant with a bic lighter.

Can you build a device that will move an alternator to electrify the
cell at 10 watts?

You bet, and it can probably be done using under 20 watts.

How long will you have to prime the system?
>>
>>
>> As for experiments...I met an alternative energy enthusiast.
>>
>> As a favor to him, I built a small pulsed cell to his specs.
>>
>> I used a pulse generator to generate the waveforms so I didn't
>>
>> need any of the magic coil stuff.
>
> You need the coil for efficiency. Wave forms are not everything.
> These are recent though.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI
> Look at the harmonics.
> You cannot have a voltage forced reaction without the coil which disturbs the amp flow and voltage intensification with amp restriction.
> The inductance must be equal or greater than the capacitance.

That is absolute bullshit.
You could have said, "the orgasm must be greater than the cloud cover"
and conveyed
as much information.

If I can generate the waveform, that's all it takes.

>
>> By eyeballing the bubbles,
>>
>> I couldn't tell the difference between pulsed waveforms and DC.
>>
> Pulsing is only art of the force involved. Voltage is dominant.
> Pulsing actually makes the device use less power does it not?
> It's on and off.

You'd know if you actually measured it.
You should spend a LOT more time with your (competent) EE.

>>
>>
>> I met a HHO enthusiast with a cell running in his car.
>>
>> He had a commercial-looking website hawking his technology.
>>
>> Turns out that the only performance data he had was that
>>
>> his Honda went from 30 to 55MPG with the HHO turned on.
>
> Not bad.
> HHO enhancement works to a degree. Better on small engines.
> You have to mix the gas down after a point of saturation.
> Those devices take installation and maintenance. It's not for everyone.
> That is why Stephen Meyer patented "Fuel Cell Service Stations."
> He thought the technology would be prevalent in his lifetime.
>
>>
>> He did this by tweaking the ECU until the engine died
>>
>> and then richer till it continued to run. A process
>>
>> illegal in the States and not conducive to long engine life
>>
>> or driveability.
>
> The car companies did that on purpose. They want you using oil.

More bullshit. The car companies want you using cars. The OIL companies
want you using oil.
If there were a technique to reliably (and cost effectively) increase
gas mileage by 10%,
the car companies would be all over it.

> Why do you suppose that is when every HHO system I know of reduces pollution by a big amount? My own cell reduced the pollution by about 80% as

tested in a California Referee Inspection Station back in about 1990.
>>
>> And the only data he had ever collected was on one run of
>>
>> less than one gallon measured by fill-ups at different stations.
>>
> I ran mine with straight electrolysis with tap water (no other additives) and an alternator for pulsing and got about 10% improvement in millage after months of driving

and measuring gas refills but it was a 350ci engine and a small cell
eating 1400 watts of power.

Presumably, you tweaked the engine???
Did you ever try similar tweaking without the HHO?
You should be able to trade engine life and driveability for gas mileage
over that 10% range.

I had to empty the sludge every week or two. It was not anything like a
Meyer Circuit or cell.
> You can hear Meyer say in the video, "2 amps and 5 volts" running his cell at "13 lbs" of back pressure "for more than 6 minutes" which is running the 1500 cc motor.
> I put my hands on that very cell many times. Cool as a cucumber after running 15 minutes or more powered by an alternator belt driven. No secret tubes, no secret tank.

And no actual measurements.

>>
>> I offered to build him an instantaneous MPG meter that ran off
>>
>> the injector timing, but by the time it was ready for testing,
>>
>> he'd vanished.
>>
> Nice try.
> I've had a few experimenters vanish. Meyer was right out front until the day he died.
>>
>>
>> The most interesting part of the whole process was his story
>>
>> about how he forgot to turn off the HHO generator one night
>>
>> and blew the valve covers off his engine next time he tried to
>>
>> start it.
>>
> The only thing I blew up was sandwich bags and once a dry cleaning bag that rattled all the windows in the whole neighborhood. Hydrogen and Oxygen is knarly.
> Meyer almost blew a hole in th ceiling of his lab once.
> That is why Meyer invented Gas Choking Circuit tubes and flame fittings to manage the gas. But he was also filling NASA's requirement of making the gas on demand. Faster production means less storage.
>>
>>
>> Are we having fun yet?
>
> It hasn't been fun trying to lead horses to water for 15 years.
> Meyer was very close to production of products when he died. Probably close means a year or two. I thought it would take a few years since his patents expired for any products to come out and it's already 4 years.
> He didn't leave a crew of 1000 people who knew the circuits and engineering. He didn't leave ONE except his brother who is going senile. His brother was given a Cease and Desist Order in 1998 to not use or talk about the technology.
> That's the story for now.

Bottom line is that until you reach overunity, HHO is more trouble than
benefit.

With your car, what did your insurance company say about liability?
And did they up your home insurance cuz you stored a bomb in the garage?
How did you get it thru inspection? I once failed the emissions test
because I'd unplugged a hose. Numbers were ok, but the system
had been "tampered". I put chewing gum in the hose and plugged it back on.
They took a VERY hard look, but couldn't find anything wrong, so they
passed it.

[PV]

knews4...@yahoo.com writes:
>I don't care about sham court trials.
>Ted Z. told you how to make a basic Meyer circuit to test for yourself.
>All I have ever cared about doing is replicating Meyer's gas production
>in a basic 9 tube cell like I saw him demonstrate many times and that he
>used to run the 1500cc motor in this video.

Wait, I thought you did that ALREADY, and have "lots of hydrogen" being
produced with that stupid circuit. If the circuit works, then why are you
a pathetic internet weasel and not a billionaire? *

[PV]

knews4...@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. *

[PV]

mike <spa...@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. *

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

It isn't free unless you consider water a free source of energy.
You need hardare and start up power with the water.

> 10 watts in.
>
> pressure implies storage
>

The cell is running at a constant 13.75 lbs of back pressure while the 1500cc motor is running as you can see.
The amount "stored" is in the cell you see standing next to the car at 13 lbs of pressure in about a 6 in tall cavity, 5 inches in diameter. You can figure out how much is "stored" but it being made and used on demand for all intents and purposes.


> no output measurement.
>
How much horsepower does that 1500cc engine running produce?

> No actual measurement showing that the battery is still charging.
>

The battery is not in the system. The cell is powered by a belt driven alternator sitting on the ground with the cell. This is how Meyer demonstrated it HUNDREDS of times.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

Because YOU don't know how to read.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:58:27 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 5:31 AM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> > I account for priming.
>
> > You have to start the pendulum moving.
>
> > Molecular ringing need a kick start before it cascades.
>
> That shouldn't affect the numbers much for a long-term experiment.
>

You will have a system that has a net lose when it stops running.

> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 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.

> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't doubt that you can construct a Meyer's system that makes bubbles.
>
> >
>
> > Fine. So can you build a device like Meyer's that can take over for a 1 HP motor to drive an alternator?
>
> > 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.

>
> > 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.
You have 365 Watts left already.

> That 375 watts into a motor at 100% efficiency will produce...wait for it...
>
> 1/2hp.
>

How many watts in a 2100 degree flame?

> 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.

>
> >>
>
> >>> I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment about it.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Great science.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Do you guys ever do any real experiments or do you just sit around detracting from real experimental and proven work?
>
> >>
>
> >>> For years jamokes like you have been saying, "I won't believe it until I can get it at K-Mart. Well you can buy a circuit here:
>
> >>
>
> >>> www.stansdream.com
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 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.

Ask him. He's a busy man. Others may be doing developments.

Can you use that to generate electricity to run a cell?

>
> Can you build a device that will move an alternator to electrify the
>
> cell at 10 watts?
>
> You bet, and it can probably be done using under 20 watts.
>

Examples? I would like to find a small steam generator that can run an alternator.
I'm looking at these:
http://www.greensteamengine.com

>
> How long will you have to prime the system?
>

How come you never answer this?

> >>
>
> >> As for experiments...I met an alternative energy enthusiast.
>
> >>
>
> >> As a favor to him, I built a small pulsed cell to his specs.
>
> >>
>
> >> I used a pulse generator to generate the waveforms so I didn't
>
> >>
>
> >> need any of the magic coil stuff.
>
> >
>
> > You need the coil for efficiency. Wave forms are not everything.
>
> > These are recent though.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI
>
> > Look at the harmonics.
>
> > You cannot have a voltage forced reaction without the coil which disturbs the amp flow and voltage intensification with amp restriction.
>
> > The inductance must be equal or greater than the capacitance.
>
>
>
> That is absolute bullshit.
>
> You could have said, "the orgasm must be greater than the cloud cover"
>
> and conveyed
>
> as much information.
>

NO. "Electrical Polarization" REQUIRES "pulsed voltage under amp restriction.
If you cannot wrap your head around a new process I cannot help you.
Do some searches for experimenters with more knowledge than I. The web is full of them. Do some research and investigation like the rest of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxssykva3yE

>
> If I can generate the waveform, that's all it takes.
>

NO. You need the bifilar Resonant Charging Choke coil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxssykva3yE

>
> >> By eyeballing the bubbles,
>
> >>
>
> >> I couldn't tell the difference between pulsed waveforms and DC.
>
> >>
>
> > Pulsing is only art of the force involved. Voltage is dominant.
>
> > Pulsing actually makes the device use less power does it not?
>
> > It's on and off.
>
> You'd know if you actually measured it.
>
> You should spend a LOT more time with your (competent) EE.
>

He just returned to town and we will be welding the tabs on the 9 tubes and assembling everything.
I am working on the Flame Choking Circuit so I can use the gases in a controlled way.

It looks like a don't even need to burn the gas if a just used a pressure pump FIRST.
I think ones at that link run on 30psi that was just plain air, not steam. I can make that much pressure in the cell just splitting the water in a pressurized vessel. I can run a "pressure generator' and then still use the burning gas elsewhere. This is how Meyer thought. The pressure is like the voltage. A non-consumed force. All I need is another device in the gas line.
The still use the gas for btu heat. So, how much am I really getting out of my process and inputs?

> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I met a HHO enthusiast with a cell running in his car.
>
> >>
>
> >> He had a commercial-looking website hawking his technology.
>
> >>
>
> >> Turns out that the only performance data he had was that
>
> >>
>
> >> his Honda went from 30 to 55MPG with the HHO turned on.
>
> >
>
> > Not bad.
>
> > HHO enhancement works to a degree. Better on small engines.
>
> > You have to mix the gas down after a point of saturation.
>
> > Those devices take installation and maintenance. It's not for everyone.
>
> > That is why Stephen Meyer patented "Fuel Cell Service Stations."
>
> > He thought the technology would be prevalent in his lifetime.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> He did this by tweaking the ECU until the engine died
>
> >>
>
> >> and then richer till it continued to run. A process
>
> >>
>
> >> illegal in the States and not conducive to long engine life
>
> >>
>
> >> or driveability.
>
> >
>
> > The car companies did that on purpose. They want you using oil.
>
> More bullshit.

Prove it. Do you who owns all those companies and what other stock and debt they control? Including the money they make off of fighting over it. Trillions buddy.

>The car companies want you using cars.

Built using oil that they have Trillions of infrastructure built around.
This is MUCH BIGGER than autos.

>The OIL companies
>
> want you using oil.
>

The oil companies want everyone using oil.

> If there were a technique to reliably (and cost effectively) increase
>
> gas mileage by 10%,
>
> the car companies would be all over it.
>

It depends on more than just that.
They'd have to integrate the system.
If it isn't a 100% water system, and even if it is. There will be different maintenance issues.
Plasma ignition of water is not that hard to do on the bench.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=plasma+water+spark+meyer&oq=plasma+water+spark+meyer&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...1168152.1183010.0.1184912.35.29.2.1.1.1.166.2817.11j16.27.0...0.0...1ac.1.t3mqGz6oS0M
This near what Graneau and Meyer are doing.

>
>
> > Why do you suppose that is when every HHO system I know of reduces pollution by a big amount? My own cell reduced the pollution by about 80% as
>
>
>
> tested in a California Referee Inspection Station back in about 1990.
>
> >>
>
> >> And the only data he had ever collected was on one run of
>
> >>
>
> >> less than one gallon measured by fill-ups at different stations.
>
> >>
>
> > I ran mine with straight electrolysis with tap water (no other additives) and an alternator for pulsing and got about 10% improvement in millage after months of driving
>
>
>
> and measuring gas refills but it was a 350ci engine and a small cell
>
> eating 1400 watts of power.
>
>
>
> Presumably, you tweaked the engine???
>

No. I just built a butterfly valve free flow the gas into the side of the carb into a vacuum connection.

> Did you ever try similar tweaking without the HHO?
>

I knew my millage before for years.
I did the best I could with my resources.

> You should be able to trade engine life and driveability for gas mileage
>
> over that 10% range.
>

The car blew a radiator hose and a head gasket eventually and I sold it. It was already an antique in 1988. I haven't fooled with it since then until a few months ago. It came off the back burner as it were because of someone else's interest. I'm retired and have always wanted to have my own damn cell to test for myself. I don't have more than a few hundred buck to throw at this. I am far from wealthy or "well off."

>
> I had to empty the sludge every week or two. It was not anything like a
>
> Meyer Circuit or cell.
>
> > You can hear Meyer say in the video, "2 amps and 5 volts" running his cell at "13 lbs" of back pressure "for more than 6 minutes" which is running the 1500 cc motor.
>
> > I put my hands on that very cell many times. Cool as a cucumber after running 15 minutes or more powered by an alternator belt driven. No secret tubes, no secret tank.
>
>
>
> And no actual measurements.
>

Meyer had analog meters on the cell. These are all shown in the Estate Photos. There are no "trick" meters.
It ran at about 10 watts,
You could see the 2100 degree flame, like hotter. I burnt alloy steel paper clips on it with about 7 lbs of back pressure.
It had that pressure within a minute.
You do the math.

> >>
>
> >> I offered to build him an instantaneous MPG meter that ran off
>
> >>
>
> >> the injector timing, but by the time it was ready for testing,
>
> >>
>
> >> he'd vanished.
>
> >>
>
> > Nice try.
>
> > I've had a few experimenters vanish. Meyer was right out front until the day he died.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The most interesting part of the whole process was his story
>
> >>
>
> >> about how he forgot to turn off the HHO generator one night
>
> >>
>
> >> and blew the valve covers off his engine next time he tried to
>
> >>
>
> >> start it.
>
> >>
>
> > The only thing I blew up was sandwich bags and once a dry cleaning bag that rattled all the windows in the whole neighborhood. Hydrogen and Oxygen is knarly.
>
> > Meyer almost blew a hole in th ceiling of his lab once.
>
> > That is why Meyer invented Gas Choking Circuit tubes and flame fittings to manage the gas. But he was also filling NASA's requirement of making the gas on demand. Faster production means less storage.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Are we having fun yet?
>
> >
>
> > It hasn't been fun trying to lead horses to water for 15 years.
>
> > Meyer was very close to production of products when he died. Probably close means a year or two. I thought it would take a few years since his patents expired for any products to come out and it's already 4 years.
>
> > He didn't leave a crew of 1000 people who knew the circuits and engineering. He didn't leave ONE except his brother who is going senile. His brother was given a Cease and Desist Order in 1998 to not use or talk about the technology.
>
> > That's the story for now.
>
>
>
> Bottom line is that until you reach overunity, HHO is more trouble than
>
> benefit.
>

If you want to say that, that's you right.
If you can't see from Meyer's video tha as long as you have a water supply and the hardware you can leverage the products of his process by mechanical means. That is what voltage is, a physical mechanical non-consumed force. And so are the sonic waves that are produced to manipulate that force to break the water in pieces. You don't consume the alternator or the engine when you run it do you.

Meyer based his work on "Electrically Induced Explosions in Water" by Peter Graneau.
The paper is posted in this thread pg 1.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733

>
>
> With your car, what did your insurance company say about liability?
>

My insurance company never asked why my license plate said, H2OPWRD and WTRPWRD.

> And did they up your home insurance cuz you stored a bomb in the garage?
>

My cell only made gas while the engine was running. It was used immediately.

> How did you get it thru inspection? I once failed the emissions test
>
> because I'd unplugged a hose. Numbers were ok, but the system
>
> had been "tampered". I put chewing gum in the hose and plugged it back on.
>
> They took a VERY hard look, but couldn't find anything wrong, so they
>
> passed it.

1967 Olds Cutlass 350 cid. didn't have to be smogged. I merely took it there to test the pollution DROP with and without the HHO input. The Inspector Tech ran the tests with and without the cell input. We were both AMAZED. I have the printout in my files and posted it here years ago.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

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.

> >
>
> > Let's do this!
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

>
> More real science at http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.shtml
>

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?

>
>
> --
>
> Many thanks,
>
<snip Donny's age old self promotion>

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:55:41 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> > My tech has a Masters in Electrical Engineering. We have an oscilloscope and multimeter.
>
> That's adequate if your EE knows what he's doing. You just have to publish
>
> exactly what he measured and how he measured it and how that got
>
> translated into
>
> energy out divided by energy in.
>
>

The why did everyone including Doony argue about measurements with simple meters?
http://www.homebuyerstalk.com/showthread.php?t=4277

>
> > We are looking for a cheap gas flow meter. Don't know of any better way that isn't a primitive bubbler to a liter bottle or some such.
>
> Primitive bubbler into a liter jar is more than adequate to demonstrate
>
> failure. It's a direct measurement of what you want to know under
>
> the exact conditions you want.
>
> Don't waste your time/money on anything more sophisticated.
>

Fine. I won't if I don't have to.
Nothing is cheap and and $75 for the least expensive flow meter I found is a waste if I don't need it.

> > That is the reason to take it to University. They can do the all the input and output measures on the cell, gas, and temps.
>
> >
>
> You've got all you need. Only reason for the University is peer review and
>
> some credibility. You don't need that until your own measurements
>
> demonstrate
>
> success.
>

No kidding.

> >> Got a picture of your successful water car?
>
> >>
>
> > No plans for any car.
>
> > I told you I am not fooling with that.
>
> > Meyer's cells need to be built in to new platforms.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't want to be surprised by the results. I want to be CONVINCED
>
> >>
>
> >> by the numbers measured as the results.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> > That is what the University Certification is for.
>
> > I am not going to defend my "measuring crazy wave forms or bad coulometry"
>
> You have all the equipment you need if your EE is competent.
>

He's studying all the info available to understand Meyer's processes.

> 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.

> The rest is simple math.
>
>
>
> > I don't have a lab full of equipment.
>
> You don't need it to demonstrate failure. It will be VERY obvious when you
>
> actually measure power in and power out.
>
>
>
> > But these guys have interesting results.
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczhXYkK0BI
>
> 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.
>

That's the idea. To apply them to a cell.

> And some stills of winding a coil...wow...
>

The VIC coils are the key. Amp restriction and voltage intensification.

> Where's the picture of the full apparatus generating gas and the actual
>
> measurements of power in vs power out?
>

Ask the video poster.

>
> >>
>
> >> 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.
>

Send me your phone number.

> Bring it by and I'll instrument it.
>

Where do you live?

> 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.
>

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.

Besides that you should start reading.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis-3.html

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>
> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
>
>
> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>
> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
>
> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>
> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?

Can't believe I've never seen this paper.
It's been hiding.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf

[mike]

On 10/1/2012 11:21 PM, knews4...@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.

>>>>
>>
>>>>> I love it when people who never even built Meyer's basic circuit comment about it.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Great science.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Do you guys ever do any real experiments or do you just sit around detracting from real experimental and proven work?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> For years jamokes like you have been saying, "I won't believe it until I can get it at K-Mart. Well you can buy a circuit here:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> www.stansdream.com
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> 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.

Prove that there's no god. You can't. Not possible.
It IS possible to prove that there IS a god...but nobody's done it.
Same goes for Meyer.

>>
>>> Make a Meyer basic circuit as posted.
>>
>>> Make 1 tube.
>>
>>> 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.

That is the problem with free energy "experts". They make vague claims
based
on inconclusive experiments measuring...no inferring...the wrong stuff.

>>
>>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> You can get many components here.
>>
>>> http://www.thehydrogenshop.com

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's precisely the issue. You made up a concept: "pulsed voltage
under amp restriction"
but you can't describe how it works, or demonstrate that it works.

> Do some searches for experimenters with more knowledge than I. The web is full of them. Do some research and investigation like the rest of us.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxssykva3yE
>>
>> If I can generate the waveform, that's all it takes.
>>
> NO. You need the bifilar Resonant Charging Choke coil.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxssykva3yE
>>
>>>> By eyeballing the bubbles,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I couldn't tell the difference between pulsed waveforms and DC.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Pulsing is only art of the force involved. Voltage is dominant.
>>
>>> Pulsing actually makes the device use less power does it not?
>>
>>> It's on and off.
>>
>> You'd know if you actually measured it.
>>
>> You should spend a LOT more time with your (competent) EE.
>>
> He just returned to town and we will be welding the tabs on the 9 tubes and assembling everything.
> I am working on the Flame Choking Circuit so I can use the gases in a controlled way.
>
> It looks like a don't even need to burn the gas if a just used a pressure pump FIRST.
> I think ones at that link run on 30psi that was just plain air, not steam. I can make that much pressure in the cell just splitting the water in a pressurized vessel. I can run a "pressure generator' and then still use the burning gas elsewhere. This is how Meyer thought. The pressure is like the voltage. A non-consumed force. All I need is another device in the gas line.
> The still use the gas for btu heat. So, how much am I really getting out of my process and inputs?

You're overthinking it. IF you know the gas volume at STP, you can
calculate the energy content. Pressure might be required to run an
engine, but not to determine the energy content. One step at a time.
You don't have to do the second step until the first step works.
You'll not be needing that second step.

That's kinda what I meant by reliably and cost effectively.

It's not possible to do the math. Equations are useless when you have
no numbers
to put in them.

I could use theoretical numbers backed by centuries of experimental
results, but you wouldn't like the answer.

With a flick of my thumb, I can use my butane lighter to produce a hot
flame...
instantly.
But the only way I'm gonna be able to use it to make my car move
is to throw it in the gas tank
and see where the car lands.

That explains a lot. Try measuring it under driving conditions...or on
an engine that already has low emissions.

[mike]

On 10/1/2012 8:49 PM, PV wrote:
> knews4...@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]

On 10/1/2012 8:53 PM, PV wrote:
> mike<spa...@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.

[mike]

On 10/2/2012 12:11 AM, knews4...@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, knews4...@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.

>>
>>> Let's do this!
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:47:48 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 12:11 AM, knews4...@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, knews4...@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?

>
>
>
> >> 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.
>

I am confusing NOTHING.
You are.
You brought Brown's into this where it doesn't belong.

> Once you have the gas in the pipe aka the result, you don't really care
>
> where it came from.
>

I care if it doesn't have some other chemical constituent attached.

> 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.

> >>
>
> >>> Let's do this!
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> 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.

>
> >>
>
> >> More real science at http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.shtml
>
> >>
>
> > 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?
>

No answers for 14 years Doony.

>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >>
>
> >> Many thanks,
>
> >>
>
> > <snip Donny's age old self promotion>

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+ and OH- ions. The energy of the process comes from the formation of these ions.”
http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/WFCexpl.pdf
Detailed forum discussion here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis-3.html

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

This is what has been going on here for 15 years Mike.
Welcome to the sci. hierarchy.

[mike]

On 10/2/2012 12:29 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:55:41 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4...@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.

>
> Besides that you should start reading.
> http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis-3.html

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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>
> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
>
>
> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>
> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
>
> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>
> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?

So these threads help explain some things too.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4617-stanley-meyer-true-6.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6227-stan-meyers-secret-preventing-electrolysis-4.html

[Don Lancaster]

>> 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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:30:31 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 12:29 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:55:41 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
>
> >> On 10/1/2012 1:13 PM, knews4...@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....

[mike]

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.

[mike]

On 10/2/2012 3:14 PM, knews4...@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...

[Bret]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 20:38:30 -0700 (PDT), knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

> There is no "from" field for any of your posts.

From: mike <spa...@gmail.com>

[PV]

mike <spa...@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. *

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 9:02:33 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:
> On 10/2/2012 3:14 PM, knews4...@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&current=Stan_Newzealand_3.mp4
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?

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

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?

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

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-explained-2.html
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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:19:38 PM UTC-7, Don Lancaster wrote:
> On 9/30/2012 1:03 PM, mike wrote:

>
> > On 9/30/2012 9:42 AM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>
> >> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
> >>
>
> >> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>
> >> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for
>
> >> testing and certification.
>
> >
>

> > Looks like a plan to try to duplicate Meyer's gizmo and then take it to a
>
> > University.
>
> >
>
> > If you can produce a device that takes water and energy in and outputs
>
> > something that can be reconverted to usable energy that's much greater
>
> > than you put in, it will be OBVIOUS that it works. And if you can
>
> > build it in your garage, so can others and it will be replicated
>
> > instantly all over the world.
>
> >
>
> > You need a scam debunker and some smart people looking at it
>
> > for half a day.
>
> > University can't hurt, but by the time they get into it, you'll
>
> > be buried in development money. And whoever holds Meyer's
>
> > patent rights will be well on the way to becoming very rich.
>
> > A $2000 or $20,000 or $200,000 investment is peanuts.
>
> > Don't even ask for financial help. That just dilutes the return.
>
> > Mortgage your house, spend the kid's college fund and get on with it.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>
> >> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for
>
> >> years?
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Well, yes...but...
>
> > A simple practical example would go a long way to getting started.
>
> > Drive your water-powered dune buggy over here and let's take a road trip.
>
> > Then, let's remove the gizmo in my garage and test outputs vs inputs.
>
> > Won't take a rocket scientist to verify that it works really well.
>
> > Measure the watts going in. Take whatever comes out and set it on fire.
>
> > Measure the equivalent watts coming out of the fire. Any useful device
>
> > will have SIGNIFICANTLY more out than in. You'll be able to verify that
>
> > with equipment you've already got around the house. I'll supply the
>
> > water and the thermometer and the wattmeter.
>
> >
>
> > Let the universities argue about efficiency and the new branch of physics
>
> > that you developed.
>
> > We'll all be driving our water-powered dune buggies and waiting to
>
> > be murdered by the energy industry.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are nine of the more blatantly obvious fatal flaws in the concept.
>
> Iffen the right one don't git ya, the left one will...
>
>
>
> Here's a summary of why the concept is not even wrong...
>
>
>
> 1. What part of "Gross and Egregious Fraud" don't you
>
> understand?
>
>
>
> 2. A fundamental thermodynamic principle called exergy
>
> absolutely GUARANTEES that hydrogen produced from
>
> high value grid, pv, or alternator electricity flat out ain't
>
> gonna happen. For the simple reason that a kilowatt hour
>
> of electricity is ridiculously more valuable than a kilowatt
>
> hour of unstored hydrogen gas.
>
>
>
> 3. There are EIS or Electrochemical Impedance Spectrocopy
>
> instruments readily available. These "run the experiment"
>
> many millions of times daily with uniformly negative results.
>
>
>
> 4. The resonant frequency of water is ONE MILLION TIMES
>
> higher than proponents claim, applies only to water vapor,
>
> and is not in any manner overunity.
>
>
>
> 5. Stainless steel is wildly inappropriate for hydrogen production
>
> devices because of the hydrogen overpotential of iron. and
>
> because of its low energy and low area passivated surface.
>
> Special Platinized Platinum Black normally is required for
>
> efficient devices and demands careful repeated renewing.
>
>
>
> 6. Because of Faraday's Law, only the Fourier Series direct current
>
> term of any complex pulse waveform can contribute to electrolysis.
>
> High frequency ac components primarily create bunches of waste
>
> heat and inefficiency.
>
>
>
> 7. It is trivially easy to mismeasure the energy in pulse waveforms.
>
> So much so that this is Beginning EE Student Blunder 001-A.
>
> Such measurement is almost always ridiculously low.
>
>
>
> 8. It is similarly trivially easy to mismeasure that actual dry
>
> STP hydrogen content in any vapor. Such measurement is
>
> almost always ridiculously high.
>
>
>
> 9. Surprisingly, electrolysis can in fact be up to one sixth endothermic
>
> and can produce "runs cool" effects. But such operation only can
>
> happen at very low and unamortizable production rates.

>
>
>
> Curiously, the Ohio trial court fraud proceedings have never been
>
> transcribed, owing to admin costs and a near total lack of demand.
>
>
>

> --
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Don Lancaster

What part of "electrostatic induction" don't you understand?
http://www.electro-tech-online.com/alternative-energy/42388-stanley-meyers-zero-point-energy-8.html

@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.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:48:27 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:

It isn't new. The vacuum is always there.
http://www.electro-tech-online.com/alternative-energy/42388-stanley-meyers-zero-point-energy.html

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.

8. S.L. Adler, "Some Simple Vacuum Polarization Phenomenology..." Phys. Rev. D10, No. 11 (1974)


NONLINEAR THERMODYNAMICS

9. Ilya Procaccia, J. Ross, Science 198, 716 (18 Nov. 1977)

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)

[mike]

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?

So, what's the plan?

[mike]

On 10/3/2012 1:37 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:59:31 AM UTC-7, PV wrote:
>> mike<spa...@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-explained-2.html
> 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.

[mike]

On 10/3/2012 7:30 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

> "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)."
>

Ok, that's very interesting.
Delay the whole Meyer's thing and lets do that first.
It's a lot simpler and requires the same kind of breakthrough
that the Meyer's cell requires.

Draw up the circuit, get the parts and let's make some free energy.
What's Procaccia's theory say about how much energy we're gonna get
under what conditions?
Let's start small...like lighting a LED.
No, I'm not gonna go research/build it. You're the physicist.
I'm the instrumentation guy.

Here's an analog.
Blow up a balloon.
The surface is supported because the random motion of air inside the
balloon is greater than the random motion of air outside.

Now, let's make a diode.
Poke a hole in the balloon and use the escaping air to run a windmill.
We know that doesn't work for long at the macro level.
At the macro level, we get out just as much energy as it took to
blow up the balloon...assuming we didn't wait for it to cool
and radiate some of that energy.
For sustained work out, we've gotta harness something that
isn't apparent. What is that?

[mike]

I gotta admit that I don't understand any of it.
What's the reason for the high voltage? Why won't it work at lower
voltages?
I don't have any trouble generating 100ps pulses, but the voltage is low.

Part of the difficulty is that people don't consider the whole system.
When you move objects, you expend energy. If the objects are charged,
it takes
more energy.
If you have a capacitor, that first electron is pretty easy to install.
The second one is harder, the third is harder still. It takes energy
to force more electrons onto the plate.

Same goes for your balloons. If they attract each other, and move,
there's energy involved.

Go back to the random fish jumping out of the pond.
If you could create a situation at the nano level where you trapped
random energy
fluctuations, removal of energy from the system would make it colder.
If you had a big heat sink, you could have the cold medium
absorb energy from the higher ambient temperature of the surroundings...
much like your heat pump. Energy is not created, it's not free,
but you merely changed the slope so that you got useful work out
of the practically infinite thermal capacity of the
environment to create a COP > 1.

The practical difficulty is similar to what you have with a Peltier
device. You want very low thermal coupling between the two sides so
the heat doesn't flow from the hot side heating up the cold side.
But you also need very good thermal coupling to the peltier
devices so they can do their job. Catch-22...so COP sucks.

I think there's a similar issue with a Stirling engine???maybe???

A parabolic mirror does much the same thing. It extracts energy
from the ambient, the sun. It concentrates the light so that
the temperature is above ambient and can do work...like generate
steam to make stuff move.

It's not about making energy or tapping some unseen force.
It's about tilting the energy landscape so that the existing
energy flows through the thing that makes your stuff move.

[Don Lancaster]

>
> For car2, there might be some benefits to injecting Meyer's gas.
>
>

This is a given.

There are valid SAE papers that show definite economy and emission
benefits of a 5% hydrogen injection into a gasoline engine.

The kicker is that the benefits do not remotely cover the energy loss
required to generate the gas in the first place, to amortize the cost of
the added complexity, or to deal with hydrogen embrittlement that rots
most metals and destroys plastics.

Not by a country mile.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/trashelc.pdf

--
Many thanks,

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, September 30, 2012 9:42:51 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> Here is a great explanation of much of Meyer's processes and technology.
>
> http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?t=174
>
>
>
> Some good experiments continue everywhere.
>
> Here is an experimenter planning to take a cell to University for testing and certification.
>

> http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=733
>
> Isn't that what all the"scientists" here have been screaming for for years?

http://www.esmhome.org/library/stan-meyer/ravi.pdf

Lawton and Ravi's duplications.
http://www.esmhome.org/library/stan-meyer/ravi.pdf

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

Electrical Polarization. The static high voltage field "polarizes' the molecule.
It is stretch and vibrated with the pulse frequency as a step charge. The electrons can't hold their orbits. If the cell starts to "conduct' and leak voltage it SHUTS DOWN and starts over. In the meantime you got some gas ions to stick to the stainless steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4BkmDUN-cc&feature=related
12volts at .5 amps to the circuit. 92 volts to the CAPACITOR cell.
It suffers dielectric breakdown.

> What's the reason for the high voltage?

To stretch the molecule. It is a static force. None consumed.

>Why won't it work at lower
>
> voltages?
>

Why won't a weak magnet pick up something a strong magnet will.
It needs a wide potential difference. You are stretching the H2O molecules, Plus to Neg, Neg to plus. Water is a bipolar molecule. You stretch it and vibrate it. Costs you NOTHING to vibrate it.

My 1 tube cell makes many bubbles at 250ma.

> I don't have any trouble generating 100ps pulses, but the voltage is low.
>
>
> Part of the difficulty is that people don't consider the whole system.
>
> When you move objects, you expend energy. If the objects are charged,
>
> it takes
>
> more energy.
>
> If you have a capacitor, that first electron is pretty easy to install.
>
> The second one is harder, the third is harder still. It takes energy
>
> to force more electrons onto the plate.
>

You are not forcing electrons to the plate. You want the ions to the plates.

>
> Same goes for your balloons. If they attract each other, and move,
>
> there's energy involved.
>

But it is static. Non-consumed.

>
> Go back to the random fish jumping out of the pond.
>

I don't think there is a perfect analogy.

> If you could create a situation at the nano level where you trapped
>
> random energy
>
> fluctuations, removal of energy from the system would make it colder.

Like cold fusion?
Or maybe the cold cancels the hot.
Some current is used. Milliamps.

>
> If you had a big heat sink, you could have the cold medium
>
> absorb energy from the higher ambient temperature of the surroundings...
>
> much like your heat pump. Energy is not created, it's not free,
>
> but you merely changed the slope so that you got useful work out
>
> of the practically infinite thermal capacity of the
>
> environment to create a COP > 1.
>

Read that Dublin paper again. "Natural" water is "radioactive" already.

>
> The practical difficulty is similar to what you have with a Peltier
>
> device.

I'm not familiar with it.

>You want very low thermal coupling between the two sides so
>
> the heat doesn't flow from the hot side heating up the cold side.
>
> But you also need very good thermal coupling to the peltier
>
> devices so they can do their job. Catch-22...so COP sucks.
>
>
>
> I think there's a similar issue with a Stirling engine???maybe???
>
>
>
> A parabolic mirror does much the same thing. It extracts energy
>
> from the ambient, the sun. It concentrates the light so that
>
> the temperature is above ambient and can do work...like generate
>
> steam to make stuff move.
>
>
>
> It's not about making energy or tapping some unseen force.
>
> It's about tilting the energy landscape so that the existing
>
> energy flows through the thing that makes your stuff move.

The water already has some instability in some way.
All we are doing is using it to our advantage.

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

Read Meyer's last News Release for list of his credentialed witnesses and their statements.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/77204191/WFC-News-letters-No-11a

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

OOOOPPPPS, This should say, "if it starts to leak CURRENT it shuts down.."

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, October 4, 2012 3:14:48 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

Here's the wave form, and how it changes in the circuit to the capacitor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-x3PVi8wF0&feature=related

[knews4...@yahoo.com]

Here's how energy propagates through inductors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY

[mike]

On 10/5/2012 1:35 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Here's the wave form, and how it changes in the circuit to the capacitor.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-x3PVi8wF0&feature=related

Would be interesting to know the voltages on the traces.
Those waveforms are trivial to generate. No hocus-pocus required at all.

But the more interesting thing would have been to show the cell running
off the waveform, measuring the gas output and the power input.

No useful info in that video.

[mike]

On 10/5/2012 5:01 PM, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Here's how energy propagates through inductors.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY

Man, you gotta quit believing anything you see in a youtube video.
There's absolutely zero information.
Would be trivial to spoof by just using different light bulbs.

I found it very interesting that the first light was concealed
in a BIG box. Why not just stick it out in the open with the
rest of the stuff????

Find the video that shows the Meyer's cell actually running
with the power input and gas output being measured in a way
that's believable. Post that link.

[Don Lancaster]

On 10/5/2012 11:27 PM, mike wrote:

> Find the video that shows the Meyer's cell actually running
> with the power input and gas output being measured in a way
> that's believable. Post that link.
>

Exergy places a curious limit on how much of the utterly and laughingly
nonexistent "overunity" can happen.

By fundamental thermodynamics, a kilowatt hour of grid, pv, or
alternator electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour
of unstored hydrogen gas. This is GUARANTEED by the reversibly
recoverable energy fractions in each case.

Normal electrolysis is thus pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
dollars for Mexican pesos. At best.

A 3:1 or 4:1 value loss is GUARANTEED when going from electricity to
gas. Thus, there would be no economic interest whatsoever in anything
less than 3:1 overunity. To be useful, a minimum 5:1 overunity would be
required to be marketable at all.

The kicker, of course, is that such high overunity values would long ago
have been utterly and completely and overwhelmingly obvious.

Besides clearly causing numerous explosions and black holes.

More evidence for "not even wrong" and "ain't gonna happen.

--
Many thanks,

[Don Lancaster]

On 10/6/2012 7:51 AM, Don Lancaster wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 11:27 PM, mike wrote:
>
>> Find the video that shows the Meyer's cell actually running
>> with the power input and gas output being measured in a way
>> that's believable. Post that link.
>>
>
>
> Exergy places a curious limit on how much of the utterly and laughingly

> nonexistent high value "overunity" can happen.

>
> By fundamental thermodynamics, a kilowatt hour of grid, pv, or
> alternator electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour
> of unstored hydrogen gas. This is GUARANTEED by the reversibly
> recoverable energy fractions in each case.
>
> Normal electrolysis is thus pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
> dollars for Mexican pesos. At best.
>
> A 3:1 or 4:1 value loss is GUARANTEED when going from electricity to
> gas. Thus, there would be no economic interest whatsoever in anything
> less than 3:1 overunity. To be useful, a minimum 5:1 overunity would be
> required to be marketable at all.
>
> The kicker, of course, is that such high overunity values would long ago
> have been utterly and completely and overwhelmingly obvious.
>
> Besides clearly causing numerous explosions and black holes.
>
> More evidence for "not even wrong" and "ain't gonna happen.
>

Also curiously, there is in fact a 1.16 overunity possible and well
known for electrolysis. Caused by very low gas production rates being up
to a limit of 1/6th endothermic.

This also can cause "run cool" effects for small lab experiments.

But the cell losses and inefficiencies completely swamp this figure for
any useful volumes of gas production and amortizibility.

The other side of the coin is that a fuel cell can never be over 5/6th
efficient. And thus also is unlikely to ever be commercially viable.