knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:24 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 3:01 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Sep 30, 2:48 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Here you go Dorks.
>>>>> http://www.aquapulser.com/docs/independent.pdf
>>>>> And who wrote it?
>>>>> Guys actually writing papers, not like you Dorks.http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
>>>>> About Tesla who's "Tesla Coil" is an intricate part of Meyer's
>>>>> process:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/tesla/projecttesla.html
>>>>> But "We know all there is to know" according to you Dorks.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0232308/
>>>>> From:http://www.charity-charities.org/charityinfo.php?ID=1303515&page=6
>>>>> And:http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KEYXM2TRIPFO?ASIN=1932595260&nodeID=ht...
>>>>> But I doubt you Dorks can read.
>>>>> Dork, Dorks, Dorks, Dorks,......
>>>>> You'll just stay in Dork Land
>>>> And:http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Toby-Grotz
>>>> Biography
>>>> Grotz received his Baccalaureate of Science in electrical engineer
>>>> from the University of Connecticut in 1973. Grotz has worked in the
>>>> field of geophysics, aerospace, and industrial research and design. He
>>>> worked at Texas Instruments, Geophysical Services Division, and the
>>>> University of Texas at Dallas. Grotz was a Senior Engineer at Martin
>>>> Marietta. A bachelors degree is usually an undergraduate academic
>>>> degree awarded for a course that generally lasts three or four
>>>> years. ... University of Connecticut The University of Connecticut,
>>>> commonly known as UConn, is the State of Connecticuts flagship land-
>>>> grant university. ... 1973 was a common year starting on Monday. ...
>>>> Geophysics, the study of the earth by quantitative physical methods,
>>>> especially by seismic reflection and refraction, gravity, magnetic,
>>>> electrical, electromagnetic, and radioactivity methods. ... Aerospace
>>>> engineering is the branch of engineering concerning aircraft,
>>>> spacecraft and related topics. ... Texas Instruments (NYSE: TXN),
>>>> better known in the electronics industry as TI, is a company based in
>>>> Dallas, Texas, renowned for developing and commercializing
>>>> semiconductor and computer technology. ... The University of Texas
>>>> System comprises fifteen educational institutions in Texas, of which
>>>> nine are general academic universities, and six are health
>>>> institutions. ... Martin Marietta Corporation was founded in 1961
>>>> through the merger of The Martin Company and American-Marietta
>>>> Corporation. ...
>>>> Grotz managed the the 1984 Tesla Centennial Symposium and the 1986
>>>> International Tesla Symposium and was president of the International
>>>> Tesla Society. As Project Manager for Project Tesla, Grotz helped in
>>>> the recreation of Nikola Tesla's wireless transmission of power
>>>> experiments.
>>>> ...............................
>>>> But he's not in the  Dork Club like you guys so he's full of shit
>>>> right?
>>> So come on Moron Dork Tards, Donny, KrassAss, RailRoad Harry the lying
>>> piece of Yak Dung?
>>> Where's all your smart ass comments about it?
>>> What's the matter you afraid people might start looking at the
>>> archives of sci.energy.hydrogen for everything
>>> JW
>>> OHANNON
>>> told you about all the work not published or propagandized in your
>>> "peer reviewed" toilet paper?
>>> Why is there no "peer review" of the simple experiment?
>>> Subject:   Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
>>> From:      "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se>
>>> Date:      Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
>>> John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
>>> $...@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.

> And his search:
> 2 Ways.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Electrical+Engineer+Mathias+Joha...
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&c...
> But you DOPES know more than him right?

>>> 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!
>>> /////////////////////////////
>>> But YOU Dork Farts have your heads so far up your asses you have to
>>> pull down your pants to see.
>>> ...................................
>>> From:      michael Hannon <big.boo...@planet.nl>
>>> Date:      Sat, 14 Aug 1999 13:49:17 +0200
>>> Not in those conditions.
>>> The nucleus reacts by emitting either photons or antiphotons,
>>> or possibly other particles -
>>> it is a non-radioactive nuclear reaction, and such reactions have
>>> already been demonstrated in experiments.
>>> Col. Tom Bearden and his associates have been studying
>>> these reactions for years, and written about them.
>>> The Sweet Vacuum Triode is designed around such reactions.
>>> OHannon
>>> Nonnaho wrote:
>>>> Fred Kasner wrote:
>>>>> This joker who understands almost no science at all is still claiming
>>>>> that the reaction in the Meyer apparatus is nuclear.
>>> Which JW, to whom Mr. KrassAss is addressing his assault, not THE
>>> POSTER OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
>>> Can you understand "straw man?"
>>>>   If the reaction was nuclear, would the cell produce some type of radiation that
>>>>   can be measured?
>>> With no cite of ANY sort to back his Professor's claim.
>>> He NEVER attempted to discuss the "claim" with the "Ted' but instead
>>> attacks JW.
>>> It's all RIGHT IN THE ARCHIVE Krass Ass.
>>> Dork.
>>>> Big snip
>>>> Nonnaho
>>> But YOU KrassAss know more than "Col. Tom Bearden and his associates?"
>>> "Those who can't teach."
>> Actually, yes. My research is almost all published by ASTM as methods in
>> Committee D.02.11. I and several others have many such published methods
>> for high performance and aerospace fluids. But then again I guess that
>> just sails over your pointy head.

> Again, as to Col. Bearden?

>> Still supporting the nonsense about not needing any current only voltage
>> to produce a nuclear change, you idiot. OK, idiot, once again I'll point
>> out to you that the energies of nuclear changes are frequently listed in
>> electron volts (usually as Mev = million electron volts). The fact is
>> that a volt is NOT the same as an electron volt. And electron volt is an
>> energy that can be restated in units called joules. A volt is NOT an
>> electron vclt. When will you get that through you thick skull, idiot?

>> As for the failure to publish claims from Meyer or Rense or others of
>> their ilk in refereed scientific or engineering journals is because they
>> won't publish them because they make unreproducible claimed results of
>> experiments that not only violate fundamental laws of science (including
>> not being able to distinguish between things such as electron volts and
>> volts. If these idiots have anything truly reproducible and
>> revolutionary a journal such as Nature will jump right on it as soon as
>> they can see proof that others can produce the same results. But they
>> can't and so the chemistry and physics and engineering journals will
>> never publish this hogwash.

>> FK

> Smear and obfuscation noted.
> What about Bearden or any of Meyer's other experts?
> And:
> Why didn't you OR ANY OF YOUR ILK take it up with the original
> SUCCESSFUL Experimenter who made the claim?
> Why did you jump all over JW and now ME when you NEVER EVER TOOK IT UP
> WITH Ted?

> HERE is some JW's correspondence with the SUCCESSFUL Experimenter.
> Did any of YOU DORKS try to email him?
> Why not?
> Because you are Chicken Shit.

> Subj:      Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> Date:      12/16/98
> To:        ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se

>> 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!

> Dear Ted,
> Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf
> as described?
> Regards,
> JW

> Subj:      Re: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> Date:      12/17/98
> To:        ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se

> In a message dated 12/17/98 2:11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se writes:

>>> Dear Ted,
>>  >Have you actually reproduced the effect from Stan's circuitry yourslf as
>>  >described?
>>  >Regards,
>>  >JW

>>  Dear JW.

>>  Thank you for all your writing in this NG. I like your writing best.

> I feel honored that you say that to me.

>>  People can learn something from you.

> I really appreciate you saying this.  My failing has been that I have
> not gone after learning enough electronics to test Stan's process
> myself.  I thought it was just to complex.  I have been trying for
> yerars to find someone that can tell exactly the specs from the patent
> and their brain or book learning to be able to measure and test the
> process.

> How long have you been reading the newsgroup?

>> Even (I think a friend of you)
>>  Mr. OHannon do a good job here. Not so much for learning people
>>  but he is a fighter.

> Yes, Michael has stood up for me from day 1 too.  He is a good man.

>>  I'm not found of talking about others inventions because I don't
>>  know what WFC think about it.

> I am a licensee.  I cannot discuss the status of the company right
> now.  I spent many hours with Stan. He taught me many things.  It is a
> great loss that he paased over.

>> It's up to them if they want to learn
>>  people more.

> Stan was very secretive about the essence of his processes.

>> But I make an exception for you and tell you here
>>  what I was doing.

> I thank you for your explaination of your duplication experiance of
> the effect of Stan's process. I hope it is not impinging on your time
> too greatly.  I would like to correspond with you for a while and give
> you a detailed response.

> Do you think you can make a drawing of the circuit and component list
> that anyone with a few $$ and a soldering iron can build for testing?
> I can get the stainles tubing I know I need.

> I am not very electronically literate.  I also have a spinal injury
> and do not have two good hands. Just 1 about 80%% I have many friends
> that are electrical engineers.  I have been talking to them about this
> for years.  I could have raised so much money for Stan if I could have
> independently verified his work.

> Also I request that I be allowed to post all or parts of your first
> response to me on the newsgroup.  I will leave your name out of it.
> And I could translate into a bit more proper English and no one will
> know it is you.  I  do not think you will have a problem with WFC
> because you are not using the technolgy commercially.  Stan's patents
> are the things that protect his commercial rights.  It is ok to test
> and verify I think.
> I have a group of people that I have been corresponding with from the
> group.  I have some of Stan's technical manuals and the people I
> showed it too could not figure it out or said it was jibberish.

> Thank you for speaking up on the group.
> Regards,
> JW
> //////////////////////////////
> 10 yeas ago he told you how to start Dorks.

> Subj:      Specifications
> Date:      12/28/98
> To:        ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se

> Dear Ted,
> I hope you are having a nice holiday season.  My engineer friend Tad
> is having trouble getting the combination of specifications for the
> circuit properly.

> Could you answer these questions for us?  He says he has been close
> and produced gas a bit but knows he does not have it all correct.  He
> has been making his own toroid transformers and has missed the proper
> winding.

> We need to know what core material and size the core of the variable
> Inductor and the Choke were (if you made them yourself)?

> How many turns of wire each?

> It would also be nice to know what kind of transformer and pulsing
> circuit you were using?

> Thank you,
> Regards,
> JW

> ///////////////////////////////////

> ----------
> Från: H2OP...@aol.com
> Till: ted.zetterg...@va.itv.se
> Ämne: Re: SV: SV: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
> Datum:  den 12 mars 1999 03:47

> In a message dated 2/23/99 2:18:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> ted.zetterg...@va.itv.se writes:

>>> Till: ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se
>>  > Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
>>  > Datum:  den 21 december 1998 21:06

>>  > In a message dated 12/19/98 2:33:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>>  > ted.zetterg...@swipnet.se writes:

>>  > >  I'm a member of a team here in Sweden and trying to help
>>  > >  inventors with their problems. We are doing that for free and
>>  > >  they know now after a couple of years they can trust us.

>>  > I think I have heard of your group.  Does it have a name?

>>   No it's a group on local level. Earlier it was not so interesting but
>>  now some of the inventors are working with energy project.

> Can you give me info about your scientific/engineering credentials?

> I was earlier responsible for the laboratorycin Nordhydraulic AB,
> a company in the NordwincGroup making hydraulic valves.
> I then started my own company making remote control equipment.
> You can search for some of my patent in mycname (Zettergren Ted)

> on IBM patent server.
> After that, I sold my company because it wasca lot of work but not
> so much fun. Now I work mostly with computer programming.

>>  > Did Stan explain his process to someone in your group?

>>  No they don't know about Stanley Meyer and no one work with
>>  hydrogen. A man living here, but not a member of our group, working
>>  a lot with hydrogen. His name is Olof Tegstrom.

> [You STUPID FUCKERS]
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Olof+Tegstrom&btnG=Google+Search...

> So?
> Who do YOU THINK JW was listenig to?
> Ted, as successful experimenter, or YOU DUMB FUCKS?

>>  > >  I know I legally can make a Stanley Meyer Unit and use it for
>>  > >  myself but I'm not doing that.

>>  > We may all have to if they do not get on with it very soon.  This
>>  technology
>>  > should be put to use.  Time is passing very fast for the environment.

>>  Our
>>  > group here is discussing how/if we might share this when we are
>>  successful.
>>  > We know we cannot use it commercially.

>>  It's not legal burning hydrogen in Sweden. That's why Saab and Volvo
> move
>>  their hydrogen-car development to USA. We throw away hydrogen enough for
>>  1 million cars. It's a lot of energy for a country with a population of
> 8
>>  million.

> I was not aware you cannot burn hydrogen in Sweden. That is
> unbelievable.

> Yes, but most people don't care.

>>  > >  A few selling their units but for a lot of money (RQM).

>>  ^^^^^^^^
>>  You can find information about RQM at http://www.rqm.ch/indexeng.htm

> I have passed it along to Steven Meyer, Stan's Brother, and my other
> assaciates.
> I have not had real time to read it yet.

> The RQM has nothing to do with hydrogen.
> It converts gravity waves to electric energy.

>>  > >  No one sell a ship unit with full description.
>>  > >  I'm still waiting for the smart gay published his invention on
>>  > >  Internet as ShareWare.

>>  > You mean put Stan's process on the net for free??

>>  No I was thinking on project without patent, shareholders etc. The
> inventor
>>  make a working prototype with full documentation and publish it on
>>  Internet.
>>  People using it successfully pay 200$ or what can be convenient. The
>>  inventor
>>  don't need to do all the work himself. Of course some people don't pay
> but
>>  a
>>  lot of them will do and it's impossible to stop the project.

> I think may be a great idea to do with Water Fuel Cell to get it going
> in
> many
> areas at once. I plan to discuss it with Steven also.

> The WFC have some different products:
> 1. The old gas generating system.
> 2. The newer with the watersplitter.
> 3. The Steam Resonator.

> Why not publish the old system with all information needed
> for everyone to build a system. They never going to market
> that system anyway so why not try shareware. Many
> programmers have make millions of dollars this way.
> If not, they can support experimenters around the world with
> this information. It can be done without any visible
> connection to WFC.

> It must be safer for the WFC people if people around the world
> know about the system.

> I know how to build a refrigerator but I still buy one if I need one.
> I think you will do the same. WFC have no reason to keep this
> secret. If they want to sell this system, people will buy it, not
> build it.

>>  > Yes, Michael has been in Holland for a few months.  Do you want his
> email
>>  > address to say Hello??  I'm sure he would like to meet and hear of
> your
>>  work.

>>  At this moment I try to get some time for my own experiment so I like to
>>  wait
>>  with that. If Michael is in Holland it's not far from Switzerland so why
>>  not visit
>>  RQM. They have a special room for visitors where they demonstrating a
> small
>>  500W device

>>  > Do you mean many products can be made?  I know this is true.
>>  > Do you think the process can be done a different way that can be
>>  patented?

>>  No, not a different way but you can patent some extensions and the
> technic
>>  can be used for other applications then separated hydrogen and oxygen.

>>  > >  I don't now what WFC are doing now.

>>  > I think I have good information about the status of things.  I am
> sorry I
>>  > cannot share just yet.

>>  I hope they are still fit for fight but they must hurry up. If the
> system
>>  with the
>>  water splitter is ready for manufacturing I think it's hard to make
>>  something
>>  better with hydrogen, but other system making electricity looks more
>>  interesting.
>>  If they wait to long they can miss the whole market.

> I expect to be talking to Steven within a week.  I hope to get a feel
> for
> what
> they wantto do with theWater Fuel Cell business.
>>  I will now start with a new letter to you.

>>  Regards,
>>  Ted

> Best to you,
> JW
> ----------

> Dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks, dorks......
> Ahahahahahahaha

> So then thanks to Ted and JW.

> From: "Tad Johnson" <h2opowered@...
> To: <water...@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:39 AM
> Subject: [watercar] Meyer Experiment Recap
> For those of you who were not here, or have not watched
> the Keelynet
> boards
> and such I will revamp my entire history of Meyer
> experiments.

> In 1996 I was an amateur electronics hobbyist. I had
> been interested in
> electrolysis and hydrogen study for many years prior,
> but this year I was
> watching the sci.hydrogen news group to become more
> educated on hydrogen in general. During that year I met
> a man who was good
> friends with Stanley Meyer and regularly went to visit
> him in Ohio. John
> lived here in California, and had also invested some
> money in the Water
> 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
> of 25951
> Page 2 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
> Fuel cell project of Meyers'. I became friends with this
> man and became
> more interested in the Stanley Meyer system. As I became
> more adept at
> electronic design and troubleshooting I began to want to
> try and duplicate
> the Stanley Meyer process of breaking water with high
> voltage at
> resonance.

> During that year and onward a couple years I was able to
> ask John
> questions
> which he would then ask Stanley, and would then feed the
> answer back to
> me.
> You see, Stan was not willing to just talk to anyone
> about the process let
> alone give away any secrets of the process that were not
> mentioned already
> in the patents. So I had to ask these questions through
> John who was good
> friends with Stanley.

> My first few circuits worked but the cell would not make
> any hydrogen,
> especially under the conditions that Stanley and his
> patents said they
> would. The problem is that I would tune the cell like he
> said and yet no
> gas would be produced. It took three years of tinkering
> to finally figure
> out what I was doing wrong, and it was a big blunder.
> The answer to what I
> was doing wrong came to me through the sci.hydrogen
> group by a man who
> lived in Sweden and had already duplicated the Meyer
> experiments based on
> his patents. His name was Ted Zettergren, and he was an
> inventor who
> helped
> other inventors file patents and market products. He
> posted on exactly
> what
> he did and how the system worked. To my knowledge he was
> one of the first
> of three people who duplicated the Meyer experiments
> successfully.

> After Stan was killed I had no information other than
> Ted's to go by, but
> it was all I needed, or anyone else needs to duplicate
> the Meyers'
> process.
> 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
> of 25951
> Page 3 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
> The process is achieved by the following:

> 1. Pulsing circuit or power supply capable of producing
> 600+ Volts @
> 20Khz+
> @ 100uA+. My system was a simple, off the shelf inverter
> with an input of
> 12VDC and an output of 1200VAC @ 20Khz @ 1mA. I then
> took this circuit and
> modified the circuit to run at 42.5-43.0Khz. This was an
> off-the-shelf
> inverter sold by Fry's electronics. It is a neon power
> supply with a very
> small bobbin core transformer. Anyone can buy this
> circuit or one just
> like
> it and modify it to run within the specs I gave you. The
> hard part is
> obtaining resonance which takes years of electronics
> expertise to do.

> 2. A small electrolysis cell with the ability to vary
> distance between
> conductors.

> 3. 2 - Chokes, one adjustable, one fixed.

> 4. One high voltage diode to go in-line with the cathode
> of the power
> supply output.

> 5. Inductance Meter, Capacitance meter, frequency
> counter/Oscilloscope,
> and
> high voltage probe.

> The key to the Meyer process is resonance, and without
> resonance the
> system
> produces no gas. At 12watts you see why no gas is
> produced without
> resonance. This is a standard LC resonant circuit in
> which you MUST (!)
> match Capacitive reactance with Inductive reactance.
> This then creates an
> LC resonant circuit in which the two legs of the power
> supply match in
> frequency exactly. A Ham calc make the calculation of
> resonance easy once
> you know the capacitance of the cell and the frequency
> you are driving it
> at. Once you have your inductance calculated you then
> buy the proper
> chokes
> 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
> of 25951
> Page 4 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
> that fall within the inductance range needed. The
> adjustable one needs
> (obviously) to be tunable within a small range, so that
> when the cell
> temperature changes and causes the capacitance of the
> cell to change, then
> the inductance can also be changed to keep the cell in
> resonance. If you
> cell has the ability to vary distance between
> conductors, then you simply
> change the distance and thus change the capacitance of
> the cell rather
> than
> changing the inductance. You must vary one of the other
> though. I have
> found since then that the capacitance of the cell can be
> changed and works
> just as well as the inductors being adjusted. You don't
> use ANY
> electrolyte, you don't want ANY amperage at all, only
> voltage @ resonance.
> REPEAT, YOU DON'T NEED ANY CURRENT FLOW, ONLY VOLTAGE!

> What I found frustrating is that the cell temperature
> would change and the
> system would stop making gas. In order to keep the
> system making gas you
> constantly have to keep the cell in resonance, and thus
> you really need
> the
> system to be controlled by a processor, that constantly
> checks frequency
> on
> both legs and then adjusts inductance to keep the cell
> in resonance. This
> is why Stanley move to the other patents where the spark
> plus type of
> electrolysis chamber was used instead of a large cell.

> With the cell running at 1200Volts @ 1mA @ 42.8Khz I
> found I could make
> 200LP/H of gas. Do the math and you will find that this
> is impossible
> given
> our current understanding of electrolysis. If you scale
> this equation up
> you will find that you can make over 20,000LP/H of gas
> for 1200Watts. This
> is easily enough to run most any Internal combustion
> engine. The only
> problem has been keeping the cell in tune. An alternator
> will easily
> produce 3000 watts of power, so this is easily enough to
> power the car on
> 07/24/2005 12:18 AMYahoo! Groups : energy2000 Messages : Message 20771
> of 25951
> Page 5 of 6http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/message/20771
> this system alone. This is how the Volkswagon Buggy was
> running around on
> water only. The car has to wait a minute or two before
> he stored enough
> gas
> to run the car, then once it was started and running it
> would make enough
> gas to run the car at up to 60MPH. I never saw this car
> run personally,
> but
> I have two people that went to two showings and both
> said it worked and
> they verified there was no gasoline on board.

> 3 Years ago I sent Stefan and others this experimental
> data and never
> heard
> back form anyone, nor did anyone ever repeat my
> experiment. To this date I
> know of only Ted, Me, and one other person who has
> duplicated this
> experiment and done so successfully. The third person is
> a PHD on the east
> coast of the U.S. who is in contact with Stanley's
> widow. Stanley's
> brother
> now takes care of all water fuel cell business and
> claims he will start it
> up again and make sure it makes it to market this time.
> But I have not
> heard from them in years now. Stefan easily has the
> electronics experience
> to duplicate this process and also solve the issue of
> keeping the cell in
> resonance. I probably do as well at this point but I am
> not going to do it
> alone. It takes alot of electronics expertise and hard
> work to solve this
> problem of cell tuning.

> Whew, my fingers are tired.......

> Tad