Some observations I noticed about these 2 respective patents.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-593,138-electrical-transformer
http://www.alexpetty.com/index.php/2011/06/22/stanley-meyer-international-patent-wo92-07861/
[attachment=3766]
[attachment=3767]
Firstly, they are electrically very, very similar. Major differences are of course Meyer uses modern transformers and inductors where as Tesla uses early types but that may not be important.
Secondly, Meyers Vic has 2 inductors in series where as Tesla places them in parallel to the workload.
Lastly Tesla uses it to drive a different load than Meyer but again that may not be important.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:
Unlike some of Meyers schematics of this design you will notice there has been a ground placed between TX2 and TX5, Tesla uses the same ground on both the transformer and the inductor. Electrically, its exactly the same in a modern schematic per se:-
[attachment=3769]
In some of Stan's patents he remarks how the VIC is 'isolated' from the rest of the schematic and I always wondered what he meant by this. Could it be that Stan is suggesting that we do what Tesla does in his schematic which is to use a rod hammered into the ground as a ground and not the ground used as the negative supply to the rest of his schematic and the PWM?
Tesla seems to think in these terms. Tesla's early version of a PWM which he marks as 'G' in his schematic is a simple rotary contact breaker which provides pulsed DC, he can also gate the pulse by time delaying the rotary contacts which he claims allows the current in the inductors to do work.
Very similar devices and both claiming to do the same thing. IS THE ISOLATED GROUND IMPORTANT?

Seems to me pounding a stake into the ground and connecting it to the VIC would make a less than ideal circuit for an automobile.  This earth ground is something also necessary for the Tariel Kapanadze generator as I recall.

Based on wsx's observations and what I see from the SlayerExciter, a pancake coil like Tesla's would appear to be a far superior method of getting magnetic energy from electrical energy.  So what do you suppose a BiTT would do using pancake coils?  Think it's worth a try?

BTW, good to hear from you again nav.  Did you get all you computer systems straightened out?

Quote from Dog-One on May 19th, 2013, 01:23 PM

Seems to me pounding a stake into the ground and connecting it to the VIC would make a less than ideal circuit for an automobile.  This earth ground is something also necessary for the Tariel Kapanadze generator as I recall.

Based on wsx's observations and what I see from the SlayerExciter, a pancake coil like Tesla's would appear to be a far superior method of getting magnetic energy from electrical energy.  So what do you suppose a BiTT would do using pancake coils?  Think it's worth a try?

BTW, good to hear from you again nav.  Did you get all you computer systems straightened out?

I managed to save most of my stuff because I had backed it up on another HD but my original drive was shot. My mail account could not be recovered and I lost a lot of schematics that I didn't back up. Got a better security system in place and now I back things up more regular.
The Tesla schematic is an open circuit while Meyers is a closed system. Tesla did a lot of work on open 'one wire' circuits and I recommend watching this video to all because it mentions relevant technology towards the end from about 49 minutes onwards and I think it will be of interest to people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePEGB_j7avo
Because I see a likeness between the Meyer/Tesla schematics it seems ever more likely that we are onto a winner here but there is an elementary mistake being made which I have always stipulated from the beginning. Too many people copying Stan's schematics and failing too often, something ain't right. Maybe if we follow a similar design such as Tesla's it will allow us to simplify the technology. Tesla was using far less capable technology yet managed to achieve what Stan did, his rotary contact breaker was no where near as good as PWM's we use today but he succeeded in the patent which was signed by witnesses and an attorney.
It seems that both systems are pulling energy in from somewhere else, in Stan's closed system he seems to be using the VIC arrangement possibly via a BiTT to pull electromagnetic energy into the system, Tesla on the other hand seems to be using the ground to 'keep open' his circuit and draw energy from that ground.
So in essence dog-one we can either draw energy from the ground or an EMF from the air. This ties in with what Moray and Tesla say about radiant energy.
Personally I would prefer to work on Tesla's system which seems to require less technology using an isolated ground. One thing seems certain, both work but in different ways but we must overcome a very simple elementary mistake we are all making. Tesla schematic may provide the answer - isolated ground and then move on from there.

Excellent video nav.  Thank you kindly.  Explains a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePEGB_j7avo

Why I haven't seen this before I do not know, but fortunately with your post, I finally got to.

It's this same radiant mass that Ed Leedskalnin talks about.  Without this stuff an electron would never move on its own.  And it's the electron that all our instruments measure.  No fricking wonder we can't get anything to work right.

So if I'm understanding correctly, we need the disruptive gap, high potential and high frequency to separate the radiant mass from a typical electron flow--conversion process.  Discard the electrons by way of the "crack" and use the radiant mass to split water.  That makes pretty good sense to me, especially the part where it appears electrons are what is slowing everything down--they are providing the resistance, they are in the way.  They also have nothing to do with splitting water, it's the radiant mass that is splitting the water.

Very cool.  I think I learned something today.  Need to sleep on it and see what I can come up with.

OK, were into an whole new ball game here, from what I've learned over the past few months I strongly believe Meyer technology can be achieved using Tesla technology in a much simpler way.
[attachment=3770]
Firstly your PWM will be set an harmonic wavelength of the secondary on the transformer. Doesn't matter which harmonic just as long as it falls into the harmonic group. The 2 inductors whether you wind them in parallel or in series will be a quarter wave of your secondary on the transformer and you need to build a tuning coil somewhere in one of the inductors for fine tuning. Easily done, just a small coil in the conductor with a crocodile clip that can grip the coil in different locations.
The 2 ground rods need to be separated and CANNOT TOUCH. We are stealing energy out of the ground, if they touch then they are contaminated by a closed circuit electron field.
The distance the rods are apart would be better if it were an harmonic of the Schumann resonance.
This is a totally resonant system from start to finish in the Tesla way. I believe Stan borrowed it and slightly changed it but to the same effect.

 

So you don't think the diode should be replaced with an oil filled gap, a disruptive crack as mentioned in the video?

And for the inductors, would you want pancake Tesla style coils?

If we are after radiant energy, you want to leave behind all the electron flow at the primary and only create radiant or "cold electricity" to hit the cell with.  And from what I can understand so far, you should be able to illuminate a light bulb with only a single wire on the output side, which you will probably need to tune this thing--no scope or multimeter is going to read radiant electricity.  These are longitudinal waves, not transverse waves.

I think this also explains why the tube cells are surrounded in Delrin--the output circuit cannot have a conductive path to anything else.

Quote from Dog-One on May 19th, 2013, 04:12 PM

So you don't think the diode should be replaced with an oil filled gap, a disruptive crack as mentioned in the video?

And for the inductors, would you want pancake Tesla style coils?

If we are after radiant energy, you want to leave behind all the electron flow at the primary and only create radiant or "cold electricity" to hit the cell with.  And from what I can understand so far, you should be able to illuminate a light bulb with only a single wire on the output side, which you will probably need to tune this thing--no scope or multimeter is going to read radiant electricity.  These are longitudinal waves, not transverse waves.

Depends which side of the radiant energy you are attacking. You can either attack the ground or the air. The separated ground rods at a suitable length will kill the Electron flow.

Quote from nav on May 19th, 2013, 04:18 PM

Depends which side of the radiant energy you are attacking. You can either attack the ground or the air. The separated ground rods at a suitable length will kill the Electron flow.

Okay.  Do keep in mind your neutral feed from the wall socket is earth grounded at the demarc, so it may be best to just use a battery initially.If you haven't seen one of these, it gives you an idea of radiant energy--single wire power transfer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLcdz-742c

His circuit auto-resonates through a feedback to whatever frequency the coil wants run at--I think he mentioned somewhere around 500kHz.

Think I might get one and try it on a plate and tube cell, single connection and see what happens.
http://slayerexciter.com/

At my test with my own built bifilar coils, I made the experience, that the voltage measured between the exciter plates (tubes) was very low (0,7-1,2V, depending of the equalnes of the bifilar coils). But the voltage measured between the output side of a bifilar coil (tube) and "earth-ground" was very high (~1,5kV).
It was so high, that when I put a cable in the near of the water or tube, that little arcs built up in the air (ionisation). My body was connected to "earth ground" and the cable also was earth ground.
In the memo of stan, one of the latest schematic says, that the 0V is the water (electrical ground). ->read carefully the drawing
Stans diagramm show the voltage between +tube and earthground and between -tube and earthground. Not the voltage between the plates.

My theorie is, that a little bit of electrolyses is necessary (very low current and very low voltage between the tubes) to start the ionization proces and a chain reaction.
Because when creating some gas bubbles, the high voltage between the tubes and water can ionize the H2 and the O2. This will creates radicals, which can split water without current or voltage.
So maybe we had to adjust one of the coils (schematic shows variable coil) to generate very low electrolyses proces, the HV do the rest.

"...Figure of opposite voltage polarity (+/-) of equal voltage pulse amplitudes (+Vpp / - Vpp) are zero reference to electrical ground state (0V) ..."
"... by doing so, balance phasing of opposite voltage intensity (+Vpp /- Vpp) is acomplished without experiencing current influxing caused by differential variances where negativ voltage peak is less than positive voltage peak or vice versa...."

Amsy,

If what was mentioned in the video is correct, it is useless to measure voltage with a meter--it just won't see radiant mass travelling in longitudinal waves through a conductor.  Stan can preach all he wants about voltage in his patents, those numbers are useless.  What I think nav is on to here is that Stan copied Tesla's ideas, but didn't understand them fully.  Or if he did understand, he never let on to the fact that we're not playing with conventional electricity here at all.  The circuit we need to build will completely strip out electron flow and leave only radiant mass flow, otherwise known as cold current or cold electricity.  Got to hand it to nav for taking this very non-conventional approach in trying to solve this mystery.  Now what we need to see is some Hydrogen production, seemingly coming from nowhere.

hi dog,

i measured the HV and the "normal" voltage with an oscilloscope. In fact normal "meters" can not measure high frequencys correctly.
The HV only exists between one tube and earth ground (water and basin, not the ground of the secondary side). The DC current was nearly 0 (analog meter). But also no gas because, the voltage measured between the plates was <2V. Too low for electrolyses.

Maybe this all has nothing to do with scalar waves and all that. But, I also think, there is no doubt about the amp inhibiting function of a bifilar coil. Maybe he copied the idea of tesla, so what.... that doesn´t bother me anyway. :) Only want to say, that HV can be created with the VIC and connected WFC. :D

To come back to topic and nav question: Yes the isolated ground is very important when you want to have HV with the VIC.

Hi lads,
interesting thread. A curiosity is the " ground" and " is the isolated ground important" ?


i refer to this meyers image:
http://open-source-energy.org/files/external/photobucket.com/h2opower/Picture517.jpg
sourced from http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showthread.php?p=8167 via google search on meyer images.

There is also another meyer circuit image that implies the same
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_meyer_memo8.html
http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_meyer_memo8g.gif
those document to my view seems to imply a ground to the waterin the cell.

could that be a plausible circuit path for the questions about the " ground" in the discussion in above posts in this thread???

cheers

In which of Meyer's patents can you find this?



Thanks.

Nice one Lynx, haven't seen that before.

The signal measured diretly on the WFC looks like a standing wave.
This would mean there were 0V measured on the WFC tubes directly. But there would be high voltage measured on "electrical ground=water=earth" and the tubes.

Because the gas bubbles would be in contact with the tube surface and "earth/water" every little gas bubble would be ionized because of the HV.

The reason because the secondary side is not connected to the primary side is, because the ground of the primary side could be connected to earth ground. So no high voltage would exist between tubes and earth ground/water.

Maybe the voltage between the tubes is not exactly 0V. Maybe it is high enough to trigger electrolyses (1.23V) and bubbles would be created and directly ionized.

Kind regards

Now look closely at this Tesla patent for an electrical generator, which from the best I can tell takes radiant energy from the environment and turns it into conventional electricity:


My theory of operation is that the radiant energy gets absorbed into the circuit from the little turbine shunt switch.  It does that because the system is in resonance (by way of the two coils and two capacitors acting as an LC circuit) and when the disturbance from the arc happens, the radiant energy tries to equalize things back into resonance or more properly stated, into sympathetic vibration.  So what you get at the output is much higher (in wattage) than what you put in from the generator/oscillator.

The insulating oil that is pumped around along with the metal tanks and pipes provide the conduit for the radiant energy to become part of the system and when the arc occurs an imbalance is setup that is later collected as electron charge in the capacitor plates.  This charge gets dumped into the resonant circuit and converted to real electron flow in the output transformer secondary.

It's my understanding from reading the patent the output transformer need not be placed in the oil bath; it is only there because of the high output power that would otherwise overheat and destroy the transformer.  Why the disruptive gap and the capacitor box is separated into two tanks connected by a pipe I think has to do with the flow of the oil.  I suspect if the capacitor box was actually inside the tank and still sealed, it would work too.

The concept to familiarize yourself with is the disruptive gap and the natural sympathetic vibrations.  When you have a resonant circuit and cause a disruption, nature steps-in to attempt to restore the oscillation.  Now if the mechanical disruptive gap was replaced by a transistor, I don't think this system would still work, but it might, I'm just not sure.  I would have to build a working prototype and try testing with a mechanical switch and an electronic switch and see if they both work the same.  I suspect not because I think the open circuit would have to be in direct contact with the oil in order for the radiant energy to pass into the circuit.

Now if Telsa's patent actually works, you could use brute force electrolysis to separate water and still do it with much less electrical input, granted the dry-cell would still heat up.  But if you incorporate the cell into the circuit (basically remove the output transformer secondary winding and replace the capacitor plates with the WFC), what you get is radiant energy directly acting upon the water capacitor causing the separation of Hydrogen and Oxygen.  You will still need the disruptive gap in the same water that flows around the WFC and it probably would be best if this water is as non-conductive as possible.  With this method, the cell should run cold (Meyer's Effect).  You may also get a highly ionized form of HHO that requires no gas processor before consuming the gas in an engine.  Purely speculation here worthy of proving or disproving.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention this even though this invention is over 120 years old, its principals may still be valid.  Something to think about and consider.

if you have free energy device that can make more output than input,you don't need a magic water fuel cell.only bruceforce is enough.like 10Xa device of Meyer,in my thought is free energy device because motor and alternator can make more output than input.you can see free energy devices in pesn website.motor and alternator have COP>1 by using gravity and stress force out off center(my word,i don't know technical word).example use 100W motor drive 650W alternator then you have free energy 550W remain.now no one can prove make more hho than faraday laws without free energy device.

about longitudinal wave is electrostatic shock wave,that can capture by capacitor(capacitor work with electrostatic).Tesla always work with strange coils,bifilar coil, pancake coil,air coil.there are capacitors.this point can convert longitudinal wave to transverse wave by using energy from capacitor.God of free energy is Tesla,i really sure about that but Meyer only use concept without replicate directly,IMHO.

thanks
geenee

You are correct geenee--no need to make HHO and burn it in an engine now that we have the possibility of electric cars.

When I get a chance to build Tesla's device, I'll find out first hand.  I suspect to close-loop the device I will have to go from electrical to some other medium and back to electrical in order to make it work.  I have read about this phenomena before when trying to close-loop OU devices.

I do think I'll attempt to wind the transformers as shown in this patent:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-593,138-electrical-transformer

Quote from Dog-One on May 25th, 2013, 09:37 PM

You are correct geenee--no need to make HHO and burn it in an engine now that we have the possibility of electric cars.

When I get a chance to build Tesla's device, I'll find out first hand.  I suspect to close-loop the device I will have to go from electrical to some other medium and back to electrical in order to make it work.  I have read about this phenomena before when trying to close-loop OU devices.

I do think I'll attempt to wind the transformers as shown in this patent:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-593,138-electrical-transformer

Eric Dollard,he known Tesla's works well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdfVVd2Ap38

thanks
geenee

Quote from Dog-One on May 20th, 2013, 06:22 AM

Amsy,

If what was mentioned in the video is correct, it is useless to measure voltage with a meter--it just won't see radiant mass travelling in longitudinal waves through a conductor.  Stan can preach all he wants about voltage in his patents, those numbers are useless.  What I think nav is on to here is that Stan copied Tesla's ideas, but didn't understand them fully.  Or if he did understand, he never let on to the fact that we're not playing with conventional electricity here at all.  The circuit we need to build will completely strip out electron flow and leave only radiant mass flow, otherwise known as cold current or cold electricity.  Got to hand it to nav for taking this very non-conventional approach in trying to solve this mystery.  Now what we need to see is some Hydrogen production, seemingly coming from nowhere.

I think this is important Dog-one in the search for alternative energy. Been looking at Tesla's work a lot lately and there is a definite pattern emerging which ties in with what TH Moray as well as others seem to be saying. We are attempting to draw energy in from elsewhere but it seems difficult to so so without firstly prompting such energy with our own energy.
It seems you cannot throw an antenna up in the air or a Tesla coil then stick an earth rod into the ground and have results. It seems that we have to build a system that causes an electrical imbalance and the imbalance forces nature to provide a balance. In the case of Stan's VIC he clearly is drawing more energy into the cap than is available through his AMP meter, this energy cannot be resonant in his system from the beginning and he's just stealing resonance - I don't buy into that, resonance is resonance and it cannot provide a sea of energy but if you tap into the resonance of the sea of energy then that is different.
Now imagine that the ionosphere and the ground had a sea of energy between them but this energy didn't use Electrons and was a cold type of energy. It is still a bipolar system where the ground is negative and the ionosphere the positive. It would be pretty difficult to hit the resonance of the ionosphere and ground simultaneously but if you are clever enough you could build a system that is directly connected to one side and use nature itself to perform the balancing act.
What I mean by that is if you are connected to the ground with an earth rod then you already have one half of the supply of cold energy without having to do anything at all. So you have a potential already in your system. We already know that in a capacitor that if you create a potential on one plate then nature will arrange for the opposite charge to appear on the other plate.
Therefore the whole system is based on the negative potential and nothing else, it is this negative potential that is the most important factor in any system.
Now lets say that there is a potential of 5000VDC of cold unmeasurable energy (we can only measure Electrons) on a ground rod we have hammered into the ground and we need to create an opposite but equal charge on a capacitor plate what would we do?
Well personally I would try to use the natural relationship between the two poles of the sea of cold energy and that is its resonance. For example if you placed an inductor of a certain value in between the ground rod and one capacitor plate then the other half of the system would be based on harmonics of that inductor. Then I would use a PWM to create the same harmonic and prompt the system into a natural balance.
Because there is no return path for the PWM then the closed circuit Electron flow can never take place and all you have created in essence is a path of potential to the other capacitor plate that you stimulated, that is why Stan uses a diode and creates an half rectified wave. Its a system where both the negative and the positive path of a cap plate are blocked from the source voltage. Stan's system cannot work with the negative side pulsed only the positive. All Stan does and all anyone will ever do is to stimulate cold electricity with conventional electricity.
START AT THE GROUND WITH ANY SYSTEM AND TUNE EVERYTHING TO THE POTENTIAL OF THAT GROUND.
 

Quote from Lynx on May 20th, 2013, 07:49 AM

PREFACE:
I didn't thoroughly read all the posts and some one probably already mentioned this.
What caught my eye was the "0V" and the "Isolated Ground"

Nav, on the first pic  (Figure 8-10 VIC Sync Pulse Circuit)
It seems to indicate that the secondary has a center tap.  In which one side is hooked to the cell. The center tap, the way I understand it, would be isolated and is being used as his electron extraction circuit.

Thought:
What if the reason he's using a "tuned inductor" is because he's also using it as part of his electron extraction circuit?
In a way, switching between the "negative choke" to the "amp inhibiting coil".
What do you guys think?

Quote from wfchobby on May 20th, 2013, 07:11 AM

Hi lads, interesting thread. A curiosity is the " ground" and " is the isolated ground important" ?
could that be a plausible circuit path for the questions about the " ground" in the discussion in above posts in this thread???

Should've read through these posts.  I think that post answers a part of my question.
:D :cool: :P

When I saw that, it reminded me of Tesla straight away:
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-685,957-utilization-of-radiant-energy
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-685,958-utilizing-radiant-energy

And after studying Tetryonics, it clearly shows radiant energy is no myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBhO7hNoh2o

If you watch the above video very carefully, you will discover energy and electrons are two totally different animals.  Energy is not Matter; electrons are.  Therefore "0V" could quite conceivably be a non-measurable energy source which is all around us.  It would not surprise me one bit to find out Stan knew this and used "0V" as the designator for such energy source.  I mean, how else could you describe it?

Quote from nav on May 19th, 2013, 12:58 PM

Some observations I noticed about these 2 respective patents.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-593,138-electrical-transformer
http://www.alexpetty.com/index.php/2011/06/22/stanley-meyer-international-patent-wo92-07861/


Firstly, they are electrically very, very similar. Major differences are of course Meyer uses modern transformers and inductors where as Tesla uses early types but that may not be important.
Secondly, Meyers Vic has 2 inductors in series where as Tesla places them in parallel to the workload.
Lastly Tesla uses it to drive a different load than Meyer but again that may not be important.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:
Unlike some of Meyers schematics of this design you will notice there has been a ground placed between TX2 and TX5, Tesla uses the same ground on both the transformer and the inductor. Electrically, its exactly the same in a modern schematic per se:-

In some of Stan's patents he remarks how the VIC is 'isolated' from the rest of the schematic and I always wondered what he meant by this. Could it be that Stan is suggesting that we do what Tesla does in his schematic which is to use a rod hammered into the ground as a ground and not the ground used as the negative supply to the rest of his schematic and the PWM?
Tesla seems to think in these terms. Tesla's early version of a PWM which he marks as 'G' in his schematic is a simple rotary contact breaker which provides pulsed DC, he can also gate the pulse by time delaying the rotary contacts which he claims allows the current in the inductors to do work.
Very similar devices and both claiming to do the same thing. IS THE ISOLATED GROUND IMPORTANT?

Did you see this?

Quote from root.locus on June 10th, 2013, 03:06 PM

Quote from nav on May 19th, 2013, 12:58 PM

Some observations I noticed about these 2 respective patents.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-593,138-electrical-transformer
http://www.alexpetty.com/index.php/2011/06/22/stanley-meyer-international-patent-wo92-07861/


Firstly, they are electrically very, very similar. Major differences are of course Meyer uses modern transformers and inductors where as Tesla uses early types but that may not be important.
Secondly, Meyers Vic has 2 inductors in series where as Tesla places them in parallel to the workload.
Lastly Tesla uses it to drive a different load than Meyer but again that may not be important.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OBSERVATION:
Unlike some of Meyers schematics of this design you will notice there has been a ground placed between TX2 and TX5, Tesla uses the same ground on both the transformer and the inductor. Electrically, its exactly the same in a modern schematic per se:-

In some of Stan's patents he remarks how the VIC is 'isolated' from the rest of the schematic and I always wondered what he meant by this. Could it be that Stan is suggesting that we do what Tesla does in his schematic which is to use a rod hammered into the ground as a ground and not the ground used as the negative supply to the rest of his schematic and the PWM?
Tesla seems to think in these terms. Tesla's early version of a PWM which he marks as 'G' in his schematic is a simple rotary contact breaker which provides pulsed DC, he can also gate the pulse by time delaying the rotary contacts which he claims allows the current in the inductors to do work.
Very similar devices and both claiming to do the same thing. IS THE ISOLATED GROUND IMPORTANT?

Did you see this?

Its looking more and more like Meyer stole Tesla technology and didn't know what the hell he was talking about when explaining it. I think we are actually going somewhere with this.

Great picture,root.locus.

very clearly.We need a new thought about longitudinal wave and new science.

longitudinal wave = static shock wave from switch or spark gap or coil shorting.this wave is faster than speed of light.

resonant charging chokes,this coils stop transverse wave and show only longitudinal wave,result is lower amps consumption.

but Meyer use diode,this is very difference.

thanks for sharing
geenee