Cheers Jeff, let's hope so

Quote from Lynx on September 20th, 2013, 04:23 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 19th, 2013, 06:56 AM

Sure, that's where it all starts, has to start. Proof the dielectric layers importance.. (like i said in my original post..)

Vibration, resonance is an extra, something for later on.. after some proof of concept, or if the proof doesn't produce that much extra as needed.. :)

I'm almost sure one gets more production "Lamare's" way, but i still think after that, one should look into where some sweet spot may be, to get things really going.

But heck, what do you expect from someone who believes in resonance?

At some point in time Meyer simply had had to stumble across, most probably likely by mistake as it's merely only mistakes that brings us forward, some anomaly that which he decided to look a little deeper into.
So he must have started out using plates or tubes, just like we do, added the secret sauce (or not, Lamare could be right here in that Meyer actually didn't know anything about "different surface structures") and then hit that with some voltage and after adjusting the frequency getting what I would like to call the Meyer effect, giving either a completely new form of gas which is far more explosive compared to hydrogen, or that his cell in fact all the sudden started producing far more gas compared to any other frequency while at the same time observing the cell voltage  rise, the current fall and the water temperature drop, all along as the bubbles rose up to the surface.
I'd love to witness that with my own eyes.
Now we have to try to look beyond Meyer's patents, try out new ideas, think outside the box, make some mistakes so we learn what goes or not.
Hopefully one of us makes the right kind of mistake, the very one Meyer made (IMHO) and decides to share it to the rest of the World.
Thinking about thinking, maybe the gasflow from the cell should be subjected to an open flame now and then, just to check for differences in colour, perhaps even do soap bubbles test and set them on fire just to see (I.E hear) differences in the explosiveness.....?
As long as it's done in a controlled manner, using safety goggles, gloves, Peltor etc, I only see a lot of advantages in performing such tests.

You're right, its good to test etc. etc.

But if a simple test could quickly discover if the Cr2O3 mantle gives the expected effect, i would rather have that done early.  

I know you will go on regardless, but others would maybe only jump in again if there is something more promising instead of the normal way.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 20th, 2013, 09:33 PM

But if a simple test could quickly discover if the Cr2O3 mantle gives the expected effect, i would rather have that done early.

How do you know what to look for if you haven't seen it working first hand and then made some measurements on the working cell tubes for reference.
Sure you can measure all kinds of things, still that wouldn't make any whatsoever sense though as you don't know what to look for.

I know one thing to look for, very high resistance when the plates come in contact with water.  The next big thing is to put some high voltage across those plates and show me bubbles.  I see that by more than one person on this forum and I'll be packing up my cells to be shipped somewhere for professional electropolishing.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 12:42 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 20th, 2013, 09:33 PM

But if a simple test could quickly discover if the Cr2O3 mantle gives the expected effect, i would rather have that done early.

How do you know what to look for if you haven't seen it working first hand and then made some measurements on the working cell tubes for reference.
Sure you can measure all kinds of things, still that wouldn't make any whatsoever sense though as you don't know what to look for.

That's the whole point, indeed. From what we can reconstruct from what we have of footage, he got hist FIRST prototype working exceptionally well. There is reason to believe he used scrap components for that first prototype and since electropolished stainless has been used by the industry at least since the 1960s in applications whereby for example aggressive substances or food is transported trough pipes. And therefore, it is entirely possible he got his hands on a batch of electropolished stainless, characterized by it's thicker, smoother and higher quality "passivation" layer, consisting mainly out of Cr2O3.

Now when you don't know this electropolishing process exists and don't know how to perform it, which requires a/o quite a lot of current, it is pretty unlikely you discover this process by accident, although Murakami, Lawton, Ravi, Cramton and Boyce managed to discover a process which gives good results. And when you don't know Cr2O3 is a dielectric with a dielectric constant comparable that of aluminum oxide which is used in electrolytic capacitors and you don't know the details of the construction of electrolytic capacitors, it is not likely you make the connection that the Cr2O3 layer on the stainless is what makes a WFC to be an electrolytic capacitor, although the quality of the construction as capacitor will probably not be very high.

In fact, application of stainless for electrolytic capacitor purposes would be a bad idea, because it appears it would produce a lot of H2/O2 gas, which makes your capacitor explode, which is not desired. This also happens with aluminum capacitors and leads to a problem known as "capacitor plague":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

Quote

A major cause of the plague of faulty capacitors was industrial espionage in connection with the theft of an electrolyte formula. A researcher is suspected of having taken, when moving from Japan to Taiwan, the secret chemical composition of a new low-resistance, inexpensive, water-containing electrolyte. The researcher subsequently tried to imitate this electrolyte formula in Taiwan, to undersell the pricing of the Japanese manufacturers. However, the secret formula had apparently been copied incompletely, and it lacked important proprietary ingredients which were essential to the long-term stability of the capacitors. The bad formulation of electrolyte allowed the unimpeded formation of hydroxide and produced hydrogen gas.

So, if stainless based electrolytic capacitors indeed produce even more hydrogen gas, you really wouldn't want to use that for capacitor applications.

Either way, what we also know is that Stan got steel samples tested, which were of two different diameters and turned out to be ordinary 304 in composition of the metal. So, we can deduce that he did investigate his steel because there was something special with it, but that special thing was not to be found in the composition of the steel. Had he asked the chemical analysts to also investigate the passivation layer of the steel, he would probably have gotten his answer.

But in the end, all of this remains to be speculation until we actually test this. To me, the arguments are very strong, but the proof of the pudding is still in the eating.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:00 AM

I know one thing to look for, very high resistance when the plates come in contact with water.  The next big thing is to put some high voltage across those plates and show me bubbles.  I see that by more than one person on this forum and I'll be packing up my cells to be shipped somewhere for professional electropolishing.

What if the very high resistance builds up using very high voltage?

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 01:23 AM

What if the very high resistance builds up using very high voltage?

Sounds like a chicken-n-egg problem to me.  But regardless, a pair of 18 ga. 316 stainless plates, each one square inch one of them electropolished and the other rough buffed would tell us plenty.  If it don't, electropolish the other one too.  If you still can't manage some high voltage AND get some bubbles, it's not quite game over, but you certainly will need to restart the research.  If you can get high voltage AND bubbles, sound the horns because this will be exactly what a whole mess of folks need to know to get to the next level.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:00 AM

I know one thing to look for, very high resistance when the plates come in contact with water.  The next big thing is to put some high voltage across those plates and show me bubbles.  I see that by more than one person on this forum and I'll be packing up my cells to be shipped somewhere for professional electropolishing.

I asked the company which was prepared to do the polishing for me, and they were not aware of any electrical properties of the layer. And the layer still is very thin, so I doubt if we can expect a very high resistance. As I said, the construction will probably not result in a high quality capacitor. One of the reasons for that is that there is not only Cr2O3 in the layer, but also some nickel oxides.

So, I think the DC behavior will not be very different, although I have seen one comment in a discussion from around 2007 somewhere (can't seem to find it back) wherein it was said that electropolishing in brute force D.C. cell did allow the cell to run with lower current and kept a bit cooler.

Since the magic appears to happen with high voltage spikes, Bedini style, I think the best way to test this is to build a small scale cell with this stuff and test that with a VIC-like circuit, such as Lawton's PLL. If it improves the gas production while reducing the overall current needed, then we are where we want to be.

Still, there should at least be some difference in resistance, because the layer is thicker.

However, what would be a very good indicator is to estimate/measure the capacitance of the cell. This could be done by connecting it as an electrolytic capacitor to a 555 timer circuit and compare it's capacitance to a similar cell with normal stainless and to a number of standard electrolytic caps. This is what Steiner did with his home made variable capacitor:

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/SparkBangBuzz/varelec-el.htm



If the capacitance changes considerably, even though the capacitor is probably "leaky", then you have a very good indication this will work.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:38 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 01:23 AM

What if the very high resistance builds up using very high voltage?

Sounds like a chicken-n-egg problem to me.  But regardless, a pair of 18 ga. 316 stainless plates, each one square inch one of them electropolished and the other rough buffed would tell us plenty.  If it don't, electropolish the other one too.  If you still can't manage some high voltage AND get some bubbles, it's not quite game over, but you certainly will need to restart the research.  If you can get high voltage AND bubbles, sound the horns because this will be exactly what a whole mess of folks need to know to get to the next level.

There's also the delicate matter of the correct frequency here.
Maybe the bubbles won't show up unless it's the correct frequency and high voltage?

The capacitor test will only work if the charging voltage stays well away from 2 volts or higher for a single plate.  Beyond that, the non-linearity low resistance takes over.  This is why it's so difficult to get high voltage resonance, because once you cross that threshold, you're dealing with a completely different device.

If all you need is high voltage spikes, you can easily get a hold of a replacement barbeque starter.  I think it uses a single AA battery and will toss a spark a good 1/2 inch.  It only pulses at about 3-4 Hz, but that should be plenty fast to notice some effect.  I certainly wouldn't stick my hand in the water.

My point is if you really think you have found the missing piece to this puzzle, that piece by itself will take us a long way without having to build a complete optimized system.  That one factor will show very optimistic results even when other factors are way off target.  I'm not 100% positive, but pretty sure of it--confidence factor of 95%.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 01:45 AM

There's also the delicate matter of the correct frequency here.
Maybe the bubbles won't show up unless it's the correct frequency and high voltage?

You're killing me Lynx.  I can run a frequency sweep in about ten minutes that will tell you if anything in there is worth zeroing in on.  To do it I just hook my sweep generator to my audio amp and lastly to my toroid step-up.  Is a 1000 volts enough, 20 - 20000 Hz ?

Personally I doubt frequency really matters that much except for the coils you choose to use.  The frequencies we are talking about are way way too slow for any atomic interaction.

Seriously guys, lets think for a minute, how did Stan do this?  I'll bet my house he didn't jump in a design this whole complete system right from the start and hook it up--shazam! It works!  Just like I thought it would.  No, instead he took baby steps where each little bit of understanding led to some improvement and when that improvement was maximized, he looked at other little pieces to work on.  Normal waterfall, iterative engineering.  But he had to have started somewhere and that somewhere produced HHO and it didn't take the kind of power he would have initially suspected it would, so he kept going and improving.  Now if those tubes had a coating, that had to be a critical factor in what he saw from his very first test.  That would have been enough.  Put yourself in his shoes.  If you produced some gas at a pretty decent rate and your volt meter and amp meter showed values a little low for the amount of gas you were producing, first you'd check your gauges to see if they were broke and when not, you'd say to yourself, "Well, this is pretty cool.  I wonder just how far I can take it."  Just close your eyes and ride along with the master; you'll see there are only certain courses of action that would have made any sense.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:54 AM

Seriously guys, lets think for a minute, how did Stan do this?  I'll bet my house he didn't jump in a design this whole complete system right from the start and hook it up--shazam! It works!  Just like I thought it would.  No, instead he took baby steps where each little bit of understanding led to some improvement and when that improvement was maximized, he looked at other little pieces to work on.  Normal waterfall, iterative engineering.  But he had to have started somewhere and that somewhere produced HHO and it didn't take the kind of power he would have initially suspected it would, so he kept going and improving.  Now if those tubes had a coating, that had to be a critical factor in what he saw from his very first test.  That would have been enough.  Put yourself in his shoes.  If you produced some gas at a pretty decent rate and your volt meter and amp meter showed values a little low for the amount of gas you were producing, first you'd check your gauges to see if they were broke and when not, you'd say to yourself, "Well, this is pretty cool.  I wonder just how far I can take it."

Agreed.
Sometime somewhere somehow he started out much like the better part of us once did.
My guess is though that his babysteps included making mistakes, history has proven over and over that mistakes has led to groundbreaking discoveries before and what if one of his "mistakes" were to have used electropolished tubes in his experiments and "accidentally" getting hilarious amounts of gas as a result of that, without him knowing that his tubes or plates had that extra secret sauce on them?
That's why we're here right now having this discussion thanks to Lamare.

This is such a welcome theory as it puts a whole lot of ideas in atleast my head, I think ideas such as this one should see the light of the day here more often, the old ideas have been more or less depleted by now so I think we need fresh perspectives to get us going again.

It was quite some time ago I stopped seeing problems, I only see possibilities nowadays and although theories should be questioned, no doubt about that, I still think they should be given fair chances to prove themselves either way and the best way is to actually perform real experiments, which in this case would mean subjecting the electropolished cell to as high voltage as possible with varied frequency etc etc, just to see what gives or not.
Who knows, maybe some other new interesting anomaly will show itself as a result of electropolished cell experiments, which in turn will show us new possibilities to take this whole thing yet another step forward to a true Meyer WFC.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:54 AM

You're killing me Lynx.  I can run a frequency sweep in about ten minutes that will tell you if anything in there is worth zeroing in on.  To do it I just hook my sweep generator to my audio amp and lastly to my toroid step-up.  Is a 1000 volts enough, 20 - 20000 Hz ?

Personally I doubt frequency really matters that much except for the coils you choose to use.  The frequencies we are talking about are way way too slow for any atomic interaction.

Indeed. And way to slow for any electromagnetic wave phenomenon, too.

So, you are talking about acoustic resonances taking place within the fluid in order to keep it in movement. This makes that more water enters the "special zone" AND prevents bubbles from sticking to the wall of the electrolyzer.

See my previous post:

Quote from lamare on September 20th, 2013, 03:48 AM

Quote from firepinto on September 19th, 2013, 02:44 PM

Max put together a good video talking about resonating frequencies:

I have watched the video without sound and resonance certainly is an important ingredient in the whole system.

I noticed that on Stan's drawing, it says something like electrical waves, which bounce between the walls and propagate along the length direction of the horn-like structure. There is NO WAY that is correct, you are talking about a waveguide with a distance between the metal in the order of perhaps a few mm and a length of perhaps a few cm.  There is quite a lot of information about waveguides in my moonbounce thread over at the energetic forum:

http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/9727-who-performs-first-longitudinal-moon-bounce-history-6.html#post230353

For a horn-like waveguide with a length in the order of about 10 cm, you are talking about resonance frequencies in the order of 750 MHz - 3 GHz! There would be NO WAY to do this without specialized VHF engineering.

So, the resonances which do take place can ONLY be acoustic resonances caused by sound waves propagating trough the fluid or air in the test setup and/or possibly trough the metal itself, which I consider to be pretty unlikely. There you are talking about resonance frequencies in the order of several kHz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

Quote

In common everyday speech, speed of sound refers to the speed of sound waves in air. However, the speed of sound varies from substance to substance. Sound travels faster in liquids and non-porous solids than it does in air. It travels about 4.3 times as fast in water (1,484 m/s), and nearly 15 times as fast in iron (5,120 m/s), than in air at 20 degrees Celsius. Sound waves in solids are composed of compression waves (just as in gases and liquids), but there is also a different type of sound wave called a shear wave, which occurs only in solids.

For a horn like structure with a length of about 10 cm, you would be talking about a resonance frequency in the order of 3 - 15 kHz.

So, those kinds of acoustic waves are well within the possibilities, while electrical or electromagnetic resonances are totally out of the question.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:54 AM

I can run a frequency sweep in about ten minutes that will tell you if anything in there is worth zeroing in on.  To do it I just hook my sweep generator to my audio amp and lastly to my toroid step-up.  Is a 1000 volts enough, 20 - 20000 Hz ?
Personally I doubt frequency really matters that much except for the coils you choose to use.  The frequencies we are talking about are way way too slow for any atomic interaction.

Here's another one: What if the electropolished cells when subjected to high voltage medium frequency starts generating very high frequencies themselves, frequencies high enough for atomic action?

Quote from Lynx on September 20th, 2013, 07:07 AM

Quote from Matt Watts on September 20th, 2013, 06:49 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 20th, 2013, 04:23 AM

(or not, Lamare could be right here in that Meyer actually didn't know anything about "different surface structures")

The problem I have with this theory is from the implementation standpoint, unless there was some more luck involved.  Here's why:

If you took a metal rod and hooked a wire to it, but nothing happened, wouldn't you suspect just for a minute you have a bad connection?  I would.  Then I'd probably sand or grind on the rod and check with the ohm meter to make sure I had that fixed.  At some point down the road you might think to yourself, "hmmm, I wonder what that coating was on the rod?"

I've had this exact same thing happen only the coating wasn't an oxide layer, it was a protective thin film to prevent oxidation.  As soon as you realize this, you get out your razor blade and check everything to make sure the film has been removed.

I can't for a moment think Stan didn't know this right away and it's something you wouldn't forget.  After fixing the bad connection on the first tube, surely he applied the same procedure to all the rest of them, unless you want to suppose for a minute none of the tubes had a direct connection to the input wires and it still managed to work that way.

Fair enough.
Let's assume for a second that he tried out different types of electrolytes then using the same cell over and over again.
Perhaps he tried out phosphoric acid, propylene glycol, isopropanol, perhaps even dish soap...........? :angel:
And voila = a nice set of electropolished tubes.
Maybe he saw some interesting anomaly after that then, who knows?
I think that the old ideas has been more or less depleted, we need new ideas to kick this thing to fruition.

Reading these posts i see a monkey random typing shakespear..i guess its the right picture for Stan.   ;)

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 12:42 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 20th, 2013, 09:33 PM

But if a simple test could quickly discover if the Cr2O3 mantle gives the expected effect, i would rather have that done early.

How do you know what to look for if you haven't seen it working first hand and then made some measurements on the working cell tubes for reference.
Sure you can measure all kinds of things, still that wouldn't make any whatsoever sense though as you don't know what to look for.

Uhh i said IF didn't i

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 05:16 AM

Reading these posts i see a monkey random typing shakespear..i guess its the right picture for Stan.   ;)

Seeing you posting EZ makes me wonder on what side of the Stan fence you're really on.
Wouldn't you like to see a breakthrough here?

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:54 AM

My point is if you really think you have found the missing piece to this puzzle, that piece by itself will take us a long way without having to build a complete optimized system.  That one factor will show very optimistic results even when other factors are way off target.  I'm not 100% positive, but pretty sure of it--confidence factor of 95%.

Hear, hear, but Matt, they won't do it. You have to check this thing yourself, and you have the means to do it simple and quickly.

So test it and let me know in private email, we don't want to disturb the buildingfever of Lamare and Lynx.

They are set for the whole journey now so let them enjoy that vacation.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 05:32 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 05:16 AM

Reading these posts i see a monkey random typing shakespear..i guess its the right picture for Stan.   ;)

Seeing you posting EZ makes me wonder on what side of the Stan fence you're really on.
Wouldn't you like to see a breakthrough here?

I don't know what to think about Stan and his pseudoscience. And i never believed the EPG could do something. I've been open about that also, see my older postings.

But come on Lynx, is this about sides? Really? I support your project, i just asked for one little thing..a quick lakmoestest..if thats not doable ok, but i think it is possible to test it first smaller.

We all love the breakthrough. Please don't make camps here.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 05:35 AM

Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 01:54 AM

My point is if you really think you have found the missing piece to this puzzle, that piece by itself will take us a long way without having to build a complete optimized system.  That one factor will show very optimistic results even when other factors are way off target.  I'm not 100% positive, but pretty sure of it--confidence factor of 95%.

Hear, hear, but Matt, they won't do it. You have to check this thing yourself, and you have the means to do it simple and quickly.

So test it and let me know in private email, we don't want to disturb the buildingfever of Lamare and Lynx.

They are set for the whole journey now so let them enjoy that vacation.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 05:32 AM

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 05:16 AM

Reading these posts i see a monkey random typing shakespear..i guess its the right picture for Stan.   ;)

Seeing you posting EZ makes me wonder on what side of the Stan fence you're really on.
Wouldn't you like to see a breakthrough here?

I don't know what to think about Stan and his pseudoscience. And i never believed the EPG could do something. I've been open about that also, see my older postings.

But come on Lynx, is this about sides? Really? I support your project, i just asked for one little thing..a quick lakmoestest..if thats not doable ok, but i think it is possible to test it first smaller.

We all love the breakthrough. Please don't make camps here.

Who's making camps?
I have no problems with questioning theories, not at all.
But when it also comes to include ridicule, which almost borders to being derogatory, that's when I start raising my eyebrows, not as a staff member but as I me myself personally.
Thanks for letting me know your opinion on Meyer's work btw, makes it easier for me in the future to disregard some of your remarks.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 02:51 AM

My guess is though that his babysteps included making mistakes, history has proven over and over that mistakes has led to groundbreaking discoveries before and what if one of his "mistakes" were to have used electropolished tubes in his experiments and "accidentally" getting hilarious amounts of gas as a result of that, without him knowing that his tubes or plates had that extra secret sauce on them?
That's why we're here right now having this discussion thanks to Lamare.

And Lynx, haven't i said often enough that i support the arguments, that i also think it plausible that Stan had something at one time and lost it. Then the pseudoscience also makes sense again for me.
So don't place me or others in an opposite fence, i'd really like you to take that line back. Its not becomming for a moderator, its something one expects from a ranting kid.
And even if you put me on some other camp, i will still support you.

Maybe Matt and me are a bit more cautious then Lamare and you.  (And that should be totally ok..)

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 05:51 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 02:51 AM

My guess is though that his babysteps included making mistakes, history has proven over and over that mistakes has led to groundbreaking discoveries before and what if one of his "mistakes" were to have used electropolished tubes in his experiments and "accidentally" getting hilarious amounts of gas as a result of that, without him knowing that his tubes or plates had that extra secret sauce on them?
That's why we're here right now having this discussion thanks to Lamare.

And Lynx, haven't i said often enough that i support the arguments, that i also think it plausible that Stan had something at one time and lost it. Then the pseudoscience also makes sense again for me.
So don't place me or others in an opposite fence, i'd really like you to take that line back. Its not becomming for a moderator, its something one expects from a ranting kid.
And even if you put me on some other camp, i will still support you.

Maybe Matt and me are a bit more cautious then Lamare and you.

See my previous post http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1372&pid=18282#pid18282

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 05:51 AM

Thanks for letting me know your opinion on Meyer's work btw, makes it easier for me in the future to disregard some of your remarks.

This again is making camps... as if when i write my thoughts about something Stan tried to do, as if i'm then bias and not objective.

Try to find such a post of mine where you should have reason to disregard.
Well, maybe your right Lynx, as to making camps i saw a division between what Matt and i say "try to test smaller first"

and what you and Lamar say "we need the wfc and stuff to make the first test"

Its a division in where we now stand in these posts, a division of opinion.

(but for me not a means to disregard your writings)

I'm sorry if i have offended your picture of Stan, i wasn't aware of the sensibillities. I just followed the concept of the post where it was portrait that all was done by accident..which let to the classic typing monkey thought. (who brings evolution along)

I'm also one who really wants to know how things inside work, doesn't matter who comes up with the invention and or his credibillity, its the apparatus i'm interested in, not so much the people who build it.

And i wonder if you would really want to know the outcome of a smaller test on the Cr2O3 layer...

So instead of shuffing it into your face, you could be informed when wishing so

It's been my experience that the resistance from one's cell to another will be different, even the water used will change the resistance of one's cell.
But the cell I have already built and tested, using same water [tap], Lawton circuit and others, the resistance has remained about the same.
I have seen nothing to change that. I tend to think even higher voltages will not change the resistance of my cell, I could be wrong.
What I would like to do is take my cell apart and electropolish the tubes myself, so what is needed, is a formula and/or procedure for an individual to do this on his own. I for one don't want to pay someone else to do something I think we ourselves can do.:D

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 06:01 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 05:51 AM

Thanks for letting me know your opinion on Meyer's work btw, makes it easier for me in the future to disregard some of your remarks.

This again is making camps... as if when i write my thoughts about something Stan tried to do, as if i'm then bias and not objective.

Try to find such a post of mine where you should have reason to disregard.

Would you stop that making camps thing please, having different opinions on theories doesn't necessarily mean being in different camps, we could still have the same goal here, something which you AAMOF just stated, thanks for that.
You say here that you don't really care too much about some of the theories regardig Meyer's EPG or his WFC, knowing that helps me then when it comes to trying to understand your point of view regarding these matters, which I respect of course, up to a certain point that is, which is to say bar the borderline ridicule thing, something which I really won't ever see being written in harmless jest regardless of who you direct it to.
Of course it's just your sense of humour, that doesn't necessarily mean though that you get to excercise it any way you want to, you still have to follow forum guidelines, just like any other member here.

Peace?

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2013, 06:14 AM

It's been my experience that the resistance from one's cell to another will be different, even the water used will change the resistance of one's cell.
But the cell I have already built and tested, using same water [tap], Lawton circuit and others, the resistance has remained about the same.
I have seen nothing to change that. I tend to think even higher voltages will not change the resistance of my cell, I could be wrong.
What I would like to do is take my cell apart and electropolish the tubes myself, so what is needed, is a formula and/or procedure for an individual to do this on his own. I for one don't want to pay someone else to do something I think we ourselves can do.:D

I saw some links come by in these threads where they explain how to do it yourself at lesser costs.

Quote from Lynx on September 21st, 2013, 06:18 AM

Peace?

Peace! And i still think we are all monkeys...

I'm curious what Farrah Days will uncover in his thread about the HHO production, lets get to some insights instead of outside stuff.

Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2013, 06:14 AM

What I would like to do is take my cell apart and electropolish the tubes myself, so what is needed, is a formula and/or procedure for an individual to do this on his own. I for one don't want to pay someone else to do something I think we ourselves can do.:D

Here, http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1386&pid=17650#pid17650

I have already ordered the phosphoric acid, should arrive sometime next week.

Me on Stan:

EPG..i tried to understand it, but as i explained in the thread about it..i have difficulties with the pickup coils, i suspect induction will slow the flow in the rings.
So that's that.

The WFC is just electrolyses, so what to argue with that? And i also agree with Stan about resonance and about high voltage and electric fields..so i don't know what more theories Stan had about that, but i'm all for making HHO. Point is that not much people seem to get high production.

Stan's electrostuff? I don't understand electronics so i don't mingle in that.

His sparkplug... i can't say much about it, i hope it can work but haven't seen it work. I have idea's how it could work, but all in all i think Stan is very complicated to me.

And i think that if he was a better scientist, then people could replicate him easier.

Cause often he makes no sense to me, hearing his presentations.

So if there is a Stan's fence, i picture myself not in and not out.

I believe he one's had something, and i believe he hasn't given it to us.

He tried to give it, which is a whole lot better then our Papp character.

But we're still left with the same... nothing.. well sort of nothing