Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #150, on January 18th, 2014, 11:32 AM »Last edited on January 18th, 2014, 11:39 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from Hardkrome on January 18th, 2014, 09:48 AM
When one understands that through acceleration, the water can be pulled apart and held on the walls of the tubes before current can react to it, then that person will understand what he was doing. It does act as a capacitor!. But just not quite in the manner that Stan explains it. When it discharges it is all pushed out, that is the resonant action he describes, it acts like a pump.

Just dismissing everything he said is foolishness. He just didn't want anyone stealing it.  Which in a greed driven economy is the wise thing to do.

As for just high voltage, high current pulses, there are patents on that stuff already.
Your post makes no sense at all to me. What exactly are you suggesting is being held on the walls of the tubes before current can react to it?

What are you suggesting is accelerating? And why accelerating?

On the contrary, I feel it is quite acceptable for anyone to dismiss anything Meyer stated if they judge it to be nonsensical mumbo-jumbo. In fact I believe more people need to do just this and start to think for themselves.

And for anyone with a little education in the field, it is blatantly obvious that the Technical Brief was clearly written by someone lacking in the necessary education and knowledge. And I'm afraid making up his own science and pseudoscientific terms goes no way to giving him any real credibility in the academic world. If he had studied science and researched properly he wouldn't have had to invent words and terms.


Dynodon

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #151, on January 18th, 2014, 12:17 PM »
Farrah Day, do you have any test cells set up? Have you taken any videos or pictures to show what your testing.
There seems to be a lot of arm chair experimenters out there that have never even put electricity to water, but still have a lot to say and opinions on how it might work, without ever testing it themselves. I'm not familiar with your history, but I have noticed your name on other sites. If you have something posted somewhere I would be interested in seeing the work you have done. It may help me to understand where your coming from with your post.
Thank you Don

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #152, on January 18th, 2014, 08:29 PM »
Quote from Dynodon on January 18th, 2014, 12:17 PM
Farrah Day, do you have any test cells set up? Have you taken any videos or pictures to show what your testing.
There seems to be a lot of arm chair experimenters out there that have never even put electricity to water, but still have a lot to say and opinions on how it might work, without ever testing it themselves. I'm not familiar with your history, but I have noticed your name on other sites. If you have something posted somewhere I would be interested in seeing the work you have done. It may help me to understand where your coming from with your post.
Thank you Don
Have a look here:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1681

Clearly her words are backed with both time and miles.  ;)

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #153, on January 19th, 2014, 05:33 AM »Last edited on January 19th, 2014, 05:42 AM by FaradayEZ
I haven't put electricity into water. For a long time i gave Stan the benefit of the doubt. But as more and more people come up with nothing, people that thought along with Stan and tried to replicate any small thing of his.
I'm not sure what to think about Stan anymore. And if i fall from my believe in him i'll be prosecuted, i'm weak? not to stick believing in him. I should shut up?
If nobody can proof or replicate something of Stan that sticks up for his claims, then how long should i keep believing in him?
So, now i have to think...even his run with his buggy wasn't a real thing, he had rigged it somehow.

I can't take the next thought along opinion, i only want to be fed by facts, by things that can be repeated, repeated by normal science and normal people.
Too much glimmers of hope were pursued and failed.

I'm done with Stan.

 

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #154, on January 19th, 2014, 05:56 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on January 19th, 2014, 05:33 AM
I'm not sure what to think about Stan anymore. And if i fall from my believe in him i'll be prosecuted, i'm weak? not to stick believing in him. I should shut up?
lol. I think you mean persecuted... don't worry, no one is going to prosecute you for a change of opinion! ;)

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #155, on January 19th, 2014, 08:38 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on January 19th, 2014, 05:56 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on January 19th, 2014, 05:33 AM
I'm not sure what to think about Stan anymore. And if i fall from my believe in him i'll be prosecuted, i'm weak? not to stick believing in him. I should shut up?
lol. I think you mean persecuted... don't worry, no one is going to prosecute you for a change of opinion! ;)
Hmmm, you sure? Cause the Stan-camp is rather strong here and i just accepted some new rules without reading them fully.. ;)

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #156, on January 19th, 2014, 08:57 AM »Last edited on January 19th, 2014, 09:06 AM by HMS-776
I think Stan did discover something as far as splitting water is concerned.
He had some credible people who testified in several articles that something different was occurring.

I just don't think he had things working as well as he claimed. Like I mentioned before, he based his claims on what he saw was possible, not on what he had accomplished. His twin brother Stephen said the same thing in an interview.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #157, on January 19th, 2014, 09:07 AM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on January 19th, 2014, 08:38 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on January 19th, 2014, 05:56 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on January 19th, 2014, 05:33 AM
I'm not sure what to think about Stan anymore. And if i fall from my believe in him i'll be prosecuted, i'm weak? not to stick believing in him. I should shut up?
lol. I think you mean persecuted... don't worry, no one is going to prosecute you for a change of opinion! ;)
Hmmm, you sure? Cause the Stan-camp is rather strong here and i just accepted some new rules without reading them fully.. ;)
EZ, no one will persecute or prosecute anyone here for having a different belief, it's just a matter of how one presents that belief to others is what we are concerned about. There is a kind and diplomatic way, rather than being any other way. Treat others as you yourself would want to be treated is all we are asking.:D

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #158, on January 19th, 2014, 10:11 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on January 19th, 2014, 08:57 AM
I think Stan did discover something as far as splitting water is concerned.
He had some credible people who testified in several articles that something different was occurring.

I just don't think he had things working as well as he claimed. Like I mentioned before, he based his claims on what he saw was possible, not on what he had accomplished. His twin brother Stephen said the same thing in an interview.
Also, I find that when people lack the necessary knowledge and scientific background in the first place, then they are far more likely to come out and run with the most outrageous theories and conjecture, which to them conveniently fits, but in reality has no scientific merit whatsoever.

If there is an element of radiant energy involved in increasing WFC efficiency, then the very short, high frequency pulses that I am suggesting being applied in order to breach the electric double layer obviously bears some relationship to the pulses that Nav and others are talking about on the other thread. Interesting.



Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #159, on January 19th, 2014, 10:35 AM »Last edited on January 19th, 2014, 07:57 PM by Matt Watts
Quote from Farrah Day on January 19th, 2014, 10:11 AM
If there is an element of radiant energy involved in increasing WFC efficiency, then the very short, high frequency pulses that I am suggesting being applied in order to breach the electric double layer obviously bears some relationship to the pulses that Nav and others are talking about on the other thread. Interesting.
There is also a concept of "displacement current" as mentioned by Tom Bearden and supported in the original Maxwell equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnyl8Gj-plk

Seems that rapid, high frequency pulses would open the door to exposing this phenomena.  What is important to notice in the video is that displacement current mimics the real current but is not the real current--two separate things.  So in a capacitor such as a WFC, you have displacement current inside doing the work, but you can't measure it unless you examine the magnetic field produced by it.  You can on the other hand calculate it if you know the WFC capacitance.

So one might wonder how can we restrict external current and yet create a voltage and its associated electric field?  This is still the 64,000 dollar question, but if it can be done, the math and science behind what happens next with the internal displacement current becomes quite obvious.  My thinking is to use choke coils, since we know current lags voltage with inductors.  Size them in such a way the quick, sharp, high voltage pulses pass through the chokes and create the electric field across the WFC plates without any external current being generated.  Almost sounds like something Stan Meyer would say, but hopefully I said it better and in a way y'all can understand it.  Maybe none of this is rocket science after all and is really rather straightforward.  Just a matter of choosing the proper size components.  Is this what Ed and gps are doing, without knowing it?  Maybe so.  Lets have another look.

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #160, on January 19th, 2014, 11:45 PM »Last edited on January 19th, 2014, 11:54 PM by FaradayEZ
Nice one Matt, an explanation for Stan and/but rooted in real science.

Who knows, i'll be patient to see if it brings the gold. If i hear nothing i will presume it didn't do the trick. Other glimmers of hope (like the electroplating) i haven't read any outcome.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #161, on January 20th, 2014, 02:15 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 19th, 2014, 10:35 AM
Maybe none of this is rocket science after all and is really rather straightforward.
Perhaps, but I'm rather inclined to believe that Rocket Science may be far easier!


Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #162, on January 20th, 2014, 05:35 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 19th, 2014, 10:35 AM
...
 My thinking is to use choke coils, since we know current lags voltage with inductors.  Size them in such a way the quick, sharp, high voltage pulses pass through the chokes and create the electric field across the WFC plates without any external current being generated.  Almost sounds like something Stan Meyer would say, but hopefully I said it better and in a way y'all can understand it.  Maybe none of this is rocket science after all and is really rather straightforward.  Just a matter of choosing the proper size components.  Is this what Ed and gps are doing, without knowing it?  Maybe so.  Lets have another look.
Matt, I can agree to your summary.
Of course gps and Ed are well aware of that they are exactly doing that.

And I agree to Farrah stating that an individual problem solving approach away from Meyer´s statements has to be developed into a test configuration.

following this interesting thread I want to add the following:

the main statement to be checked is "voltage performs work".

so ...

1. any theory posted here can only serve a single goal: test the theory in an experiment and analyze the results. if results fit the theory seems to work. otherwise it fails or test configuration or operator´s competence was insufficient. there are ways to deal with the 2nd part :-)

2. stan meyer´s configurations look simple stupid (his words).
the test configuration needed for tests is mechanically and/or technically elaborate and not too user friendly for changes and variations. so serious tests are a time and cost expensive endeavour. there is no way to think the trick can be done "by the way" with minimum effort.

3. the most complicated part of the basic VIC system is the transformer.
there are few transformer expert experienced in calculations according to transformers, most of them are sited in transformer build companies using expensive calculation programs stashing their know how. transformer design is a niched field of competence.

this type of compact transformer as core part of the VIC is not used in other fields of technology. so those transformer experts also have no working model for it´s dimensions.

how to continue by the means of real science?

define the vic operational parameters to be reached:
min./max. frequency, input/output voltage, peak voltage creation specs, output circuit resistance, mechanical data (core specs, bobbin design)

build a (sub-optimal) transformer prototype after those parameters, integrate it into a standarized wfc design, measure all relevant voltage, current and timing conditions, analyze operational deriviations from defined parameters,
build a simulation model showing the same measurement results as the first prototype, optimize by simulation,
build a 2nd generation transformer

iterative process until operational parameters are reached.

with this working transformer for VIC circuit check the statement "voltage performs work".

this is not too easy, but can be done. this is less complicated than "doing the trick" stan meyer stated to have done.

if projecting the transformer part as described seems to be too complicated for an experimenter or a project group "doing the trick" or verifying "voltage performs work" will be much over the head of the group.



Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #163, on January 20th, 2014, 08:47 AM »
Quote from bussi04 on January 20th, 2014, 05:35 AM
the main statement to be checked is "voltage performs work".
It's this statement my theory describes in better detail.  The voltage doesn't directly perform work.  The "work", in this case current, comes from within the cell.  Substitute the capacitor (WFC) for a strictly a resistor and displacement current no longer applies.  It's this displacement current all along that has been hidden and now it is mathematically exposed thanks to Maxwell.

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #164, on January 20th, 2014, 09:06 AM »
I would propose that voltage does not perform work.
That statement made by Meyer likely caused a lot of smart people to walk out of the room laughing.

Rather than 'Voltage performing work' why don't we look at science and see what is known. Energy can change from one form to another given the right circumstances. That is what Meyer should have said.


Edward Mitchell

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #165, on January 20th, 2014, 12:29 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 20th, 2014, 08:47 AM
Quote from bussi04 on January 20th, 2014, 05:35 AM
the main statement to be checked is "voltage performs work".
It's this statement my theory describes in better detail.  The voltage doesn't directly perform work.  The "work", in this case current, comes from within the cell.  Substitute the capacitor (WFC) for a strictly a resistor and displacement current no longer applies.  It's this displacement current all along that has been hidden and now it is mathematically exposed thanks to Maxwell.
This is absolutely correct from what I have been observing of the VIC transformer in action. The water is as Meyer says it is for the circuit, to be viewed in the form of resistance Re. Then it is seen that the true resonance is between the first and last chokes. All these games being played on me on this site to me suggest that you really don't want this technology as time and time again I am being punished for the crimes of others as I have done no wrong here on this forum as it is my rights that were violated. But back to the point I was trying to make the goal is ionization and all the things seen in ionization must also be seen in the exciter array.

If the games continue then I will have my answer in that you really don't want this technology inspite of your saying otherwise and I will again leave you to your own fate as when someone says this isn't rocket science take it from me it is.

Edward Mitchell
CEO and Owner
True Green Solutions


Ris

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #166, on January 20th, 2014, 01:53 PM »Last edited on January 20th, 2014, 02:02 PM by Ris
[attachment=4958]

What's wrong with this picture look good,here's a clue-- capacity, inductance

Hardkrome

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #167, on January 20th, 2014, 08:28 PM »
Quote from Ris on January 20th, 2014, 01:53 PM


What's wrong with this picture look good,here's a clue-- capacity, inductance
My opinion on this is that the chokes are charged up from another source connected to the cell, which is pulsing. The secondary being wired backwards turns it into a variable resistor which controls the resistance across the cell and also charges up the two chokes.

The pickup coil, senses the inductance created thru the chokes from the other source and fires at the frequency of the first signal. (its very sensitive and very linear in control) Because the coils are all about the same inductance, you get a perfect unipolar pulse when is discharges.

So you could use this to take Excess current (electrons) from the cell, turn it into magnetic energy thru resistance, then into voltage with the coils. (only if the secondary is wired backwards!)

So, If you had a scr circuit like the 8xa, where the choke self commutated (correctly) the scr off in resonance, then you would need this transformer to control the amplitude and the frequency of the extra pulse, plus it would act as and electron extraction circuit. Recycled energy

Otherwise this transformer is useless. It is not designed to charge the water.

Ris

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #168, on January 21st, 2014, 01:15 AM »
almost all are right 95%
and energy comes from another place ???????? not from  battery and alternator,because 10 cells consume almost 7 kilowatts or 7000 watts

Hardkrome

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #169, on January 21st, 2014, 04:40 AM »Last edited on January 21st, 2014, 08:03 AM by Hardkrome
Quote from Hardkrome on January 20th, 2014, 08:28 PM
Quote from Ris on January 20th, 2014, 01:53 PM


What's wrong with this picture look good,here's a clue-- capacity, inductance
My opinion on this is that the chokes are charged up from another source connected to the cell, which is pulsing. The secondary being wired backwards turns it into a variable resistor which controls the resistance across the cell and also charges up the two chokes.

The pickup coil, senses the inductance created thru the chokes from the other source and fires at the frequency of the first signal. (its very sensitive and very linear in control) Because the coils are all about the same inductance, you get a perfect unipolar pulse when is discharges.

So you could use this to take Excess current (electrons) from the cell, turn it into magnetic energy thru resistance, then into voltage with the coils. (only if the secondary is wired backwards!)

So, If you had a scr circuit like the 8xa, where the choke self commutated (correctly) the scr off in resonance, then you would need this transformer to control the amplitude and the frequency of the extra pulse, plus it would act as and electron extraction circuit. Recycled energy

Otherwise this transformer is useless. It is not designed to charge the water.
In one of his video's he talks about bypassing the electrons around the cell to create an imbalance in the water.  I think it is the New Zealand video.

He also says he didn't care if he was using 4amps or so because the amount of gas produced was very high.

I explained how the 8xa circuit is supposed to work at another site.  The choke coil commutates the scr off in a resonance. When done correctly, you will not pull current thru the cell from the other side, it will switch so fast that the mains will not even detect a draw. So in the end you are using the current to draw the water apart and make the water (electrons) part of the circuit.

If using 120hz you are locked in at that frequency and you will need a variable plate cell and a very wide gap, or switch in tube cells as you take the voltage up.

Or, you can smooth the unipolar pulse out with a cap and get a 200v transistor and pulse your own square pulses thru the scr at whatever frequency you want 50% duty and tune into your choke coil. That will enable you to get the choke to self commutate the scr off. Because you now control each pulse, the choke will commutate regardless and there will be no lock in of the scr.

  In my experiments, I was pulling 1.5amps from the power supply. that was also running the board. I was getting 6-8 amps of current coming out of the cell going to the positive choke.

In this manner you can see the spike from the choke turning the scr off, and you can time that spike with the frequency of the pulses so that it turns off perfectly in time with each pulse.

This is where the 3-23 comes in, it has to unload that positive choke like I mentioned above and does all those extra things I mentioned.

That is the magic of Stan's claim not to be using any current.

This was done on a revised 3-23 setup I made about 4yrs ago in my garage. I filmed it with a flip phone. In it im doing things that stan talks about but dosent show anywhere, I had to learn it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXT2xJoWRuI
 

Dynodon

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #170, on January 21st, 2014, 08:12 AM »
The choke coils in Stans drawing are upside down, and the negative choke is wired backwards.
If you go through all of the drawings of this vic coil packs of Stans, you will see he draws them different each time. They are very rarely drawn the same. My hand sketch is how they were actually wired and placed on the bobbins and core. Also those readings were taken with the ferrite core removed," Air Core".
Don

Hardkrome

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #171, on January 21st, 2014, 08:47 AM »Last edited on January 21st, 2014, 09:21 AM by Hardkrome
Quote from Dynodon on January 21st, 2014, 08:12 AM
The choke coils in Stans drawing are upside down, and the negative choke is wired backwards.
If you go through all of the drawings of this vic coil packs of Stans, you will see he draws them different each time. They are very rarely drawn the same. My hand sketch is how they were actually wired and placed on the bobbins and core. Also those readings were taken with the ferrite core removed," Air Core".
Don
When the transformer energizes The start point of the secondary is POSITIVE, in fact all the start points are positive on the secondary and both chokes. , they are all wound in the same direction. When the transformer energizes, the electrons cluster in the secondary and negative bias the diode (turns it off). That makes the secondary a resistor and that controls the amplitude of the cell. When the pulse ends, what is in the secondary is released thru the diode.  Since There is a diode and it is being converted to DC, The pulse has to come when there is NO inductance on the core, otherwise the inductance of the core will cancel out the self inductance of the chokes Producing Nothing.

This is not even debatable, that is how it works. And that is from your own drawings.

When the coils are on a separate core, the negative choke should be wound opposite if they are single chokes. He showed the negative choke on the 3-23 only one time wound backwards in an old patent.

If you remove the chokes from the core, the self inductance field will not cancel out on them and the voltage on the cell will go up, this is why he shows air core chokes all over the place and why there is a 3-22 transformer right above the 3-23 transformer in the tech brief. Even better yet, a bifilar coil can be used.

Now, put the chokes back on the core and connect a simple battery charger with a unipolar pulse coming out of it to the cell with the Vic, you will see that you can gate that continuous pulse and control the amplitude of it.

nav

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #172, on January 21st, 2014, 03:02 PM »
Quote from Ris on January 20th, 2014, 01:53 PM


What's wrong with this picture look good,here's a clue-- capacity, inductance
Both chokes have mutual inductance with the secondary instead of one having an apposing magnetic field and there is an isolated ground missing between the secondary and the negative choke.


Ris

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #173, on January 24th, 2014, 09:36 AM »
big mistake,big mistake boss
and if you made ​​a mistake here, dear god how much mistakes you made


RE: Table of Tabulation Appen
dix A
Stanley A. Meyer
Appx. A 01
Application Notes
Water vs. Fossil-Fuel Energy Content
Water is composed of (2) Hydrogen Atoms and (1) Oxygen Atom to fonn a
molecule of Water.
(Tab 33)
Atomic Mass Unit:
1
Electron (E)
=
1 Proton (P) - IMu Hydrogen
Atom: IE
=
IP - IMu Oxygen Atom: 8E
=
8P -
8Mu Atomic Mass Ratio (Mur) of Water
(2H X IMu) plus (1 Oxy. X 8 Mu)
=
10 Mu's
**
See Appendix (B) Note
(2)
Whereby,
2H (Mu) divided by (10 Mu's)
=
20%
Molecular Structure of Water
(Volumetric Displacement of Atom spheres)
Energy-Yield Potential of Water
One water gallon equals 8.345 lbs
Thus, ,
One gallon of Water contains 1.6691bs.
of Hydrogen
8.345 Ibs x. 20
=
1.669 pounds of Hydrogen
I
H2O gal.
1.669 pounds of hydrogen-fuel of water - .183591bs (11% per volume of impurities ...
typically 20 ppm - 40 ppm contaminates with Ambient Air being present)
=
1.4854lbs of hydrogen atoms available for gas combustion per gallon of Water approxi-
mately.
Water as
Fuel
®
Tbc by-product of burning gases derived from Water is environmentally safe since there is no
~
.UOOJiS present in the Water molecule ... resulting in the re-formation of Water "mist" after gas
combustion...being able to re-energize the newly formed Water Droplets for energy "reuse" once
exposed
to Sunlight.
(See Energy recycling graph 530 of Figure
5-6,
once again)

RE: Table of Tabulation Appen
dix A
Stanley A. Meyer
Appx. A 02
Gasoline is composed of (2) Carbon atoms and (8) Hydrogen atoms to
form a gasoline molecule
Appendix A
(Tab 34)
Molecular Structure of Gasoline
(Volumetric Displacement of Atom Spheres)
Fuel-contaminates: Distillation performance Point
Atomic Mass Unit:
I Electron
= 1
Proton - 1 Mu Hydrogen
Atom: 1E
= 1
P - 1 Mu Carbon Atom:
6E
=
6P - 6 Mu Atomic Mass Ratio
(Mur) of Gasoline:
(8 H X 1Mu) plus (1 Oxy 6Mu)
=
68 Mu's
**
See Appendix (B) Note
(2)
Whereby,
8H (Mu) divided by 68 (Mu's)
=
11.7
%
Hydrogen Atoms
Thus,
One gallon of Gasoline equals 5.61Ibs/gal.
5.61Ibs/gal. times .117
=
0.6561bs of
Hydrogen / Gasoline gal.
Chromatogram of typical Gasoline:
degree C
=
(degree F - 32) /1.8
@
437 degrees F. ..... 10% / Volume impurities (Vi)
Therefore
.656 Ibs of Hydrogen / Gasoline - .065 (Vi)
=
.5911bs of Hydrogen Atoms available for Gas
Combustion per gallon of Gasoline approximately.
Thermal Heat of Combustion
Water / gallon ........... 57,000 BTU'S approx.
Gasoline / gallon ....... 22,800 BTU'S approx.
Thereby
Water Energy-yield (By ) is 2.5 times greater than Gasoline since the hydrogen content of water is
more than twice that of fossil fuel of gasoline. (See U.S. National Bureau of Standards Monograph 168 (523
pages )(Feb.198 I ) Engineering Desi
gn Data Manual titled "Selected Properties of Hydrogen", CODEN
NBSM A6 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-6(0195)