Quote from freethisone on April 13th, 2015, 09:55 AM

its a shame u dont have anything to add here Matt. i will design a circuit that putts stand Myers to shame.. how would you like to do this?


what i outlined above are key factors for operating a working cell. screw myers..  since its all about theory i can do it without even testing it..


i make a boost cap setup at up to 36 volts of battery.  i then use the caps as a source of power. from a alternator or from the battery, its even possible to use the earth as a battery..

there are so many ways to get the same results.. i take a second coil, and i submerge it in the water. i energy up to 50 kv for a time period prescribed. 5 sec on off. i run a cell as normal with my other power.

i use pulse dc and add a third common ground. i use a rodin coil for my circuit..

many ways to go, and all you go is there goes the cat?

wow.. considering people working on this over 4 years or more.

free,

once you really try to build real setups you will easily see that you´ll run into trouble with wire insulation, vibrations and handsful of other difficulties.

talking about how something "shall work" and make it work that way is something totally different. often I can´t understand the link between your posts and the subject the thread is pointing to.

Quote from Matt Watts on April 13th, 2015, 11:16 AM

Show me Free, then I'll take you seriously.  Right now all I see is a lot of hat and no cattle.

Myself, I'm working on purely electrical solutions.  No time for anything else.  Besides, adding water to the equation just distracts from the real fundamentals.

my point is i included a vid that shows how simple it is,, i included patent also, and many others over the years,

as we may say now we can do what Stan did, and understand the principles due to research, and a few conclusions./

i wouldn't even waste my time with stans stuff when a inductive transformer and a simple switch is all that is needed.. cheers..

so i say it works the same way. the water is not the capacitor.

I feel the point is being somewhat distracted here.  Stan made a car run on water.  Saying a transformer and a switch is all that is needed doesn't mean much out of context.  Needed to do what?  Run a car on water?   

I'd sure like to see the experiment, rather than the claims.

Thread gone cold.............Stan Was Not A Fraud !!
That Is the point.

Quote from hydrofuelincanada on April 30th, 2015, 09:06 PM

Thread gone cold.............Stan Was Not A Fraud !!
That Is the point.

Agreed. Years ago when I started my development I made a Remote Viewing session on Stan Meyer and it showed that Stan was a honest man and was dealing with serious stuff. No hints for fraud at all. Looking at his huge number of costly patents and his long-term development should make clear for everyone that he was really on something serious.

looking at water and it´s role on this planet in the oceans, in the air for weather dynamics and in each and any living creature should make clear that water is something extraordinarily special and not the stuff we are using to flush the toilet ...

Stan´s development tried to mimic natural water dynamics in a box and he succeeded.

it´s obvious that mother nature´s ways to extract energy from water in a living cell is much more advanced than our technology and that´s the true reason why we have to put our brains together, cooperate and try to crack the nut.

it´s not easy to get it running, but maybe it´s a test for cooperation.

once we work together and give away our individual know how we might be gifted to get it run ...

Stan had a close connection to God who told him how to proceed ...

Is that the same for us?

maybe we have learn to support each other anyway.

I do find it odd, that stan never published any research on the efficiency of his system.
Apart from claims/statements he made on production rates.
With so many replications now being made surely someone has done some measurements on the efficiency of the system? I would think thats a primary piece of data required to know if its worth pursuing replications?

Quote from brettly on May 1st, 2015, 05:44 AM

With so many replications now being made surely someone has done some measurements on the efficiency of the system?

Which replications would that be?

Things are not simple ...

There were many attempts in the past at different forums to replicate Stan Meyer´s stuff.
Euphoric hurrays popped up here and there and after some time there was silence.

At energeticforum in 2010 a project was stopped by moderator Aaron Murakami,
at hereticalbuilders there were too few interested members involved and here everyone can decide on himself ...

very few people planned and described their project en detail and fewer were honest enough to tell that they failed. no protocols, no detailed description, no cooperation ...

the same here at this forum .. there is no single place organized to plan, document and describe the steps needed to operate that technology.

it´s not easy and time consuming to do that but it´s necessary for cooperation if cooperation is wanted at all ...

separate groups are trying to reach their goals and only "success stories" are posted ...

and whenever a project starts there are naysayers and critics who try to sabotage that activity ...




all that is far away from a level of professionalism that is needed to get that nut cracked.
we always have to keep in mind that few of us are technology professionals and lots of competence has to be built up before a project can start.

so it´s unbelieveable for me that we can´t make one big step for cooperation.
maybe we can´t reach that goal to continue Stan´s work before we have learned to

- trust each other
- dump cons
- share competence and ressources
- ...

time will tell ...

Quote from firepinto on April 13th, 2015, 08:48 PM

I feel the point is being somewhat distracted here.  Stan made a car run on water.  Saying a transformer and a switch is all that is needed doesn't mean much out of context.  Needed to do what?  Run a car on water?   

I'd sure like to see the experiment, rather than the claims.

i thought i posted this already but i guess i did not..4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxIiRrl6l6E#ws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHxK1VWrXcM#

I thought to open  my thread, but I think this place will be good enough-Here we will return  honor to man which you are humiliating because of yours ignorance(for your own ignorance, man  himself is responsible no one else)                          so is there anyone smart enough to stand against me               it would be wise that you have some  professor or scientists on your side or you can simply  joined together.RIS

one thought experiment---I think my mind playing with me  but I'm not sure.we need a power dam--so one power dam produces a certain amount of energy depending on a downward trend and the water pressure,but if we put 10 power dams one after the other we should get 10 times more energy   but if you want return the water to the first power dam we need energy of one power dam , from this it follows that we have 9 times more energy

gold

http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.phpdid


i see 2 twisting torques, and what else do you see? a stabilizing outer and inner coil? :heart: :idea:

i can now affix cylinders of copper in place of the coil, and get rotation on the axis, and at the cylinders.. :idea:
that will show how to visualize the folding of n space..

Tommy,
I do not know if your still checking this post but if you refer to my Wakeup!!! Is it possible were using the wrong Science? post you will find all the evidence you shall need. I also suggest that you do a lil more reading in old books nothing newer then the 40's and you will find alot of interesting things you did not realize. I for one think I understand what Stan was doing and he did it on his own because he knew he would not be able to do it in a lab somewhere. This is expensive and remember he pioneered it all the way he had it. Maybe his devices came from others inspiration as mine do. But and here is the big BUT. He was doing something we all thought was impossible at the time. Everyone except those industries involved and knew about his research and its implications to the world. Mostly theirs. I hope you will take the time to read my post and you will find some of the answers.
Best wishes,
Eyeindanorth

"was stan a fraud?"   the heading of thread is open to personal opinion  .failure to build a similar device does not mean SM was  fraud . 
I say SIMILAR because the available circuit diagram is only a picture that people have copied . 
If you want to protect your device would you distribute the circuit diagram ?
All inventors have a right to protect their invention and their invention is a n extention of themselves so privacy is their right .
on that basis SM , puharich , horvath etc are  not frauds .
I dont have to much faith in the released/published info of inventors but I certainly beleive in the inventors and their inventions

Re: was Stan a FRAUD?
No he was NOT, I know this from first hand and stop the insinuation untill you can prove it!

Still need to learn and testing how to and how much to inject of the HydrOxygas.
The proper Air/Fuel ratio is the most important and critical part of this, ther is no guess work allowed because of the extremly high flame-speed ignition and flammability of the HydrOxygas.

See below relevant info:
Gasoline Vapor Concentration by Volume:
The minimum concentration of a particular combustible gas or vapor necessary to support its combustion in air is defined as the
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) for that gas (examples: hydrogen, butane, propane, gasoline fumes, etc.).
Below this level, the mixture is too “lean” to burn.

The maximum concentration of a gas or vapor that will burn in air is defined as the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL).
At the UEL, is the most efficient – greatest explosion.

Beyond that, less oxygen is available for combustion. (and the excess gas, fumes, is wasted)

LEL for gasoline vapor: 1.2%
UEL for gasoline vapor: 7.1%

LEL for Propane: 2.1%
UEL for Propane: 9.5%

LEL for Hydrogen: 4.0%
UEL for Hydrogen: 75.0%

Ref.: from Gas Data Book, 7th edition, copyright 2001 by
Matheson Gas Products, and from Bulletin 627,

Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors,
Copyright 1965 by U.S.Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. All concentrations in percent by volume.

Greetings, Alex

Welcome aboard Alex.  Good to have you over here at OSE.  I would like so much to setup a workbench for you.  Please PM me if you are interested.


For those that do not know what Alex has been up to, let me just say he has done some fabulous work--way beyond what I did with my Genset Conversion Project.  I definitely have my fingers crossed for his implementation to work as desired.

Gasoline Vapor Concentration by Volume:
The minimum concentration of a particular combustible gas or vapor necessary to support its combustion in air is defined as the
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) for that gas (examples: hydrogen, butane, propane, gasoline fumes, etc.).
Below this level, the mixture is too “lean” to burn.

The maximum concentration of a gas or vapor that will burn in air is defined as the Upper Explosive Limit (UEL).
At the UEL, is the most efficient – greatest explosion.

Beyond that, less oxygen is available for combustion. (and the excess gas, fumes, is wasted)

LEL for gasoline vapor: 1.2%
UEL for gasoline vapor: 7.1%

LEL for Propane: 2.1%
UEL for Propane: 9.5%

LEL for Hydrogen: 4.0%
UEL for Hydrogen: 75.0%

Ref.: from Gas Data Book, 7th edition, copyright 2001 by
Matheson Gas Products, and from Bulletin 627,

Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and Vapors,
Copyright 1965 by U.S.Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. All concentrations in percent by volume.




this is important info even though it is readily available .  petrol is not ideal fuel , the oil industry has to put additives in fuel for it to ignite .  petrol that is left in a container loses the volatile additives and petrol reverts  back to the poor quality fuel it began as .
water is the ultimate source of Hydrogen as it reverts back to water .

the only problem encountered with extraction of Hydrogen from water is by being limited to traditional electrolysis , and "Limited" doesnt mean , electrolysis is the only option


PS:  the Hydrogen Limits = 4% to 75%   also allows a window for inventors like Stan , Puharich , Horvath ,  and others
no one has first hand data to say how much gas these guys were generating per minute ,in their inventions but what ever it was it was enough to satisfy an engine .

Its calculations of gas production from the view point of bystanders that numbers dont stack up but then the numbers are based on traditional electrolysis , which is quite likely a different subject