As Edzel Murphy says: "If anything can go wrong it will ..." ;)
Sometimes I think man is not mature to get that technology in his hands ...
Ego .. ego everywhere ... I give up on man ... (to be precise I did some time ago ...)

Get on with it guys ... I can´t help ...

professionals always find ways to get around these problems ... but forums don´t ...

you are right ,but because of the good perhaps the best intentions ,we can not run around without thinking and  make bad decisions  that can cost you your head

I just don't understand what it is about this technology that is turning so many people against each other. I do understand why big oil and the big players would kill you for trying to get this out. But I just can't wrap my head around all the infighting that i have see on all forums over the years against each other. So many of you don't understand i am trying to protecting my life not from you, but from those that don't want this out to the people. I can show you photos of military helicopters flying over my house and hovering over my house. And yet I am still talking to you all. Only my team members has know about this, but now it is out there to the world.

gpssonar,

I have looked at dielectric properties to water in the past, that's why I brought up the question of where 78.54ohms came from,
from what I know 78 is the dielectric constant not ohms, water is not measured in ohms,

you measure the conductance which for the purest form of degassed distilled water is in the order of 1.7microhmo/cm, 1million microhmo been equal to 1 Siemen,

water conductivity meters measure in microsiemens/cm  millisiemens/cm not ohms,
I have water conductance meters that measure in those units and also total dissolved solids  and owned a schlumberger bench meter than measured those fractions of Siemens of conductance,

even with lots of impurities you will never get anything vaguely close to 78ohms unless you are talking about the capacitive reactance of the cell @ a given frequency which is measured in ohms,
that been imaginary ohms of capacitive reactance,

anybody that knows anything about water conductivity and capacitors should understand what I'm saying,

you are correct the info on gas in water or bubbles in water when measuring conductance or capacitance of a water filled capacitor greatly effects the reading,
I'm new here I can assure you it is not something I learned on this forum, its something I have known for over 30 years,

I hope that clears up why I disagree with 78ohms, its a misuse of terminology that will only confuse people and not the dielectric properties of water as claimed in the papers you posted,

I am not here to cause trouble or steal anything from you and I do appreciate the work you have put into this project.

Quote from gpssonar on December 6th, 2015, 10:29 AM

I just don't understand what it is about this technology that is turning so many people against each other. I do understand why big oil and the big players would kill you for trying to get this out. But I just can't wrap my head around all the infighting that i have see on all forums over the years against each other. So many of you don't understand i am trying to protecting my life not from you, but from those that don't want this out to the people. I can show you photos of military helicopters flying over my house and hovering over my house. And yet I am still talking to you all. Only my team members has know about this, but now it is out there to the world.

I don't want this for me Ronnie, I want it for everyone so they can escape the big oil you mentioned. If the spooks already know you're onto something, get the plans posted all over the world before its too late, that way if they come for you it'll be too late.

Resonance, My first question to you is where have you ever seen that Stan used pure water (distilled)? Not that it can't be use. But in all the documents i have read he always talks about Natural water. As far as the 78.54 whether you use it in ohms or not. Use that number as the Re and you can't go wrong.

Quote from nav on December 6th, 2015, 10:35 AM

I don't want this for me Ronnie, I want it for everyone so they can escape the big oil you mentioned. If the spooks already know you're onto something, get the plans posted all over the world before its too late, that way if they come for you it'll be too late.

The plans are in Canada, Croatia, New Zealand, Australia and in the USA that's enough for me right now. I'm sure that is enough to get this out to the world at a push of a button. And with the people that I trust with my life that will push the button.

Quote from gpssonar on December 6th, 2015, 10:42 AM

The plans are in Canada, Croatia, New Zealand, Australia and in the USA that's enough for me right now. I'm sure that is enough to get this out to the world at a push of a button.

You've got more chance of getting through this if each person in those Countries mails those plans to every man and his dog all over the world. Your chances are less for each person getting through this while ever you hold onto the plans, that is just plain old common sense.

I would say catch 22 is catch 78.54      but resonance you have no doubt true informations

gpssonar

Stan clearly states in his talk that the setup works even with the purest forms of distilled water and natural water is what he used,
its no coincidence Stan said 78 because that is the dielectric constant of the purest form of distilled water,
its clearly shown to be that in the chart you posted but its not ohms and never will be ohms,
he also mentions ppm values up to 30 or 40 in his talk also shown on the chart you posted,

natural water tap water or any water is nothing like 78ohms of anything unless you are talking about
capacitive reactance which is what you tune into in a resonant circuit,
its what moves dramatically when gas production starts and why you start at low volts with little gas and wind it up retuning as you go to regain resonance,

if it was 78ohms of resistance that would cause so much leakage you would never ever get any high voltage into the cell.

How can you use an ohmic unit in an equation when dielectric value is a unitless number not an ohmic number?
That's like saying AMPS x GREEN is power consumed,

Im not saying the formula won't work, only that it is not ohms and to claim it is an error that could confuse people..

I'm not going to get into what Stan means about 78.54ohms. Just use the number as the Re is all you need to know, it will just get into another argument that i don't need right now. I got to run to the Hospital, you all can thrash it all out for awhile.

It´s obvious that none of us has the complete solution for a prototype - but all of us hold parts of the puzzle in our hands ...

how would monkey deal with that situation???

Quote from Gunther Rattay on December 6th, 2015, 11:24 AM

It´s obvious that none of us has the complete solution for a prototype - but all of us hold parts of the puzzle in our hands ...

how would monkey deal with that situation???

Possibly, I think I'm only missing one fact, but if I get that fact wrong it will cost me money. I'll be honest, i'm missing how the core is shut down during resonance so current cannot flow, if all the coils are wound the same way it can't be opposing flux fields. The only other sollution I can think of is the 2 C shaped core parts. It could well be that there is a gap underneath the primary and the primary forms a flux bridge while its charging the core but during resonance the 220 Ohm resistor drags the current out of the primary so that it can no longer form a flux bridge.

you can wind them all same direction but can wire them in opposite direction.

I've cut the legs off the C cores and pasted and they do not reach each other. I've straightened the chokes up a little, they only reach the edge of the holes.

What I would like to know if anybody is willing to enlighten us,

is there an air gap in the core to stop the core saturating due to DC pulses in the same direction?

single ended pure class A tube amplifiers use a gapped core because you have DC bias in the primary winding that reduces the cores ability to act like a transformer, the air gap greatly reduces the saturation,
it has secondary effects we need not go into here,

Are the same ideas been used here to allow the chokes to choke current in a DC setup?

If they are and pulsing is saturating your core so the chokes don't choke current as effectively as they should, you will  end up with current flow and possibly burning up your pulsing transformer.

Thanks

Quote from Gunther Rattay on December 6th, 2015, 11:53 AM

you can wind them all same direction but can wire them in opposite direction.

That's what I used to think.

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

Not any more.  Now I understand Konehead's winding pattern.

What about if all three coils are a shorted bifilar where you start with a U bend at the bottom of the bobbin then wind clockwise in a pair. So you would finish with two wires facing the same direction at the top of the coil but at the bottom it would just be a return loop. This would have current going in opposite directions side by side and cancel the inductance field. Emmmmmm

Posted: December 6th, 2015, 02:21 PM

Or better still, start off with a loop at the bottom then wind one positive layer and stop then wind one negative layer on top of that then alternate layers alway up to the top, You would end up with layers of capacitance and the inductance fields would cancel. Double emmmmmmm

Quote from nav on December 6th, 2015, 02:33 PM

What about if all three coils are a shorted bifilar where you start with a U bend at the bottom of the bobbin then wind clockwise in a pair. So you would finish with two wires facing the same direction at the top of the coil but at the bottom it would just be a return loop. This would have current going in opposite directions side by side and cancel the inductance field. Emmmmmm

Posted: December 6th, 2015, 02:21 PM

Or better still, start off with a loop at the bottom then wind one positive layer and stop then wind one negative layer on top of that then alternate layers alway up to the top, You would end up with layers of capacitance and the inductance fields would cancel. Double emmmmmmm

the bifilar version is the way Ed winds his transformers to cancel out current.

I forgot to add these photos about the military helicopter that hovered over my house. If you know anything about these types of military helicopters you will know what they are capable of doing.

gpsssonar,

Im not trying to start an argument with you or anybody else, Im sorry if it appears that way, its not meant to,
I came here to try to help & learn something not argue with people,
I have no idea what has gone on in the past or what goes down on other forums. I do understand there are folk out there that would given the chance steal you work and claim it as their own to make a buck,

a quick look at the spectrophotometric analysis chart you posted will tell you that only the purest form distilled water has a dielectric constant or value or whatever you choose to call it ;) of 78.54 and that changes with temperature,
as will the capacitance and series resonant frequency & that's without producing any gas at all,

when distilled water is tested to determine its dielectric constant they degas it usually by boiling it in the test cell to remove any dissolved gases that would skew the measurement, Stan also mentions the dissolved gases been released in his talk,

natural water is not even close to 78, I hope you can see why I was scratching my head over 78ohms.

If Im wrong then show me where or why you think Im wrong,

Thanks

Quote from gpssonar on December 6th, 2015, 04:39 PM

I forgot to add these photos about the military helicopter that hovered over my house. If you know anything about these types of military helicopters you will know what they are capable of doing.

Aaah, the little Kiowas...   I'd rather catch'm when they take off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akce9veZ1cM

You know, I talked to an Army Apache pilot not long ago.  He said the Army is dumping all of these choppers.  I said, "Really.  Why in the heck for?"  He wouldn't answer.  So I pressed him a little, then said, "Going to SpecOps right?"  He gave me a dirty look.

Sorry Nav, It's time for some music.  Here you go Ronnie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAxzr9BdnkA


It's my way of saying, "Thank you Ronnie."  And...

"Let an old guy take care of some business."

Your Welcome Matt, and thanks for the song, it was much needed.
All I know it wasn't fun at all to see that thing about 150 ft hovering directly over the center of my house for about 5 Min. Had my knees knocking that's for sure. It circled my house at least 6 or 7 times before leaving.

@resonance1
This is just me saying, If i were doing a test on any type of water and i wanted to research what Stan meant by 78.54 ohms I would do a resistance test to the flow of amps in a cell like Stan's, I would use a cell like Stan's with the same gap and size of a cell and apply a power supply to it that had volts and amps on it, then i would apply a voltage at 1 volt 2 volt 3 volt and so on until i seen the first sign of one single bubble come out of the cell. Then i would notice the amp and voltage that i seen that first bubble at. then i would calculate the amps and voltage to give me the resistance of where the reaction started taking place. I may even flood the cell with different levels of gas with higher voltages and see what that gives me also to see what it does to the resistance. I also may try and find where the voltage and amp in the cell equals 78.54 ohms and take notice what is taking place in the cell. There is some common since solutions to try. Try it and see what you think. It's not about arguing, it's all about finding out why he uses 78.54 ohms as the Re in his formulas so many times in his document. Only research will put a stop to difference of opinions. I've did all this and more to find the answer.