I have a question though it might not make sense physically? Every other rod instead of inside and outside of each?

Quote from soulfluence on April 23rd, 2018, 01:08 AM

I know I'm new here, but capacitance is resonance in this case is it not???

The reason why I say that is because a standing wave is what is being used to induce current along with a gate, back and forth back and forth.

This is a refreshing perspective to look at resonance as standing waves. The standing waves at resonance should be locked into position via phase-lock. Meyer's VIC does just that.

The VIC circuit is a PLL circuit.

To have a standing wave, you need a long enough wire, such as a delay line or transmission line. Transmission lines on poles traversing T.E.M. waves at 50/60Hz does not produce standing waves.

Quote from haxar on April 23rd, 2018, 05:59 AM

To have a standing wave, you need a long enough wire, such as a delay line or transmission line. Transmission lines on poles traversing T.E.M. waves at 50/60Hz does not produce standing waves.

Well, not usually. We had such a problem where I grew up. Can't remember how they fixed it, though.

At 60 Hz, a full-wave would resonate at 2049.10636 miles, ³/₄-wave at 1536.82977 miles, ¹/₂-wave at 1024.55318 miles, and ¹/₄-wave at 512.27659 miles... assuming a velocity factor of high-voltage transmission line of 66%. The twisted configuration of the typical high-voltage line causes a lower velocity factor than a solid conductor.



An open ended transmission line will have infinite DC impedance. At ¹/₄ wave frequency, the impedance will be low (it would be zero if there were no line losses). At ¹/₂ wave, impedance is nearly infinity (not infinity due to losses). As frequency is increased it keeps repeating... low at ³/₄, high at 1, low at 1-¹/₄, etc.

If the line is shorted the impedance is zero at DC, high at ¹/₄, low at ¹/₂, high at ³/₄, etc.

I noticed in a test by JLN labs back in 2013, a bifilar coil was used.  They seemed to have some results.  The scope pattern looked similar to Stan's plans.  From what I understand of this it is cavitation in the end that separates the bonds.  I also have an idea to create an electromagnetic field in the VIC.  I am still in limbo to what design is best and I don't know even now if anyone has actually replicated his design.

I noticed looking down in a picture of the VIC that between the two electrodes there seems to be a metallic strip wound like a spring from the bottom to the top.  I'm going to go look again.

Supposedly in a transmission line, it's the relative permittivity between conductors that governs the velocity factor.



This capacitance coupled with the inductance of the conductors themselves determines the characteristic impedance.



I'm becoming more and more convinced we need to look at these devices from the perspective of a transmission line, because if you can alter the speed of propagation, you can control time and if you can control time, the speed of light is no longer such a huge barrier to overcome.

Does anyone here know of anyone who actually made this thing work the way Stanley Meyer did?  I don't need names or anything like that, I just want to know so I can go with some other things.  Many people have gone through this and if it's not something that's going to benefit the world I dunno.  I'm gettin old...

To date we can say well over 200 People have made the method work as described using Voltage to split water and avoid Amps .

Pretty much no further info will be provided beyond that except to say it is worth while endeavor to study the various forum resources here and plastered around the worlds web  and you tube etc.

Most of us here are focused on replicating the extra services in Stans Electronics to control the extra performance and consistency in high ranges or variations to the Cell and Chokes Coils etc to make it more simply and with modern electronics to go beyond the base method of using voltrolysis and restricting amps to make h2 using his method using 8xa 9XB 9xa.

If you are looking to see if Stan Meyers methods and notes have been validated that has been done by several Universities and
JL  Nordin to name 1 all is on the web.

No many people out there going to say much beyond the basic yes it works and basic advice on rebuild things due to the history surrounding tech, the Home Builders are out there as are the Hydrogen Hot Rodders on mass rather under ground stuff it will come forward fast all of a sudden alot of free and interesting help is posted around this forum and web if it is covered you will get a link or a short answer ask right question get right answer stuff..

People post when they drink coffee and have free time these days.

Quote from securesupplies on April 24th, 2018, 02:09 PM

To date we can say well over 200 People have made the method work as described using Voltage to split water and avoid Amps .

:rofl2:

And Russ hasn't yet?  Hmmm...   Doesn't compute.

Quote from Matt Watts on April 24th, 2018, 03:04 PM

Quote from securesupplies on April 24th, 2018, 02:09 PM

To date we can say well over 200 People have made the method work as described using Voltage to split water and avoid Amps .

:rofl2:

And Russ hasn't yet?  Hmmm...   Doesn't compute.

These projects are showing something in common.

I do understand that the process works, my question was referring to the amount of hydrogen produced vs. faraday-type direct electrolysis.  This is my main concern.  If a baseline has been established to get more hydrogen using Stan's method with less energy than regular electrolysis by at least 10%, the rest is just fine tuning different things like you stated.

I actually have some ideas to enhance the process as long as it does what I said in my last comment.  I wanted to experiment with adding some type of galvanic aluminum, electromagnetic fields, etc., but there are certain things I wanted to know before I went out and bought materials and fabricated.

Quote from soulfluence on April 24th, 2018, 09:08 PM

I do understand that the process works, my question was referring to the amount of hydrogen produced vs. faraday-type direct electrolysis.  This is my main concern.  If a baseline has been established to get more hydrogen using Stan's method with less energy than regular electrolysis by at least 10%, the rest is just fine tuning different things like you stated.

Faraday, or brute-force electrolysis, is used as a point of reference for the non-Faraday output that you get.

Exactly, has anyone proved 10% more hydrogen than brute-force electrolysis?  Actually, how about 20%?  That sounds more comfortable.

If I had measuring equipment fitted to my 3" one-cell mason Ball jar, the data would get interesting.

I found something AWESOME!!!                      http://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A3681/datastream/OBJ/view/Applications_of_pulse_width_modulation_to_LEDs__fuel_cells_and_battery_technology.pdf

Someone actually did their thesis on this!  Hopefully this is a real thesis; ugh...

If you can get your hands on an actual membrane-type fuel cell and pulse it with controlled duty cycles, you may well find a sweet spot that exceeds Faraday electrolysis.  Certainly worth a shot.  Whether or not you can fabricate a self-running system or not is another story--the quickest way to find out is connect a similar fuel cell used as a Hydrogen consumer and see if electrical output power exceeds electrical input power to the system.  That would tell the story, then it becomes simply a matter of scale to get the energy levels you are after.

Quote from soulfluence on April 25th, 2018, 12:18 AM

Exactly, has anyone proved 10% more hydrogen than brute-force electrolysis?  Actually, how about 20%?  That sounds more comfortable.

I remember reading about people demonstrating far above a mere 20%... I can't remember the exact percentage, but it was on the order of 600%. Plants can dissociate water to generate hydrocarbon (C₆H₁₂O₆) with as little as 160 mV using catalysts. We can do the same.

Yes, Cycle, I was just going to mention this.  One of the catalysts is something like nano ---- aluminum.  I saw it demonstrated by just dropping it in water .  When it made contact with water the water almost looked like it was boiling.  That technology is said to be being used by the Army.  Also, I just want to mention the whole thing I see people arguing about in comments on utube.  The processes of getting hydrogen from water and the use of hydrogen to power an internal combustion engine are two separate processes.  A lot of people make some kind of thermodynamics claim how it can't be done, due to certain "laws," which is b.s.  They first say nothing can be created or destroyed, which is most likely wrong.  Theoretical physicists from what I read say that particles flow in and out of the universe all of the time. As for the second argument, they are two separate processes.  Dropping a simple catalyst that is very inexpensive into water proves that IMO.  I would get more into it, but I am being rushed out the door atm.

I didn't mean to sound like a douche, but watching those people argue it as if it's impossible to drive a car because of thermodynamics and the amount of energy it takes to break water into hydrogen and oxygen.  Faraday's law is just one process, a direct equation between electricity and water/hydrogen production.  Using catalysts, another way.  For people stuck thinking about the laws I would say think of it this way:  Say you are on another planet with a totally different atmosphere where there is no oxygen, but there is hydrogen.  Would it still take faraday's law to gather up the hydrogen?  Other than that, yeah, I'm just talking too much.

Catalysts themselves prove there are other ways is what I'm saying I guess.

I think that thesis is fake btw, Honkee's wang?

Quote from soulfluence on April 25th, 2018, 05:05 PM

Yes, Cycle, I was just going to mention this.  One of the catalysts is something like nano ---- aluminum.  I saw it demonstrated by just dropping it in water .  When it made contact with water the water almost looked like it was boiling.  That technology is said to be being used by the Army.

A Gallium + Aluminum mixture does this to water (at 5m30s):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeghGhVdt9s&t=5m30s