It appears to me after looking through stans patents that the epg is pretty high up in "ranking" of difficulty if you will. It is also evident that the electrical systems implemented in the first couple patents are much more straightforward than later on. It becomes clear that each successive patent uses concepts and techniques implemented in the previous patents. My question is why would you guys who havent even replicated the most simple/fundamental patents of meyer think you can just head on into the most abstract difficult one??... it makes no sense and is just a massive set up for failure.

Quote from reverandkilljoy on December 20th, 2012, 06:37 PM

It appears to me after looking through stans patents that the epg is pretty high up in "ranking" of difficulty if you will. It is also evident that the electrical systems implemented in the first couple patents are much more straightforward than later on. It becomes clear that each successive patent uses concepts and techniques implemented in the previous patents. My question is why would you guys who havent even replicated the most simple/fundamental patents of meyer think you can just head on into the most abstract difficult one??... it makes no sense and is just a massive set up for failure.

Is this constructive criticism? Being your first post I would think you would be more inclined to show us your replications of Meyer's patents. I guess your name is really suppose to mean something.

Quote from reverandkilljoy on December 20th, 2012, 06:37 PM

It appears to me after looking through stans patents that the epg is pretty high up in "ranking" of difficulty if you will. It is also evident that the electrical systems implemented in the first couple patents are much more straightforward than later on. It becomes clear that each successive patent uses concepts and techniques implemented in the previous patents. My question is why would you guys who havent even replicated the most simple/fundamental patents of meyer think you can just head on into the most abstract difficult one??... it makes no sense and is just a massive set up for failure.

So, Reverand, what have you got to show for yourself then?

If it wasn't for the ones thinking outside the box this World would sure be a dull place.

AFAIK there's very few who has been successful in replicating the free energy
devices of such inventors as Tesla, Moray, Meyer et al.
My guess is that the ones who actually has had something to show for also had
a go at trying to make a living on it, which ended up with the whole thing being
locked up somewhere, probably together with the inventor himself, and the key
consequently thrown away for all eternity.

So I'm all for diving in on all kinds of these patents, regardless of for what or
when they were filed.
Who knows, maybe someone gets lucky and actually decides to give it away for
absolutely free to the rest of us?

BTW, that is the very purpose of this forum

its true I should replicate the appollo 13 craft even though i've never built a rocket before

Quote from reverandkilljoy on December 25th, 2012, 10:55 AM

its true I should replicate the appollo 13 craft even though i've never built a rocket before

Hey getting off our butt and trying something is better than just looking it it like its too "over our heads" to try...

If you look at Stan's "time line" the Epg is the first patent's filed... Why? Is there something to learn from it? Why was it patented first? Is it where he stsrted his research? Could be... There is something to learn from it? Or is it all just a failure and that's why it's not " in the final design" ?

One won't know till they try...

Blessings ~Russ

Ps. Please slide back to the topic. Your kinda drifting off topic. This is a thred about building the EPG or how it should work. Not why we will fail.

Quote from reverandkilljoy on December 25th, 2012, 10:55 AM

its true I should replicate the appollo 13 craft even though i've never built a rocket before

I'd be happy to push the launch button for you.

Quote from m3sca1 on April 28th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote from Blazer on April 23rd, 2011, 10:45 PM

What if mirrors or mylar or some other highly reflective materials were placed and the light from the arc was bounced with in the chamber or within the pipe?             YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION          STAN MEYER

Hi Blazer
Also a glass tube of large enough diameter would allow "total internal reflection" of the input light pulses.
Such a thing would be a very easy job for someone who makes Neon signs...

Quote from admin on April 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

And you are right, the main problem, I feel, with most everyones research is that they are not willing to share all the details.  This makes any single person with all the details an easy target to remove from the equation

Hi Matt
This situaution has come about because of patents and the thought that a persons work should be able to make them rich when they patent it.
Most inventors are not aware of the 'patent secrecy catergory review list'.
Which is an international clause in the patent process that covers any invention that among other things makes claim to over unity.
Careful wording and ommissions can get around being slapped with a secrecy order but since most are ignorant of the secrecy clause then they end up being silenced for "national security" reasons.

Thats what makes open sourcing so important in todays environment.
BTW finding a current listing of what is classed as "security risk" has been impossible for me-the most current one i found online was 1978,which listed solar panels over 21% efficient as requiring a secrecy order.

You got to ask GOD, understanding you need permission, GOD will grant it.

Quote from Lynx on December 20th, 2012, 11:16 PM

AFAIK there's very few who has been successful in replicating the free energy
devices of such inventors as Tesla, Moray, Meyer et al.
My guess is that the ones who actually has had something to show for also had
a go at trying to make a living on it, which ended up with the whole thing being
locked up somewhere, probably together with the inventor himself, and the key
consequently thrown away for all eternity.

I disagree.

Tesla´s wireless energy transmission has been successfiully replicated by German Professor Konstantin Meyl publicly demonstrated at Keshe´s "startup" on Sept 21st, 2012 in Belgium. I was eye wittness of that event.

Meyl has experimented for some years and created a theoretical model for scalar waves explaining some of Tesla´s effects. then he has built an experimentation kit sold from round about year 2000. everybody can purchase that kit from http://www.k-meyl.de/xt_shop/index.php?cat=c5_Hardware.html&XTCsid=0705d5d5b1389681340cdcdcc878d8fc

BTW it has been sold round about 500 times within the last 10 years ?!? LOL
Anyone here so poor that he can´t take the efforts to drive a car and pay the fuel?
No? so there should be some people out here at the forum willing to pay some bucks for others´ components, right?

Lessons learned: it needs competence, a working theoretical model and laboratory equipment for some years to make a successfull replication.
and it needs people willing to pay for others expertise and work ...

free energy doesn´t mean free access to others´ inventions or creations without personal effort or investment. no risk - no fun :-)

Meyl also has replicated Stan Meyer´s work financing that project on his own.

I feel sad but I can understand that he doesn´t want to give it away for free but who here at "open source" wants to pay something for another one´s work?

so everyone here is on his own despite open source ... What a pity!

got it?

Quote from bussi04 on December 26th, 2012, 12:57 PM

Quote from Lynx on December 20th, 2012, 11:16 PM

AFAIK there's very few who has been successful in replicating the free energy
devices of such inventors as Tesla, Moray, Meyer et al.
My guess is that the ones who actually has had something to show for also had
a go at trying to make a living on it, which ended up with the whole thing being
locked up somewhere, probably together with the inventor himself, and the key
consequently thrown away for all eternity.

I disagree.

Tesla´s wireless energy transmission has been successfiully replicated by German Professor Konstantin Meyl publicly demonstrated at Keshe´s "startup" on Sept 21st, 2012 in Belgium. I was eye wittness of that event.

Meyl has experimented for some years and created a theoretical model for scalar waves explaining some of Tesla´s effects. then he has built an experimentation kit sold from round about year 2000. everybody can purchase that kit from http://www.k-meyl.de/xt_shop/index.php?cat=c5_Hardware.html&XTCsid=0705d5d5b1389681340cdcdcc878d8fc

BTW it has been sold round about 500 times within the last 10 years ?!? LOL
Anyone here so poor that he can´t take the efforts to drive a car and pay the fuel?
No? so there should be some people out here at the forum willing to pay some bucks for others´ components, right?

Lessons learned: it needs competence, a working theoretical model and laboratory equipment for some years to make a successfull replication.
and it needs people willing to pay for others expertise and work ...

free energy doesn´t mean free access to others´ inventions or creations without personal effort or investment. no risk - no fun :-)

Meyl also has replicated Stan Meyer´s work financing that project on his own.

I feel sad but I can understand that he doesn´t want to give it away for free but who here at "open source" wants to pay something for another one´s work?

so everyone here is on his own despite open source ... What a pity!

got it?

What do you mean with "got it"?



I can only speak for myself when I say that if I ever would (re)discover some
free energy device then I'd publish my findings on this very forum for absolutely
free, with no strings attached what so ever.

On the other hand, if someone were to offer such a device for a certain sum
of money, not being a fortune that is, then I'd seriously consider ordering
one of these, whatever it may be, I'd have no problem with that.
The only thing I'd have to consider in that case would be if the device at hand
were to provide power in the Kw range, not mw.

Even if it was open source and someone were to offer such a kit I'd still consider
placing an order for it, if nothing else for the sake of saving me the trouble of
searching for and/or machining the parts for it myself.

Btw, did Meyl transmit like 10 kW of electric power wirelessly at the demonstration
you witnessed?
What would be the minimum power required to operate an electric car anyway,
10/20/50.........kW?

Quote from Lynx on December 26th, 2012, 01:57 PM

Btw, did Meyl transmit like 10 kW of electric power wirelessly at the demonstration
you witnessed?
What would be the minimum power required to operate an electric car anyway,
10/20/50.........kW?

No, it was in the 10 W range. the problem Meyl stated is that the power sent must be consumed at the same time. if power is delivered but not consumed the system would influence our biosphere.

to build a transmitter as Tesla did for his single electric car at 20 - 50 KW would be a first step of professional experimental setup and to set up a MW transmitter would be a job for a company like General Electric or Siemens or similar.

I want to settle the idea that open source alone will not do the job as long as some have the competence to solve technical problems but are suffering from lack of money. others with some amount of money but without technical expertise should support first party I think.

Looking at preliminary results at open-source-energy.org some activities have started within the last 18 months and there are a few thousand forum members. To my opinion there is lot of technical entertainment but less result than expected ...

So let´s hope for some progress in 2013.

Quote from bussi04 on December 26th, 2012, 03:10 PM

Quote from Lynx on December 26th, 2012, 01:57 PM

Btw, did Meyl transmit like 10 kW of electric power wirelessly at the demonstration
you witnessed?
What would be the minimum power required to operate an electric car anyway,
10/20/50.........kW?

No, it was in the 10 W range. the problem Meyl stated is that the power sent must be consumed at the same time. if power is delivered but not consumed the system would influence our biosphere.

to build a transmitter as Tesla did for his single electric car at 20 - 50 KW would be a first step of professional experimental setup and to set up a MW transmitter would be a job for a company like General Electric or Siemens or similar.

I want to settle the idea that open source alone will not do the job as long as some have the competence to solve technical problems but are suffering from lack of money. others with some amount of money but without technical expertise should support first party I think.

Looking at preliminary results at open-source-energy.org some activities have started within the last 18 months and there are a few thousand forum members. To my opinion there is lot of technical entertainment but less result than expected ...

So let´s hope for some progress in 2013.

I see, you're disappointed because you expected to see some results here within
these last 18 months.

That's a pretty arrogant point of view.

Btw, open source alone would do the job just fine with regards to a fully
functioning Meyer WFC to power one's car, such a device could be built by a
majority of the members here themselves, without the need of General Electric
or Siemens.

Got it?

Quote from Lynx on December 26th, 2012, 11:51 PM

I see, you're disappointed because you expected to see some results here within
these last 18 months.

That's a pretty arrogant point of view.

Btw, open source alone would do the job just fine with regards to a fully
functioning Meyer WFC to power one's car, such a device could be built by a
majority of the members here themselves, without the need of General Electric
or Siemens.

Got it?

Who knows, maybe someone gets lucky and actually decides to give it away for
absolutely free to the rest of us?

It won´t be a free giveaway to us, it will be the result of hard and professional work.

To make progress in a community it needs identical equipment to compare results. There is a VIC and bobbins made here, maybe some water fuel cell and an electronic circuit designed here but where are comparable results by some major part of the community? how many members are really building something? I don´t know.

there are few guys trying to replicate the simple circuit from Alex Petty but when they fell in trouble there was no Alex to support them. Alex ended his research some months ago with "this is kinda proof of concept and needs some more exploration"  but without support for replication research for zero amps for hho production may come to an end now. Alex succeeded, 2 replicators failed and got no support from the originator. Uups.

running into trouble like that needs more intensive cooperation and investments and no full stop due to problems I believe. Scientific approach never ends.

my hope was to find a place for cooperation in a network like configuration with shared resources. What I see is a very much Russ centered approach and too many projects in a startup condition.

For my own research I use my own resources (competence and competence buildup, time, ideas, money, equipment) and when I´m running into trouble I have to find my own way to solve the problems. there are many others here working on Stan Meyer´s stuff for years now as I do but why can´t we put our competence together to create a real benefit for common progress?

Of course many of us could build a WFC, a circuit and a VIC by themselves but up to now nobody here seems to be able to produce the amount of hho and ionized oxygen needed to drive a car.

So all those lookalikes seem to need some optimization, right?

When I saw the WFCs and circuits from Meyer´s estate I thought that this configuration should do the job to show an extraordinary amount of hho production but that event was a dead end story after 3 videos ...

If I were in the USA the first thing I would do would be to visit the guy with the Stan Meyer estate and get some first hand information and measurements from that original equipment. To replicate production with the original equipment should be the most efficient way to go I think.

I´m only one of a few thousand forum members here and have these ideas and my way exploring Stan Meyer´s technology. And I´m looking for the forum benefit after some donations and a certain period of time.

Over time I posted my impression that the most dangerous thing for Stan Meyer technology exploration is to circle around in beginners´problems and never step into the really advanced parts of that technology.

I.e. is there anybody out there who has combined a WFC producing a certain amount of hho with a Gas processor ionizing a certain amount of oxygen and measure the power consumed and compared to the explosive power of the mixture?

Yes, I´m critical and there is some frustration, but is it really arrogant?

To my opinion it´s Lessons learned in terms of professional project management.
It´s not entertainment.
Just investment in time and money of the community compared to result ...

that´s my 2 cents.

Quote from Hydr01 on December 26th, 2012, 06:49 AM

Quote from m3sca1 on April 28th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote from Blazer on April 23rd, 2011, 10:45 PM

What if mirrors or mylar or some other highly reflective materials were placed and the light from the arc was bounced with in the chamber or within the pipe?             YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION          STAN MEYER

Hi Blazer
Also a glass tube of large enough diameter would allow "total internal reflection" of the input light pulses.
Such a thing would be a very easy job for someone who makes Neon signs...

Quote from admin on April 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

And you are right, the main problem, I feel, with most everyones research is that they are not willing to share all the details.  This makes any single person with all the details an easy target to remove from the equation

Hi Matt
This situaution has come about because of patents and the thought that a persons work should be able to make them rich when they patent it.
Most inventors are not aware of the 'patent secrecy catergory review list'.
Which is an international clause in the patent process that covers any invention that among other things makes claim to over unity.
Careful wording and ommissions can get around being slapped with a secrecy order but since most are ignorant of the secrecy clause then they end up being silenced for "national security" reasons.

Thats what makes open sourcing so important in todays environment.
BTW finding a current listing of what is classed as "security risk" has been impossible for me-the most current one i found online was 1978,which listed solar panels over 21% efficient as requiring a secrecy order.

You got to ask GOD, understanding you need permission, GOD will grant it.

Those who are of GOD will understand this Spiritually, recap for those who don't.

GOD is real, but so is satan.

The answer is vacuum tubes, Tesla tried to trick them with his wireless energy.
most know that the devices did not need the power transmitter.

What vacuum tubes did Tesla design and make?

the evil does not want you set free, in anything, evil controls, you're already being watched.

If you are heading in the right direction, evil will show up to distract you.

so, in order for evil to control, they get rid of these tubes, i guess it could be understood by this medicine that was taken off the market.

someone comes out with a now-classified drug, that if you had the flu or any sickness, this drug would remove all symptoms, I know because i had taken it.

They removed it from the market rather quickly, its now broke down into many separated forms, taken for many separate symptoms. More money, greed, selfishness and very controlled. Same with the Tubes, the parts need the vacuum or they fissile like distraction.

The same with the parts in the Tesla Vacuum tubes, but once all the parts are reconstructed, placed back in the vacuum. BAM, free unlimited power.

Yes, they stop production of these devices, if you could only re walk the same steps through the patient office.

Find the missing Tubes

Quote from Hydr01 on December 26th, 2012, 06:49 AM

Quote from m3sca1 on April 28th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote from Blazer on April 23rd, 2011, 10:45 PM

What if mirrors or mylar or some other highly reflective materials were placed and the light from the arc was bounced with in the chamber or within the pipe?             YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION          STAN MEYER

Hi Blazer
Also a glass tube of large enough diameter would allow "total internal reflection" of the input light pulses.
Such a thing would be a very easy job for someone who makes Neon signs...

Quote from admin on April 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

And you are right, the main problem, I feel, with most everyones research is that they are not willing to share all the details.  This makes any single person with all the details an easy target to remove from the equation

Hi Matt
This situaution has come about because of patents and the thought that a persons work should be able to make them rich when they patent it.
Most inventors are not aware of the 'patent secrecy catergory review list'.
Which is an international clause in the patent process that covers any invention that among other things makes claim to over unity.
Careful wording and ommissions can get around being slapped with a secrecy order but since most are ignorant of the secrecy clause then they end up being silenced for "national security" reasons.

Thats what makes open sourcing so important in todays environment.
BTW finding a current listing of what is classed as "security risk" has been impossible for me-the most current one i found online was 1978,which listed solar panels over 21% efficient as requiring a secrecy order.

You got to ask GOD, understanding you need permission, GOD will grant it.

Testing parts in Vacuum is the secret to finding the free energy, Tesla had his own Tubes :)
 

Quote from bussi04 on December 27th, 2012, 04:05 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 26th, 2012, 11:51 PM

I see, you're disappointed because you expected to see some results here within
these last 18 months.

That's a pretty arrogant point of view.

Btw, open source alone would do the job just fine with regards to a fully
functioning Meyer WFC to power one's car, such a device could be built by a
majority of the members here themselves, without the need of General Electric
or Siemens.

Got it?

Who knows, maybe someone gets lucky and actually decides to give it away for
absolutely free to the rest of us?

It won´t be a free giveaway to us, it will be the result of hard and professional work.

To make progress in a community it needs identical equipment to compare results. There is a VIC and bobbins made here, maybe some water fuel cell and an electronic circuit designed here but where are comparable results by some major part of the community? how many members are really building something? I don´t know.

there are few guys trying to replicate the simple circuit from Alex Petty but when they fell in trouble there was no Alex to support them. Alex ended his research some months ago with "this is kinda proof of concept and needs some more exploration"  but without support for replication research for zero amps for hho production may come to an end now. Alex succeeded, 2 replicators failed and got no support from the originator. Uups.

running into trouble like that needs more intensive cooperation and investments and no full stop due to problems I believe. Scientific approach never ends.

my hope was to find a place for cooperation in a network like configuration with shared resources. What I see is a very much Russ centered approach and too many projects in a startup condition.

For my own research I use my own resources (competence and competence buildup, time, ideas, money, equipment) and when I´m running into trouble I have to find my own way to solve the problems. there are many others here working on Stan Meyer´s stuff for years now as I do but why can´t we put our competence together to create a real benefit for common progress?

Of course many of us could build a WFC, a circuit and a VIC by themselves but up to now nobody here seems to be able to produce the amount of hho and ionized oxygen needed to drive a car.

So all those lookalikes seem to need some optimization, right?

When I saw the WFCs and circuits from Meyer´s estate I thought that this configuration should do the job to show an extraordinary amount of hho production but that event was a dead end story after 3 videos ...

If I were in the USA the first thing I would do would be to visit the guy with the Stan Meyer estate and get some first hand information and measurements from that original equipment. To replicate production with the original equipment should be the most efficient way to go I think.

I´m only one of a few thousand forum members here and have these ideas and my way exploring Stan Meyer´s technology. And I´m looking for the forum benefit after some donations and a certain period of time.

Over time I posted my impression that the most dangerous thing for Stan Meyer technology exploration is to circle around in beginners´problems and never step into the really advanced parts of that technology.

I.e. is there anybody out there who has combined a WFC producing a certain amount of hho with a Gas processor ionizing a certain amount of oxygen and measure the power consumed and compared to the explosive power of the mixture?

Yes, I´m critical and there is some frustration, but is it really arrogant?

To my opinion it´s Lessons learned in terms of professional project management.
It´s not entertainment.
Just investment in time and money of the community compared to result ...

that´s my 2 cents.

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Quote from Hydr01 on December 26th, 2012, 06:49 AM

Quote from m3sca1 on April 28th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote from Blazer on April 23rd, 2011, 10:45 PM

What if mirrors or mylar or some other highly reflective materials were placed and the light from the arc was bounced with in the chamber or within the pipe?             YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION          STAN MEYER

Hi Blazer
Also a glass tube of large enough diameter would allow "total internal reflection" of the input light pulses.
Such a thing would be a very easy job for someone who makes Neon signs...

Quote from admin on April 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

And you are right, the main problem, I feel, with most everyones research is that they are not willing to share all the details.  This makes any single person with all the details an easy target to remove from the equation

Hi Matt
This situaution has come about because of patents and the thought that a persons work should be able to make them rich when they patent it.
Most inventors are not aware of the 'patent secrecy catergory review list'.
Which is an international clause in the patent process that covers any invention that among other things makes claim to over unity.
Careful wording and ommissions can get around being slapped with a secrecy order but since most are ignorant of the secrecy clause then they end up being silenced for "national security" reasons.

Thats what makes open sourcing so important in todays environment.
BTW finding a current listing of what is classed as "security risk" has been impossible for me-the most current one i found online was 1978,which listed solar panels over 21% efficient as requiring a secrecy order.

You got to ask GOD, understanding you need permission, GOD will grant it.

The new technology, new parts, same old concept of the Vacuum, Example: Imagine building a electronic circuit under water, you build it to operate under water.

The fact of Vacuum, is like building the electronic circuit it above the water.

We are under water, so all your electronics will act differently under Vacuum.

I see your frustration Bussi and do understand it, we all have felt that way it one time or another even Russ. That's one reason why he made the last video. Too I understand why Russ had to step back from Stan's work for a while, he stated " that he had done the work in two years what it would have taken a most people to do in ten" I truly believe this to be the case. Lets take a company like you mentioned "General Electric" look at there track record, sure they have done and built many things, but at what cost to the little guy.
 First let me say they are very proprietary as most companies are today because of greed.
I know this because I used to work on equipment built by them.
To work on anything they built you had to buy/use there special tools, costing hundreds of dollars.
Couldn't use them on any other equipment, they would not fit even the same type of equipment built by any other companies.
 Second is the fact that Stan used them to have an insulation coating put on Stainless steel wire, he supplied to them.
They took the wire, took months, Stan checked on it, they claimed many excuses, then said the wire was destroyed by one of there machining processes. Stan never got the wire back.
 So, that's just GE, what about Westinghouse, well we know what they did to Tesla. I have the same experience with them as well, tools and very proprietary, any company that builds products for the government, is going to be this way.
 Other companies that don't, learned from the best or worst you might say, to do the same dishonest practice IMHO.
 There are many other things I could say about big business or even smaller companies, but it's all about the dollar, not to help mankind.
 The whole point of open source as I see it is to force the PTB to change. Weather it be big business or government.
 There are many other benefits as well, let's all enjoy them together and see how thing unfold. That's my dollars worth.:D

Quote from Hydr01 on December 27th, 2012, 05:56 AM

Quote from Hydr01 on December 26th, 2012, 06:49 AM

Quote from m3sca1 on April 28th, 2011, 08:26 PM

Quote from Blazer on April 23rd, 2011, 10:45 PM

What if mirrors or mylar or some other highly reflective materials were placed and the light from the arc was bounced with in the chamber or within the pipe?             YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION          STAN MEYER

Hi Blazer
Also a glass tube of large enough diameter would allow "total internal reflection" of the input light pulses.
Such a thing would be a very easy job for someone who makes Neon signs...

Quote from admin on April 27th, 2011, 01:16 AM

And you are right, the main problem, I feel, with most everyones research is that they are not willing to share all the details.  This makes any single person with all the details an easy target to remove from the equation

Hi Matt
This situaution has come about because of patents and the thought that a persons work should be able to make them rich when they patent it.
Most inventors are not aware of the 'patent secrecy catergory review list'.
Which is an international clause in the patent process that covers any invention that among other things makes claim to over unity.
Careful wording and ommissions can get around being slapped with a secrecy order but since most are ignorant of the secrecy clause then they end up being silenced for "national security" reasons.

Thats what makes open sourcing so important in todays environment.
BTW finding a current listing of what is classed as "security risk" has been impossible for me-the most current one i found online was 1978,which listed solar panels over 21% efficient as requiring a secrecy order.

You got to ask GOD, understanding you need permission, GOD will grant it.

The new technology, new parts, same old concept of the Vacuum, Example: Imagine building a electronic circuit under water, you build it to operate under water.

The fact of Vacuum, is like building the electronic circuit it above the water.

We are under water, so all your electronics will act differently under Vacuum.

I hope someone would check out the basic premenissence of the EPG somewhere and put it on youtube.

Isn't it about flowing ionized gas that gives of an electromagnetic impulse to the pickup coils?

In stead of building the whole thing first, why not check if the assumption works? And how to avoid the induction in the pickupcoils.

Blow ionized gas through a pipe that runs through a spool of wire..connect the amp meter to the coil and see what happens.
In my opinion the meter will give some reading, and also when (abruptly) stopping the flow, it will give a small induction pulse to the other side.
Just like putting a magnet through a coil. I don't know if it will be so potent, but there may be some amp readings.

If the amp meter gives no induction kickback, then you have success and this model should bring some electricity.

If the readings are far less then with a magnet going through then the difference between no induction and induction (the magnet always induces induction, if it itself feels it or not) should be the key to have it work towards overunity.
Then the speed should be increased (and because there is no induction, then only the friction in the pipe slows stuff down)

But i haven't seen someone proof that there is something weird going on with coils and ionized gas, and there should be...no?

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 05:26 AM

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device? Russ himself states in his video that he would like to get some other kind of organization to keep things running.

I.e. I have posted about high voltage problems of the wire isolation in a vic and the pll gating problems of a 4046 and the duty cycle problems of a 555 because I ran into those problems 2 years ago.
Who has experienced the problem that a Gas Processor can´t be pulsed at 40,000 V if there is no cyclic discharge between the pulses due to high air resistance?
those are 2nd and 3rd level problems I would like to discuss here ...

It´s nice to get 1 or 2 single replies like "interesting" or "nice post!" but there is no follow up discussion how to cope with those problems because nobody has made similar experiences.
 
does that really help to make steps forward?

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Quote from bussi04 on December 27th, 2012, 06:41 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 05:26 AM

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device? Russ himself states in his video that he would like to get some other kind of organization to keep things running.

I.e. I have posted about high voltage problems of the wire isolation in a vic and the pll gating problems of a 4046 and the duty cycle problems of a 555 because I ran into those problems 2 years ago.
Who has experienced the problem that a Gas Processor can´t be pulsed at 40,000 V if there is no cyclic discharge between the pulses due to high air resistance?
those are 2nd and 3rd level problems I would like to discuss here ...

It´s nice to get 1 or 2 single replies like "interesting" or "nice post!" but there is no follow up discussion how to cope with those problems because nobody has made similar experiences.
 
does that really help to make steps forward?

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Quote from bussi04 on December 27th, 2012, 06:41 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 05:26 AM

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device? Russ himself states in his video that he would like to get some other kind of organization to keep things running.

I.e. I have posted about high voltage problems of the wire isolation in a vic and the pll gating problems of a 4046 and the duty cycle problems of a 555 because I ran into those problems 2 years ago.
Who has experienced the problem that a Gas Processor can´t be pulsed at 40,000 V if there is no cyclic discharge between the pulses due to high air resistance?
those are 2nd and 3rd level problems I would like to discuss here ...

It´s nice to get 1 or 2 single replies like "interesting" or "nice post!" but there is no follow up discussion how to cope with those problems because nobody has made similar experiences.
 
does that really help to make steps forward?

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

That's it completely in a nut shell Lynx.:cool::D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 27th, 2012, 07:06 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Quote from bussi04 on December 27th, 2012, 06:41 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 05:26 AM

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device? Russ himself states in his video that he would like to get some other kind of organization to keep things running.

I.e. I have posted about high voltage problems of the wire isolation in a vic and the pll gating problems of a 4046 and the duty cycle problems of a 555 because I ran into those problems 2 years ago.
Who has experienced the problem that a Gas Processor can´t be pulsed at 40,000 V if there is no cyclic discharge between the pulses due to high air resistance?
those are 2nd and 3rd level problems I would like to discuss here ...

It´s nice to get 1 or 2 single replies like "interesting" or "nice post!" but there is no follow up discussion how to cope with those problems because nobody has made similar experiences.
 
does that really help to make steps forward?

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

That's it completely in a nut shell Lynx.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff.
Actually this has inspired me into having a go at it myself, I think I'll get busy
building a simple proof of concept cell that which does this very thing........today......

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:10 AM

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 27th, 2012, 07:06 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Quote from bussi04 on December 27th, 2012, 06:41 AM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 05:26 AM

Now that's some 2 cents, looks more like 2 dollars to me.

Actually I don't really see where your 2 cents are going here, it looks as though
you're critical, and frustrated, at the fact that no one has yet solved the World's
energy problems and presented the results here, together with a complete
set of documents for you to take part of and have a go at it yourself, is that more
or less correct?

In that case I guess you're in for quite some disappointment, if it comes it comes,
if it doesn't, well, nothing to do about that but to continue searching and trying.

One can only hope that it comes, the sooner the better, prefeably also in the form
of an open source document that which details how to replicate it yourself.

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device? Russ himself states in his video that he would like to get some other kind of organization to keep things running.

I.e. I have posted about high voltage problems of the wire isolation in a vic and the pll gating problems of a 4046 and the duty cycle problems of a 555 because I ran into those problems 2 years ago.
Who has experienced the problem that a Gas Processor can´t be pulsed at 40,000 V if there is no cyclic discharge between the pulses due to high air resistance?
those are 2nd and 3rd level problems I would like to discuss here ...

It´s nice to get 1 or 2 single replies like "interesting" or "nice post!" but there is no follow up discussion how to cope with those problems because nobody has made similar experiences.
 
does that really help to make steps forward?

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

That's it completely in a nut shell Lynx.:cool::D:P

Thanks Jeff.
Actually this has inspired me into having a go at it myself, I think I'll get busy
building a simple proof of concept cell that which does this very thing........today......

Yes, I wish I had some time to finish mine, seems like I had more time when I was working for someone else, now that I'm working for myself, I have lees time to do what I would like to do.:D

bussi04 Wrote:

Quote

Is it difficult to understand that I´m looking for more cooperation and to make a common effort to go thru the problems to be solved for a working Stan Meyer device?

Quote

I posted some information about laboratory devices I use for my work but there was little respond to that. so what can I do?
wait until project process reaches the point I have been at 2 years ago? shall I wait until the project gets stuck at the same point I have got stuck?

I don´t expect to get access to a ready to run solution but I expect to have access to a brainstorming and experimentation platform supporting to overcome some critical problems.

Your 2 years more advanced than the rest of the forum?  Where is your data that other open source people here can compare with and research?  Is that not cooperation?  Your waiting for everyone here to have the same device as you?  Seems as though cooperation means open source researchers must buy your devices and report back their findings with out having access to the findings of the creator of the device they are using.

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

5) IMHO, this is absolute key:  Can you explain everything start to finish how the device works, the concepts involved so the details can be worked out later?  I see a lot of shooting blanks in the dark expecting to win the Nobel Prize and I can tell you, it isn't ever going to happen.  We need to go from guessing to knowing.  This is a bit contrary to how Russ approached the Stan Meyer challenge, which was to build it first and then see if it works.  Works?  What does that really mean?  What do you compare it to?  I can guarantee every experiment each and everyone of us has built works exactly the way it is supposed to--maybe not what we hope or want, but the way natural says it has to.  The only failures have been in our own expectations; the experiments themselves are flawless, reacting with the Universe exactly how they must.  We obviously don't understand the world we live in so well do we.  So lets take some of our dud experiments and work backwards to figure out why they do what they do and then maybe we can get them to work more the way we want them to.  We are all playing by the same rules, nature's rules.  Let's figure out what they are aay?

I will amend item #4 because I think there is a evolutionary process here.  You start with brute force and after applying concepts identified in #5, evolve the cell and exciter to something more efficient.  I don't think we ever throw away and start over fresh with a Stan Meyer WFC.  Brute force electrolysis works for reason and until we fully understand how it works, we are not likely to improve upon this basic method any time soon.  Brute force is also a very solid baseline to work from.  It's a fallback when you suspect you are heading in the wrong direction.  "A going back to basics" reset button.  I will also state another small problem with item #4 and heat:  If you keep the current density under 0.5 Amps per square inch, you will not notice any sort of heat problem.  There is a reason behind that too, that I do not know and cannot explain, but I have seen it with brute force electrolysis--turn the amps down or increase the plate surface area and the heat problem goes away.

Quote from Dog-One on December 27th, 2012, 09:04 PM

Quote from Lynx on December 27th, 2012, 07:02 AM

Ok, let's take the Meyer WFC as an example here then.
To me, the real question here is if there's anyone who actually has the know
how about building the circuit that actually does the work in turning water into
hydrogen and oxygen the Meyer way?

Not according to what I have seen so far, atleast nothing open source.

The way I see it there's 4 requirements that which has to be met in order for it
to be called a Meyer WFC:
1) Maximum voltage. I think that goes for the voltage to the cell itself, nothing else.
2) Minimum current. This also being the current going through the cell, nothing
else.
3) Maximum amount of gas produced. This compared to the gas output derived
from a brute force cell, without any electrolytes or any other additives in the
water, where the same electric power is being put in to the 2 (Meyer vs brute
force).
4) No heat generated in the process. This is perhaps the most telling of the 4
reqs I've listed here, it indicates that there's nothing but a true Meyer process
going on in turning water into hydrogen and oxygen, I.E no brute force electrolysis
is taking place.

To me, this is the very key question here regarding a Meyer WFC.
The rest, like problems with gating IC's, duty cycle this and that, are just
secondary problems, which can (will) be solved once the key problem has been
solved.

5) IMHO, this is absolute key:  Can you explain everything start to finish how the device works, the concepts involved so the details can be worked out later?  I see a lot of shooting blanks in the dark expecting to win the Nobel Prize and I can tell you, it isn't ever going to happen.  We need to go from guessing to knowing.  This is a bit contrary to how Russ approached the Stan Meyer challenge, which was to build it first and then see if it works.  Works?  What does that really mean?  What do you compare it to?  I can guarantee every experiment each and everyone of us has built works exactly the way it is supposed to--maybe not what we hope or want, but the way natural says it has to.  The only failures have been in our own expectations; the experiments themselves are flawless, reacting with the Universe exactly how they must.  We obviously don't understand the world we live in so well do we.  So lets take some of our dud experiments and work backwards to figure out why they do what they do and then maybe we can get them to work more the way we want them to.  We are all playing by the same rules, nature's rules.  Let's figure out what they are aay?

I will amend item #4 because I think there is a evolutionary process here.  You start with brute force and after applying concepts identified in #5, evolve the cell and exciter to something more efficient.  I don't think we ever throw away and start over fresh with a Stan Meyer WFC.  Brute force electrolysis works for reason and until we fully understand how it works, we are not likely to improve upon this basic method any time soon.  Brute force is also a very solid baseline to work from.  It's a fallback when you suspect you are heading in the wrong direction.  "A going back to basics" reset button.  I will also state another small problem with item #4 and heat:  If you keep the current density under 0.5 Amps per square inch, you will not notice any sort of heat problem.  There is a reason behind that too, that I do not know and cannot explain, but I have seen it with brute force electrolysis--turn the amps down or increase the plate surface area and the heat problem goes away.

The answer to #5 will be evident once the device is up and running accordingly.

Not until then.

Otherwize, if I already knew the answer to the question then I also would know
how to build it.

Which I don't, hence the need to continue experimenting and trying new ideas
until it works the way I think it should work.

If that ever happens it's time to up the size and have a go at having it
powering a motor, I'd settle for a lawnmower for starters.
Then and only then I'd be able to say for sure that it's a Meyer WFC and share
it so the rest of you can try it out for yourselves.

My theories regarding the prerequisites on what a fully functioning Meyer WFC
should be all about is based on what I've seen in the threads and documents
found on this very forum.
For the time being they serve as basic parameters for me in my experimenting
and only time will tell if I'm merely wasting my time or not.

Btw, if I win the Nobel Prize I'll promise to invite you to the dinner, there's some
groovy eating right there