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.

If you mean: have the basic concepts been checked? Then i think yes and no, to some extend and found here and there done by us or others..

But i agree, that research should start at proving a concept first, either by replicating or by designing a new test yourself.

The thing with Meyer is that the complicated way of sending impulses to the HHO cell is the basic concept..so replicating is the fastest way, as these circuit prints are available.

But doing concept research on how resonance influences the amount of HHO production could still be a good stepping stone.

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 27th, 2012, 06:37 AM

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

i edited your post jeff from

" that he had done the work in two years what it would have taken a most company's to do in ten"

to

" that he had done the work in two years what it would have taken a most people to do in ten"

:)

~Russ

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 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.

my thoughts on brought force VS what Stan was doing...

Quote

"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."

my thought is we cant use Brute force electrolysis as an example. what Stan was doing was not Brute force electrolysis. this what is holding us back. its not the same.

using amperage VS using Voltage is just not the same. its a totally different theory...

that's my thoughts any way...  

its all water. and its all braking covalent bonds. but its the HOW that's so different.

below is a quote of something i found randomly on line. but there are some good points here.

i think there talking about 120v or less. think if we brought that up to 100,000's of volts...
quote from here:
http://www.hhoglabs.com/voltage_current.htm

Quote

I won't go in depth with all the aspects of electricity. I wouldn't be able to do that, anyway, because I am not an engineer. However, I can give you my experience with voltages and current concerning electrolysis. And more specifically, the electrolysis of water. Electrolysis can be used for many purposes. You can use it to split particularly hard compounds, electroplate metals and form new compounds that without it would otherwise be impossible. These only name a few of it's possibilities. I am interested in only one.

As long as we choose the correct electrolyte that does not react during the process, we can split water molecules into Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is true, that the more power you apply to a cell, the more product you get. Unfortunately, as we apply more power to our cell in an effort to get the most HHO possible, we run the risk of producing more heat. This heat generated is wasted energy, and can wreak havoc on your entire setup. It can melt down components and even boil the electrolyte, sending unwanted moisture and caustic condensate down the line. If you are using an electrolyzer in your automobile, this can mean disaster to the internal engine components. Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) condensate will dissolve an engine's aluminum internal components!

Many have tried to combat this issue by applying cooling alternatives to reduce the temperature of the electrolyte and electrolyzer. Regardless of how you try to keep the heat at bay, dumping too much power into your cell is not the answer. So with all this possibility of ruin and catastrophe, what can we do? Let me give you my opinion.

Many have become concerned with electrolyzer efficiencies. The more efficient the better, right? Well, yes...and no. It's like my High School Organic Chemistry teacher once told me when we were talking about the fuel economy of a gas powered automobile. Sure, we want a vehicle that is more efficient. It costs less, right? Not necessarily. It is more important what the price per mile is, rather than how far the automobile can travel on a gallon.

You are probably shaking your head right now, right? Let me explain. Isn't it amazing that in the midst of higher efficiency automobiles, the more expensive the price of fuel is? If you are driving a vehicle that gets 21 MPG and the price of fuel is $1.29 (1990's) per gallon, your price per mile for fuel is $ .061 cents per mile. If you are driving a vehicle that gets 42 MPG and the price of fuel is $2.58 (2009) per gallon, your price per mile is $ .061 cents per mile. Yeah...think about it. But what does that have to do with you and your electrolyzer? Well, my point in all that was to say, keep it simple. Sure we want to make the most efficient electrolyzer, but an electrolyzer that produces 3LPM and has a super high efficiency still only produces 3LPM. It doesn't matter how elaborate the design is, the output of an electrolyzer is limited by the amount of surface area of its electrodes. An elaborate design won't necessarily get you ahead. When you are designing your electrolyzer setup, keep in mind what it is costing you, Vs how much HHO you think you will need.

Back to Voltage Vs Amperage. The more surface area an electrolyzer has, the more HHO it can produce using the same wattage. This is the main factor that determines how much HHO an electrolyzer can produce. For the most part, we have found that using higher voltage with lower amperage produces better results with less effort and less waste in the form of heat. It's like using a sprinkler pump hooked up to 110 volts, Vs 220 volts. The pump wired for 220 volts doesn't work as hard to produce the same result. Why? because a 110 volt motor will require twice as much amperage as a 220 volt motor. The same principle applies to an electrolyzer. If we can produce the same amount of HHO using far less amperage then we are far better off. This means our electrolyzer is less likely to heat up and break down the electrolyte , or worse, start overheating and melting wires.

The bottom line is this; We recommend higher voltage and reduced amperage to run an electrolyzer.

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 28th, 2012, 07:45 AM

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 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.

my thoughts on brought force VS what Stan was doing...

Quote

"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."

my thought is we cant use Brute force electrolysis as an example. what Stan was doing was not Brute force electrolysis. this what is holding us back. its not the same.

using amperage VS using Voltage is just not the same. its a totally different theory...

that's my thoughts any way...  

its all water. and its all braking covalent bonds. but its the HOW that's so different.

below is a quote of something i found randomly on line. but there are some good points here.

i think there talking about 120v or less. think if we brought that up to 100,000's of volts...
quote from here:
http://www.hhoglabs.com/voltage_current.htm

Quote

I won't go in depth with all the aspects of electricity. I wouldn't be able to do that, anyway, because I am not an engineer. However, I can give you my experience with voltages and current concerning electrolysis. And more specifically, the electrolysis of water. Electrolysis can be used for many purposes. You can use it to split particularly hard compounds, electroplate metals and form new compounds that without it would otherwise be impossible. These only name a few of it's possibilities. I am interested in only one.

As long as we choose the correct electrolyte that does not react during the process, we can split water molecules into Hydrogen and Oxygen. It is true, that the more power you apply to a cell, the more product you get. Unfortunately, as we apply more power to our cell in an effort to get the most HHO possible, we run the risk of producing more heat. This heat generated is wasted energy, and can wreak havoc on your entire setup. It can melt down components and even boil the electrolyte, sending unwanted moisture and caustic condensate down the line. If you are using an electrolyzer in your automobile, this can mean disaster to the internal engine components. Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) condensate will dissolve an engine's aluminum internal components!

Many have tried to combat this issue by applying cooling alternatives to reduce the temperature of the electrolyte and electrolyzer. Regardless of how you try to keep the heat at bay, dumping too much power into your cell is not the answer. So with all this possibility of ruin and catastrophe, what can we do? Let me give you my opinion.

Many have become concerned with electrolyzer efficiencies. The more efficient the better, right? Well, yes...and no. It's like my High School Organic Chemistry teacher once told me when we were talking about the fuel economy of a gas powered automobile. Sure, we want a vehicle that is more efficient. It costs less, right? Not necessarily. It is more important what the price per mile is, rather than how far the automobile can travel on a gallon.

You are probably shaking your head right now, right? Let me explain. Isn't it amazing that in the midst of higher efficiency automobiles, the more expensive the price of fuel is? If you are driving a vehicle that gets 21 MPG and the price of fuel is $1.29 (1990's) per gallon, your price per mile for fuel is $ .061 cents per mile. If you are driving a vehicle that gets 42 MPG and the price of fuel is $2.58 (2009) per gallon, your price per mile is $ .061 cents per mile. Yeah...think about it. But what does that have to do with you and your electrolyzer? Well, my point in all that was to say, keep it simple. Sure we want to make the most efficient electrolyzer, but an electrolyzer that produces 3LPM and has a super high efficiency still only produces 3LPM. It doesn't matter how elaborate the design is, the output of an electrolyzer is limited by the amount of surface area of its electrodes. An elaborate design won't necessarily get you ahead. When you are designing your electrolyzer setup, keep in mind what it is costing you, Vs how much HHO you think you will need.

Back to Voltage Vs Amperage. The more surface area an electrolyzer has, the more HHO it can produce using the same wattage. This is the main factor that determines how much HHO an electrolyzer can produce. For the most part, we have found that using higher voltage with lower amperage produces better results with less effort and less waste in the form of heat. It's like using a sprinkler pump hooked up to 110 volts, Vs 220 volts. The pump wired for 220 volts doesn't work as hard to produce the same result. Why? because a 110 volt motor will require twice as much amperage as a 220 volt motor. The same principle applies to an electrolyzer. If we can produce the same amount of HHO using far less amperage then we are far better off. This means our electrolyzer is less likely to heat up and break down the electrolyte , or worse, start overheating and melting wires.

The bottom line is this; We recommend higher voltage and reduced amperage to run an electrolyzer.

look into a devise that is used to deeply message muscles.
its called ultra sound. it was demonstrated to me a a kid , by a doctor.
find out how this devise is used, and made.
he put on top a drop of water, instantly it turned to a cold steam.
was it browns gas?
this i do not know, but it was an instant effect.

not voltage? but something makes it oscillate extremely fast.

Quote from freethisone on December 28th, 2012, 08:54 AM

look into a devise that is used to deeply message muscles.
its called ultra sound. it was demonstrated to me a a kid , by a doctor.
find out how this devise is used, and made.
he put on top a drop of water, instantly it turned to a cold steam.
was it browns gas?
this i do not know, but it was an instant effect.

not voltage? but something makes it oscillate extremely fast.

Did the mist look like the fog, made from water, by these devices?
http://www.mainlandmart.com/foggers.html


I have such a "fogger", I've even tried subjecting the mist to HV DV, with a lot
of fuses blown as a result

Keeping it simple...So what is needed to proof Meyer's concept?

What is his concept? Higher on the voltage lower on the amps..

Ok, So what is voltage? Uhh a potential difference..uhh felt by 2 plates going closer and closer to eachother..uhh and the higher the voltage and the lesser the gap or the resistance..the earlier the gap is breached and the current can flow in between the plates..

Ow..ok..is voltage more then that or is that all it is? Well..as everything in this universe, it must also have a frequency, a vibration. AC has a clear frequency, but does DC have some or can we put it in? And did Meyer do anything with frequency?

Is there any other side to voltage being overlooked here? You can't say it has electrons, at least there not flowing across the gap, they may accumulate in one side and the opposite on the other side.

#1 So with the voltage, we can lower it and higher it.
#2 With the voltage we can vibrate stuff due to its own frequency or the frequency we have put in.

Anyhow, knowing that the normal brute electrolisys is not the way, then brute upping the voltage isn't likely the way.

What can we vibrate? We can vibrate the inner and outer pipes of a meyer cell so they are in tune. We can vibrate the bounds between water.
Or do both at the same time by knowing the frequency of the bounds and making the cell a harmonic brother of that frequency.

Do we have to use the frequency of water bounds? Or do we need the frequency of the outer electrons running around the atoms? And how big should our amplitude be? The bigger the more yield?


What else is there? Frequencies and pulses. So to check if Meyer had a concept here we need to get a "simple" experiment using the frequencies and high voltage and low amps. And knowing the possible frequencies surrounding water into HHO.

If there is no harmonics to be found that yield good production. Then there is no use going on in the electrolisys way.

Proof of concept is needed, in any science, otherwise you have only believe as a driving force forward. If your concept is proofed then you have the evidence that you always can look at and so have the spirit to go further with what is proofed.

Cause you then know it has to work (in further applications) if you understood your concept truly.

And proof here is more yield by hitting the sweet spot in all the frequencies involved.

Question is, do we need all the circuitry to proof the concept?

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

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......

And this is needed, i hope you share the setup with which you work and that it is possible to use the frequency side of electrolyzes.
I've posted a couple off times about a setup that should bring in more bubbles...

Quote from FaradayEZ on December 28th, 2012, 04:59 PM

Keeping it simple...So what is needed to proof Meyer's concept?

What is his concept? Higher on the voltage lower on the amps..

Ok, So what is voltage? Uhh a potential difference..uhh felt by 2 plates going closer and closer to eachother..uhh and the higher the voltage and the lesser the gap or the resistance..the earlier the gap is breached and the current can flow in between the plates..

Ow..ok..is voltage more then that or is that all it is? Well..as everything in this universe, it must also have a frequency, a vibration. AC has a clear frequency, but does DC have some or can we put it in? And did Meyer do anything with frequency?

Is there any other side to voltage being overlooked here? You can't say it has electrons, at least there not flowing across the gap, they may accumulate in one side and the opposite on the other side.

#1 So with the voltage, we can lower it and higher it.
#2 With the voltage we can vibrate stuff due to its own frequency or the frequency we have put in.

Anyhow, knowing that the normal brute electrolisys is not the way, then brute upping the voltage isn't likely the way.

What can we vibrate? We can vibrate the inner and outer pipes of a meyer cell so they are in tune. We can vibrate the bounds between water.
Or do both at the same time by knowing the frequency of the bounds and making the cell a harmonic brother of that frequency.

Do we have to use the frequency of water bounds? Or do we need the frequency of the outer electrons running around the atoms? And how big should our amplitude be? The bigger the more yield?


What else is there? Frequencies and pulses. So to check if Meyer had a concept here we need to get a "simple" experiment using the frequencies and high voltage and low amps. And knowing the possible frequencies surrounding water into HHO.

If there is no harmonics to be found that yield good production. Then there is no use going on in the electrolisys way.

Proof of concept is needed, in any science, otherwise you have only believe as a driving force forward. If your concept is proofed then you have the evidence that you always can look at and so have the spirit to go further with what is proofed.

Cause you then know it has to work (in further applications) if you understood your concept truly.

And proof here is more yield by hitting the sweet spot in all the frequencies involved.

Question is, do we need all the circuitry to proof the concept?

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

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......

And this is needed, i hope you share the setup with which you work and that it is possible to use the frequency side of electrolyzes.
I've posted a couple off times aboeut a setup that should bring in more bubbles...

I am very glad you made this summery.
now we can do this as a clean slate.
brute force is your concern. Increasing voltage is not the way you say.
You may be very correct, but there is another effect to consider.
the voltage can not stay the same.
i am not saying this is a way to get it to work,
i am saying it should first be examined.
the circuit I have in mind is a voltage intensifier.
I think the forum know this concept, and has been trying to get it working.
First i don't want to See thee spark gap decreased. I would like to see it increased.
Distilled water of a ph 7  has very high resistance.
I am suggesting an avalanche of voltage in the dielectric material. The water.
the wider the gap, the more volume of particles will be effected.
if voltage is changing, I mean really changing, rising by double, and then falling back again. the frequency is important, but a bias was mentioned. Important for the diode, it shuts a door. capacitors charge under ac, the bias will allow for either  plate as negative, or the plates as a positive.
to act on the water.  you wold like to get back to the negative, and positive plates but. what if the water is positive. what if the water could be negative?
when a insulated wire is breached it simply fries.
I will look into the ultra sound devise. find its similarity and post example later.
the inductors will play the major roll. but only to cause the dc, and the flux to be included in the cycles.
I have made a clean slate way to overcome the challenges of Myers devise
on page one of the patent he describes what he is doing to the water, even suggesting how to do it..

 one post is not enough to read, and reflect on these concerns.
A scientific method by trial, and error.:D

cheers

Quote from freethisone on December 28th, 2012, 11:42 PM

I am very glad you made this summery.
now we can do this as a clean slate.
brute force is your concern. Increasing voltage is not the way you say.
You may be very correct, but there is another effect to consider.
the voltage can not stay the same.
i am not saying this is a way to get it to work,
i am saying it should first be examined.
the circuit I have in mind is a voltage intensifier.
I think the forum know this concept, and has been trying to get it working.
First i don't want to See thee spark gap decreased. I would like to see it increased.
Distilled water of a ph 7  has very high resistance.
I am suggesting an avalanche of voltage in the dielectric material. The water.
the wider the gap, the more volume of particles will be effected.
if voltage is changing, I mean really changing, rising by double, and then falling back again. the frequency is important, but a bias was mentioned. Important for the diode, it shuts a door. capacitors charge under ac, the bias will allow for either  plate as negative, or the plates as a positive.
to act on the water.  you wold like to get back to the negative, and positive plates but. what if the water is positive. what if the water could be negative?
when a insulated wire is breached it simply fries.
I will look into the ultra sound devise. find its similarity and post example later.
the inductors will play the major roll. but only to cause the dc, and the flux to be included in the cycles.
I have made a clean slate way to overcome the challenges of Myers devise
on page one of the patent he describes what he is doing to the water, even suggesting how to do it..

 one post is not enough to read, and reflect on these concerns.
A scientific method by trial, and error.:D

cheers

I agree that with upping and lowering, pulsing the voltage, you also get a vibration which is useful to brake the bonds.
Like the humidifyers, the piezocristals, the ultrasonic devices etc. They all use vibration to get whats needed.
Pulsing the voltage i see as a use of frequencies, and higher voltage as a amplitude enhancer, a bigger beat-slap on the drum. And higher amps as more drums.

The famous example of a bridge in america that got crumbled by a little wind that had just the right frequency for that bridge its own frequency, shows the magnifying influence of harmonic vibrations.   http://youtu.be/3mclp9QmCGs

The best way (energy wise) of loosening joints/bonds is by vibrating.
Heat is also an enhanced vibration of molecules..so we use hot water for cleaning

And making high voltage with a couple of turned around transformers in serie should be doable?

Yea shake it loose.
thats actually what i think is happening. quantum level.

Ever see the paint can shaker.?
 when you go to a home depot for paint?

funny right? but if your cell was in a paint can, on the shaker you may get the effect you are looking for.

i think a negative plate, and another negative plate may work.
the energy builds up as a cassimir force between the plates.

atoms forced to expand at the nucleus. then the energy is in higher vibration, and a harmony.

a quick flip of a capacitive discharge may do something, but we don't know what.:-/

Quote from freethisone on December 29th, 2012, 02:58 PM

Yea shake it loose.
thats actually what i think is happening. quantum level.

Ever see the paint can shaker.?
 when you go to a home depot for paint?

funny right? but if your cell was in a paint can, on the shaker you may get the effect you are looking for.

i think a negative plate, and another negative plate may work.
the energy builds up as a cassimir force between the plates.

atoms forced to expand at the nucleus. then the energy is in higher vibration, and a harmony.

a quick flip of a capacitive discharge may do something, but we don't know what.:-/

instead 2 positive plates, the water becomes a ground. a capacitive discharge is not what i think we need. this is were the dc spike would come as bias. its not a spike, its a phase shift, the way i see it.

don't forget that diode. a shunt, or bridge?

Quote from Lynx on December 28th, 2012, 01:44 AM

there's some groovy eating right there

Quote from FaradayEZ on December 27th, 2012, 06:40 AM

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

Lynx. LOL! :D
Faraday.  I like it.  Your test is simpler than what I'm going to suggest. ;)

My thoughts:  If we're just testing the concept of the EPG...
1) Perform electrolysis to get your gas. (we can worry about "electrolysis" at a later date.)
2) Ionize the gas.
3) "Pressurize" the gas. (in order to move it through the pipe.)
4) Set up one of those "Quenching Circuits" and burn the gas.

This is kind of like russ's quenching tests and what not.  Except, with an added twist... Can you produce electricity by moving the ionized gas?

What do you guys think?

Why burn the gas?

The premenissence of the EPG is that current/volts will come from an ionized gas looping through a coil.

So that is what should be tested first.

We know that magnets going through a coil will do such trick. Thing is dow that they will suffer the feedback of induction.

Otherwise one could make an EPG by rolling a magnetball inside a rounded glass tube and take the energy from pick up coils mounted.

We know that that will not work. It is the same as all the flywheels with magnets that go through C-shaped coils and hope they have an invention.
These things don't take into concern enough the ever existing induction force.

So there must be something special going on if we use ionized gas instead of a magnetic ball. So that is the thing to be tested as simple as possible. And that's why i keep it simple by suggesting to flow ionized gas through a pick up coil. And i would also suggest not to do it in a copper pipe, because i have the feeling that the pick up coil won't even notice the gasflow when using copper.

Quote from FaradayEZ on December 30th, 2012, 03:56 PM

Why burn the gas?

I was just adding one more step to your process. :D:cool:

I completely agree with you on keeping the tests as simple as possible.
I.E. Do you get electricity after moving an ionized gas through the coils?

(I was sorting out the process in my head, and just typed it out.) :D

hate to say it russ but stan made his epg after he made most of his water related inventions, if u don't believe you I will link you one of his lectures when he explains after he made his resonant cavity he created the epg...

Quote from Ravenous Emu on December 30th, 2012, 05:18 PM

Quote from FaradayEZ on December 30th, 2012, 03:56 PM

Why burn the gas?

I was just adding one more step to your process. :D:cool:

I completely agree with you on keeping the tests as simple as possible.
I.E. Do you get electricity after moving an ionized gas through the coils?

(I was sorting out the process in my head, and just typed it out.) :D

I think the pick-up coils will act like a load. Otherwise we could use them anywhere to pickup energy without the/a system realizing it...
So thats where i don't know how Stan could ever make it work like that.

Quote from Jeff Nading on December 27th, 2012, 07:28 AM

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

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

the water fuel cell is a vaporizor. it that easy omg people do some tests for god sake!

do you really think your gonna get rich?

i didnt join this forum to wait 3 years to see a single test on the epg.

who is putting pressure on you to abandon your research Russ?

seems to me everyone wants to capitalize from stan myers work.

it is not a viable fuel because it is corrosive to internal combustion parts.

i make a suggestion, build the epg like in the patent by tt brown did.
forget about a pop corn machine all together.

not to be negative, its all there guys..

the water fuel injector is again, a vapourizer, do this get a generator, remove the dam carb, add a glow plug, and a valve. wow we did it. we took a 20 year supply of oil, and it now will last 100 year.:angel:

problem solved. the PMH and flywheel has more potential, you cant even imagine.:dodgy:  How does that make you feel? it makes me feel Pooty.

Quote from freethisone on November 14th, 2013, 07:29 PM

the water fuel cell is a vaporizor. it that easy omg people do some tests for god sake!

do you really think your gonna get rich?

i didnt join this forum to wait 3 years to see a single test on the epg.

who is putting pressure on you to abandon your research Russ?

seems to me everyone wants to capitalize from stan myers work.

it is not a viable fuel because it is corrosive to internal combustion parts.

i make a suggestion, build the epg like in the patent by tt brown did.
forget about a pop corn machine all together.

not to be negative, its all there guys..

the water fuel injector is again, a vapourizer, do this get a generator, remove the dam carb, add a glow plug, and a valve. wow we did it. we took a 20 year supply of oil, and it now will last 100 year.:angel:

problem solved. the PMH and flywheel has more potential, you cant even imagine.:dodgy:  How does that make you feel? it makes me feel Pooty.

I think you may have to take the lead on this one Free.  I for one don't understand the EPG and Russ is up to his neck in other things.

[/quote]I think you may have to take the lead on this one Free.  I for one don't understand the EPG and Russ is up to his neck in other things.[/quote]I know, Matt but i feel better now, venting some of my anger. really i have a lot of anxiety over this subject.

free energy if you want to call it was my study since i was a kid. i am a poor man with out a lab. i would love to have access to a lab for experiments. That is a tall order indeed.

sorry for the frustration, I just have a problem with 100 year old dated patents that would have stretched our oil reserves 500 year, if it was not put on a shelf.

and thousand year old technology that sits on a shelf, or hidden under a rug.

so yea i feel a little better.  I am Bitter. The only problem is, if we deplete the oil underground our atmosphere will decay very fast. it is the oil in the transformer. used to hold the core charge.
take that away, and you end up with a loss of our Atmosphere. I will always be Sad, because it was my dream to make a better world to live in... now i just want out.:s

Quote from freethisone on November 14th, 2013, 08:13 PM

I know, Matt but i feel better now, venting some of my anger. really i have a lot of anxiety over this subject.

free energy if you want to call it was my study since i was a kid. i am a poor man with out a lab. i would love to have access to a lab for experiments. That is a tall order indeed.

sorry for the frustration, I just have a problem with 100 year old dated patents that would have stretched our oil reserves 500 year, if it was not put on a shelf.

and thousand year old technology that sits on a shelf, or hidden under a rug.

so yea i feel a little better.  I am Bitter. The only problem is, if we deplete the oil underground our atmosphere will decay very fast. it is the oil in the transformer. used to hold the core charge.
take that away, and you end up with a loss of our Atmosphere. I will always be Sad, because it was my dream to make a better world to live in... now i just want out.:s

No, it's quite alright Free.  I feel the same way.  For at least the last ten years I have been trying to find just one thing I could build to prove to myself this is real.  So far, I haven't come even close; that is frustrating.  It's a combination of not understanding the real science and not being able to block out the fake science.

I have run into so many people along the way that say they have what I'm looking for, but it always ends up to be just talk.  Others that want to teach, but what they want to teach is so esoteric you can't do anything with it.  I'm convinced nobody really knows and if somebody does, they are not talking.

I'm afraid what happens on this earth is going to run its course regardless of what we do, but in the end, I'd still like to have in-my-face proof of something before my time is over.  I'm not sure how much time we have left, so I try to stay focused and use some discernment.  Maybe we'll get there, maybe not.  For now, how about we find something relatively simple and have another go at it.  No sense it speeding up the clock, it's running plenty fast as it is.

Yes, we have to stick it out here on earth. That we came to live here and have this consiousness, is wonderful and not manmade. So we are put here by something higher then men and so never let men judge our value. Its not up to him.

That we see the problems in this world and that we try to combat these by focusing on free energy (which would solve these issues) can only be seen in a good light.

Sow hip hooray for us, lets be the best we can and let that what is above men guide us and if it wants judge us.

At least we tried this thing for the right and we know it from eachother, so if judgement came about it, then together as a group please.

Ok, bare with me on this one & please keep an open mind.

I've been thinking about the design of the pump EPG, it's shape, and the arrangement of the pick-up coils, to me it suggests that the magnetic field of the gas is produced all at the same time, like the stimulation of a florescent bulb. I'm wondering if the gas Stan made, produces a strong magnetic field when in the excited state due to the metal ions (iron, nickel, or cobalt). If this is true, he may have used the primary coils to stimulate the gas magnetically by using an extremely high frequency, as in magnetic induction lighting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlU-_WtyIFM#

Let me know your thoughts,
Limitless

greetings Russ all, its time to add everything up. the epg progject was a start of somthing special. what we learned from all your hard work, and others work is, we now have a good working knowladge of the system. how it all related.  we found vapour, and induction. i was amazed at such a compact study, in 3 years we have enough to put the forum on track. these reactors are expo star k, the arc type reactors. they use induction coils, and plasma flows, they use heat, and light. the have magnetic components. we have  spark gaps, and glow plugs to do it. we  can build a self loop system.

all the work on epg has given me a good understanding about tesla and his turbine. it creates rare air, ozone, it accelerates the flow pipes. we broke carbon bonds, and we had smoke.
 take note, the pipe is magnetic, and through induction we have 200 amps. so yes it works. the epg can be advanced in any way you choose. even if you choose a cheap system you can have proof of concept.
sonic, vapours, heat, plasma. that is the best i have from my study wile being a part of this forum. thanks, and cheers all. you have everything you need to produce energy you can depend on. :cool: :cool: :P

full circle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTmN5EEcJ5Y#ws