Hi all I have some questions about the 1.4 exploding cap experiment. Is it possible that a stored potential energy in the chamber could have fed back into the cap and caused it to explode AFTER the power source was shut off? Did the pressure of the chamber effect the energy? Any thoughts? Thanks YOU HAVE GOT TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS STAN MEYER
Russ,
I had the same thought actually when I saw that happen, would it be possible to actually test this, instead of just assuming? Not to question your idea's or say they are not valid, but mistakes are often the seed of new fields of experimentation.. . there should be an easy way to CONFIRM that energy wasn't stored and fed back to the cap? Or that it wasn't creating an extremely high voltage being fed back to the cap?? Thanks
M
Some one has mentiond this befor to me and inthink it's a good idea... But I see a problem with it...
Electrostatic charge...
For example, If one was to rub that ballon and make it positively charged... And one was holding a steel bar and you and the bar was negatively charged.. Then this test would work all the time... Maggas or no maggas
Have you ever had a styrofoam cup attach to your hand? Or a plastic wraper stick to your hand? No Mag gas there...
The test has a flaw... But it is a good idea...
Whats your thoughts?
~Russ
Indeed but that is the case with all things which we view or read we have to have "faith in believing" that we view is real or do it ourself for "real" prove.Quote from Rwg42985 on May 7th, 2011, 12:44 PM Some one has mentiond this befor to me and inthink it's a good idea... But I see a problem with it...
Electrostatic charge...
For example, If one was to rub that ballon and make it positively charged... And one was holding a steel bar and you and the bar was negatively charged.. Then this test would work all the time... Maggas or no maggas
Have you ever had a styrofoam cup attach to your hand? Or a plastic wraper stick to your hand? No Mag gas there...
The test has a flaw... But it is a good idea...
Whats your thoughts?
~Russ
So I was talking about the test itself instead the what he is showing us.
I think the ballon in the cheapest non-magnatic container :)
I think that magnagas in "idle" state polirizes to earth N-S.
I think this can be tested with steel bar and/or compas and/or magnet.
In reviewing some of the magna gas vids it reminds me alot of aqua fuel. I know the process to produce aqua fuel is to strike an arc under water using carbon rods or graphite in a vacuum (Vacuum is above the water level). The inventors name is Bill Richardson I believe. Also with your chamber may be just the right thing to produce some aqua fuel. Some other properties of the fuel 1. He compresses his gas with a standard air compressor 2. Lighter than air 3. Large molecular stucture he can keep standard ballons inflated of months. 4. He uses the fuel to run his car. I think the only draw back may be the cost of the rods. I know Mr Richardson would love to see his work developed and used. Maybe an email and he would join the forum.
In reviewing some of the magna gas vids it reminds me alot of aqua fuel. I know the process to produce aqua fuel is to strike an arc under water using carbon rods or graphite in a vacuum (Vacuum is above the water level). The inventors name is Bill Richardson I believe. Also with your chamber may be just the right thing to produce some aqua fuel. Some other properties of the fuel 1. He compresses his gas with a standard air compressor 2. Lighter than air 3. Large molecular stucture he can keep standard ballons inflated of months. 4. He uses the fuel to run his car. I think the only draw back may be the cost of the rods. I know Mr Richardson would love to see his work developed and used. Maybe an email and he would join the forum.
Good memory about the magnetic property of aqua fuel.Quote from Blazer on May 10th, 2011, 09:29 AM In reviewing some of the magna gas vids it reminds me alot of aqua fuel. I know the process to produce aqua fuel is to strike an arc under water using carbon rods or graphite in a vacuum (Vacuum is above the water level). The inventors name is Bill Richardson I believe. Also with your chamber may be just the right thing to produce some aqua fuel. Some other properties of the fuel 1. He compresses his gas with a standard air compressor 2. Lighter than air 3. Large molecular stucture he can keep standard ballons inflated of months. 4. He uses the fuel to run his car. I think the only draw back may be the cost of the rods. I know Mr Richardson would love to see his work developed and used. Maybe an email and he would join the forum.
Here some quotes;
"The new chemical structure of AquaFuel implies the emergence of new technologies such as new methods for gas liquefaction, new types of fuel cells, enhanced thermochemical reactions and new methods of producing magnetically polarised gases."
from: http://www.rexresearch.com/aquafuel/aquafuel.htm
And;
"A world-renowned physicist has personally observed/supervised the last two such analyses and is convinced that the fuel contains as yet unidentified materials, electromagnetically bonded, as distinct from chemical bonding, whereupon it seems reasonable to call slow-diffusing portion(s) of the fuel "magnecules"--emphasizing their magnetic character over their size or "magnacules"--by analogy with "molecules" although their true nature remains quite mysterious. Such magnecules may be undergoing continuing changes in composition."
from; http://www.rexresearch.com/aquafuel/6113748.htm
But with device picture and schematics, looks build with pressure cookers :)
Hey Russ was wondering How to break open a Transformer tried other ways like taking a hammer to it but damaged or broke the copper insulated wires do you have a video that you can share to help me out !!
M
Maybe for testing use a ballon like this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFsZ1NrtIMk
Great work Russ, keep it up! We need to bridge the gap between HHO and converting it to electrical energy.
Hi Russ, just got here so bear with me if I'm repeating anything from other posts.
I'm new to Meyer's EPG, but was wondering if anyone has commented on the similarities between Meyer's EPG and Steven Marks TPU?
The TPU (Toroidal Power Unit) is of very similar design, but there was never any indication of a liquid or gas being employed. The principle though was the same: That is a low energy pulsing primary cct would provide a high energy secondary output. In TPU discussions on another forum long, long ago, I suggested the possibility of an ionic liquid core, but it went down like a lead brick.
My view on the EPG is that it would more likely employ a liquid rather than a gas. This is for two main reasons, firstly ionised gas is harder to come by and indeed harder to work with, and secondly the ion density would surely be far less with gas. That said, if the idea is to accelerate ions at faster and faster speeds, perhaps gas would be required... I'm just not convinced this would be so.
From the liquid point of view, a simple electrolytic solution is all that would be necessary. Furthermore, a liquid electrolytic solution would contain both anions and cations that would be caused to travel in opposing directions, so we would have current flowing both directions simultaneously - plenty of action.
So it would seem that the operation of the EPG is similar to that of a simple transformer, but with one main difference, that being an ionised fluid core. Whereas an electron will stop - or indeed reverse direction - almost instantly due to its very tiny mass, an ion will take fractionally longer to do so. Hence there will always be a lag. But not just a lag, the relatively enormous mass of the ions would likely result in them being totally unable to match an electrons actions, hence being totally out of synch. This I wonder is where there might be a specific frequency (or sweet spot, or a resonance - call it what you will) for any given EPG, whereby the pulsing primary creates a constant secondary output. Effectively the swing being initially pushed to a limit only requires a tiny amount of energy input to thereafter maintain its amplitude.
All very interesting and thought-provoking.
Some good work you have going on here Russ.
In the new Zealand video Stan explains the magnetic gas, parts 8-11