Awesome, thanks for sharing, JP :D

Hy JP,

ok I understand.
So you think the alternator does have the same effect as the VIC? There must be some parallels I think to create the "effect" we are all searching for....

This black box only regulates the excitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_%28magnetic%29
Normally this must be a real good DC Source, not a rectified sine.
it regulates the electrical output power of the alternator.

The rectified sine make a pulsing signal from 0 to xx (depending on the variac). A pulsing signal tends to result to very high voltage peaks on the alternators output, but only in ideling without any load on the output.

But watch out, the adjusted voltage on the variac should not be too high, because the little coil (armature winding) for excitation normaly does have very low resistance values--> so the amps would grow up very high and can burn the coil.

The alternators advantage is, that it can be considered as heavy duty variac with three phases.

Amsy

JP can you ask your EE how to maintain HV over the wfc?in every test i made the voltage drops under load conditions.I tried placing a various resistors on the pos .negative/both terminals to inrease resistance but with little increase...Thanks in advance!Br...

Quote from Amsy on November 29th, 2012, 01:06 AM

Hy JP,

ok I understand.
So you think the alternator does have the same effect as the VIC? There must be some parallels I think to create the "effect" we are all searching for....

This black box only regulates the excitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitation_%28magnetic%29
Normally this must be a real good DC Source, not a rectified sine.
it regulates the electrical output power of the alternator.

The rectified sine make a pulsing signal from 0 to xx (depending on the variac). A pulsing signal tends to result to very high voltage peaks on the alternators output, but only in ideling without any load on the output.

But watch out, the adjusted voltage on the variac should not be too high, because the little coil (armature winding) for excitation normaly does have very low resistance values--> so the amps would grow up very high and can burn the coil.

The alternators advantage is, that it can be considered as heavy duty variac with three phases.

Amsy

Remember, to even begin the induction must match the capacitance.
I think my huge capacitor needs a big inductor, thus the alternator is acting as an inductor and restricting the amp flow and creating the pulse frequency.
If amps go down voltage goes up.
No one ever saw Stan run the big demo cell without the alternator.
He made his VIC's for the small resonant cavities and injectors.
They are very small and have the big 5 coil VIC inductors.

I'm looking at this thread for some ideas.
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?topic=1201.0

I hope we don't burn up my Variac....that would suck...

Cheers,
JP

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 29th, 2012, 03:49 PM

Remember, to even begin the induction must match the capacitance.
I think my huge capacitor needs a big inductor, thus the alternator is acting as an inductor and restricting the amp flow and creating the pulse frequency.
If amps go down voltage goes up.
No one ever saw Stan run the big demo cell without the alternator.
He made his VIC's for the small resonant cavities and injectors.
They are very small and have the big 5 coil VIC inductors.

I'm looking at this thread for some ideas.
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?topic=1201.0

I hope we don't burn up my Variac....that would suck...

Cheers,
JP

Hy JP,

thanks for your answer!
Did Meyer mentioned this to you about the matching of capacitance and inductance? Especially to which frequency? Of the alternator (rpms)? Of the excitation(120Hz)? :huh:

That is right with the current and voltage relaionship. So if you can put the current down the voltage will rise automatically!

Quote from bussi04 on November 20th, 2012, 01:10 AM

Quote from Badger on November 13th, 2012, 10:19 AM

I was planning on going the route of the Arduino PulseGen, but now I'm reconsidering.  Bussi, that would be great if you could post some more info on the pulse generator you're using, I think I would like to give that a try.  Wish they would email me back... I'm not even sure if they will to ship to US or not.  Like you say, we need more experimenters posting data and results!

Badger,

here you are  

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=469&pid=9806#pid9806

 ;-)

I have just finished my 2 very first videos at youtube. More to come ...

Thanks Bussi!
Very cool, I'm hoping to get this setup sometime in the near future, but I'm in the process of relocating and maybe switching jobs, so the hobbies are all slowing down.

Quote from Amsy on November 30th, 2012, 04:00 AM

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 29th, 2012, 03:49 PM

Remember, to even begin the induction must match the capacitance.
I think my huge capacitor needs a big inductor, thus the alternator is acting as an inductor and restricting the amp flow and creating the pulse frequency.
If amps go down voltage goes up.
No one ever saw Stan run the big demo cell without the alternator.
He made his VIC's for the small resonant cavities and injectors.
They are very small and have the big 5 coil VIC inductors.

I'm looking at this thread for some ideas.
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?topic=1201.0

I hope we don't burn up my Variac....that would suck...

Cheers,
JP

Hy JP,

thanks for your answer!
Did Meyer mentioned this to you about the matching of capacitance and inductance? Especially to which frequency? Of the alternator (rpms)? Of the excitation(120Hz)? :huh:

That is right with the current and voltage relaionship. So if you can put the current down the voltage will rise automatically!

Stan never told me anything about the electronics or hardware and I wouldn't have understood it at the time anyways.
My understanding of the LC Tank circuit on which "polarization" is based comes from Ted Zittergren's explanation from post #4 in this thread. He is the one who explained the basic LC Tank circuit in his Newsgroup post in 1998.

From post #4

Subject:   Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From:   "Ted Zettergren"
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100

John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn$1@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen.  In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car".  He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'.  As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'.  Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio.  I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route.  I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana.  I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)???  Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>

VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen

Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.

The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.


The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.

By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.

AT FIRST:

You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.

In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.

In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.

Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.

HOW TO?

As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.

If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.

The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.

The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.

Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.

Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.

For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.

Have a nice trip to Ohio!

Ted

Ted also gave me this in another email.
----------

> Från: H2OPWRD@xxxxx.com
> Till: ted..itv.se
> Ämne: Frequencies
> Datum:  den 23 mars 1999 21:35
>
If he want to make a separation with this very
low frequency and a sine wave I think he need
some mechanical equipment for doing that. A
tuning fork or something. Our technology is not
so good as we think. Some musicians still use
electronic tubes in theirs amplifiers.

It's also possible he need one more frequency.
(620, 630, xxxx). I never heard about the Keely
book, can you ask him where I can buy the book.

Hes idea is interesting but it's not the way
Stanley 's system work. It's also other system
looking similar but has not much in common if
you take a closer look. (Puharich etc.)

I only use one frequency and a square wave.
For making this pulses I only use one simple
IC, National MM74C132(4xNAND with smithtrigger)
and a MOS-transistor Siliconix VN46AF.

The MM-series is special designed for replacing
circuits from the older 74-serie. It has an
ordinary CMOS input and an output capacity
for driving the more current consuming standard
74-serie.

The MM74C132 has a smith trigger function
so you only need one resistor from output to
input and a capacitor from the same input to
the ground for making a good oscillator.

The output from the oscillator goes to a 100 ohm
resistor connected to the gate on the VN46AF.
This will make a good square wave with fast
switching and make the circuit rich in harmonics.

I make the circuit adjustable between 10-15.000Hz
and gating about 10 pulses/cycle.

If you like to send some articles to Stephen
Meyer about hyrogen, try Dais.htm.
Regards, Ted!

> Dear Ted, Someone sent me this.
> Does it make sense? Is it true?
>
> I may have some information to help you replicate Stans Work. I don't
> >believe that Stan disclosed everything in his patents. I believe that
you
> >should consider water as two Elements and would therefore require TWO
> >separate frequencies. The other clue is in "Universal laws never before
> >revealed: Keely's Secrets" in it on page 82 it states for atomic
separation
> >one must use 620 hz and 630 Hz . Ernest didn't have access to a square
wave
> >generator so he used sine waves and chine plates to produce higher
> >harmonics to separate the water. It should also be noted that Energy is
> >proportional to Voltage squared and energy can be transfered without
> >current flow. Water takes a predetermined time to start conduction and
if
> >the voltage is disconnected before the current flows then in theory no
> >power would be consumed. I know of a person who tried using a single
> >frequency and that didn't work. It is important to remember that you
must
> >have a voltage over 1500 volts. A low loss transformer (Toroid) and TWO
> >square wave generators into a summing amplifier and then the switching
> >circuit may work. The person who tried used IGBT's to drive the
> >transformer. I am currently doing as you are using other methods besides
> >radiolysis. I am currently building a driver as above but I am a little
> >behind you by the looks. I have a couple of cells built for different
> >methods of spliting water to run engines,I would love to upset the
others
> >who think that what we are doing is impossible.
> >Remember the real meaning of "you can't do that" means:- I couldn't do
that Ø
>if I tried!


I hope this helps.
It is all I have about how to get started.
This is what Tad Johnson used to make his first working circuit years ago.
I haven't heard from Tad in 10 years.
Cheers,
JP

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 30th, 2012, 01:25 PM

I hope this helps.
It is all I have about how to get started.
This is what Tad Johnson used to make his first working circuit years ago.
I haven't heard from Tad in 10 years.
Cheers,
JP

So basically Tad Johnson here knows how to build a fully functioning Stanley Meyer
water fuel cell then?
Have you tried contacting him lately?
If you do manage to get in contact with him tell him that he's more than welcome
to the forum :DBtw, I found a document detailing what Tad here had done to get his WFC up and running and it sure looks like it's working the way you describe how it should be
working JP, so for now I'll use this as a base for trying to replicate the good work.
Many thanks for the Tad Johnson/Ted Zettergren lead, much appreciated.

I made a small PDF of pages 28 & 29 of the document, which basically details what
Tad uses in his WFC.

''The MM74C132 has a smith trigger function
so you only need one resistor from output to
input and a capacitor from the same input to
the ground for making a good oscillator.''

the circuit is incomplete you have to feed the input somehow not just unite the output with input with a resistor,he says that he changes the freq,,,how? from what?
any electronics guy corect me if i am wrong..

Quote from Lynx on November 30th, 2012, 02:05 PM

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 30th, 2012, 01:25 PM

I hope this helps.
It is all I have about how to get started.
This is what Tad Johnson used to make his first working circuit years ago.
I haven't heard from Tad in 10 years.
Cheers,
JP

So basically Tad Johnson here knows how to build a fully functioning Stanley Meyer
water fuel cell then?
Have you tried contacting him lately?
If you do manage to get in contact with him tell him that he's more than welcome
to the forum :D

All I know is Tad had been close on a basic process circuit not any whole system.
He used to post in some of the original watercar groups on yahoo I think.
Here are some of his details:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=tad+johnson+meyer+water+fuel+cell&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
The "John" he refers to is his alias for me.
I do a search once in a while for him but come up with nothing new.
I'm sure if he was alive and still working on systems he would be posting somewhere. Last I talked to him years ago he was in Texas and having hard times.
He basically dropped of the face of the planet after that.

Cheers,
JP

Quote from adys15 on November 30th, 2012, 02:49 PM

''The MM74C132 has a smith trigger function
so you only need one resistor from output to
input and a capacitor from the same input to
the ground for making a good oscillator.''

the circuit is incomplete you have to feed the input somehow not just unite the output with input with a resistor,he says that he changes the freq,,,how? from what?
any electronics guy corect me if i am wrong..

found it,but diffrent ic.4093 which does the same thing ,is the simplesc osc i ever seen,and you can make a gate within the same cip...very nice....

Quote from Lynx on November 30th, 2012, 02:05 PM

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 30th, 2012, 01:25 PM

I hope this helps.
It is all I have about how to get started.
This is what Tad Johnson used to make his first working circuit years ago.
I haven't heard from Tad in 10 years.
Cheers,
JP

So basically Tad Johnson here knows how to build a fully functioning Stanley Meyer
water fuel cell then?
Have you tried contacting him lately?
If you do manage to get in contact with him tell him that he's more than welcome
to the forum :D
Btw, I found a document detailing what Tad here had done to get his WFC up and running and it sure looks like it's working the way you describe how it should be
working JP, so for now I'll use this as a base for trying to replicate the good work.
Many thanks for the Tad Johnson/Ted Zettergren lead, much appreciated.

I made a small PDF of pages 28 & 29 of the document, which basically details what
Tad uses in his WFC.

Good info and find everyone,:D this looks like we can take it to the bank and to say the least , there are things we will not understand, that Stan and others proved worked, we just need to find it and have an open mind to new things. I have no doubt once we do find out the secret, we will say, oh that's how it works. Keep up the good work guy's, awesome.:cool::D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on November 30th, 2012, 03:51 PM

Quote from Lynx on November 30th, 2012, 02:05 PM

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 30th, 2012, 01:25 PM

I hope this helps.
It is all I have about how to get started.
This is what Tad Johnson used to make his first working circuit years ago.
I haven't heard from Tad in 10 years.
Cheers,
JP

So basically Tad Johnson here knows how to build a fully functioning Stanley Meyer
water fuel cell then?
Have you tried contacting him lately?
If you do manage to get in contact with him tell him that he's more than welcome
to the forum :D
Btw, I found a document detailing what Tad here had done to get his WFC up and running and it sure looks like it's working the way you describe how it should be
working JP, so for now I'll use this as a base for trying to replicate the good work.
Many thanks for the Tad Johnson/Ted Zettergren lead, much appreciated.

I made a small PDF of pages 28 & 29 of the document, which basically details what
Tad uses in his WFC.

Good info and find everyone,:D this looks like we can take it to the bank and to say the least , there are things we will not understand, that Stan and others proved worked, we just need to find it and have an open mind to new things. I have no doubt once we do find out the secret, we will say, oh that's how it works. Keep up the good work guy's, awesome.:cool::D:P

Let's hope so Jeff, right now I'm trying out the 'only voltage no current' approach
to a Meyer WFC, just for the sake of proof of concept, nothing on a large
scale or anything, just proof of concept and nothing else.
This document (pages 28 & 29) is really encouraging in that it let's me know that
there could be something worthwhile in the end.
Like you say, once we know what to do it's just a simple matter of upping the size
and adapting the circuitry to larger systems :cool:

Quote from adys15 on November 30th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Quote from adys15 on November 30th, 2012, 02:49 PM

''The MM74C132 has a smith trigger function
so you only need one resistor from output to
input and a capacitor from the same input to
the ground for making a good oscillator.''

the circuit is incomplete you have to feed the input somehow not just unite the output with input with a resistor,he says that he changes the freq,,,how? from what?
any electronics guy corect me if i am wrong..

found it,but diffrent ic.4093 which does the same thing ,is the simplesc osc i ever seen,and you can make a gate within the same cip...very nice....

that is the great PLL.

thanks
geenee

Hi JP and Lynx!

Thank you for your great information and working with us! :idea:

So I bassically understand what is written in the text. I also understand electronics and LC circuits (it is easy to build up with a frequency generator). Because I have made experiance with LC circuits, I can say, they are not working correctly with diods, bassically. But there is something different when pulsing a series LC circuit with very sharp pulses: there are transient phenomenons over the WFC...
that means, that the LC is not realy oscillating like in a resonant circuit but this transient signal during the start of a shape puls can reach very high levels. It can be considered as a transient response of the LC system. (step response)
When you match XL to XC, the voltage has its highest level over the L and C. :exclamation:




In the past I made some measurements with very sharp dc pulses fired to the WFC. In the attachment you see the osci picture. (in this example I don´t reach very high pulses, the frequency was not matching the right XC and XL, but during testing the voltage reaches twice the dc pulse amplitude)
So we can reach higher voltage peaks with sharp dc pulses. And when matching XC to XL, the puls is the highest (overshoot).

But.....

This dc pulses also triggers normal electrolyses, because the tap water is conductive. To inhibit the electrolyses process as much as it is possible, you can put in ohmic resistors in series to the WFC. This will inhibit the amps, but also the voltage which is performing on the WFC.... so no good idea.

So the best idea to inhibit the amps and create voltage peaks to the WFC anyway, is to use resistive coil wire. This is essential IMHO by performing voltage to the WFC. This is necessary not only by using the VIC, but also using the alternator.

There is a picture of the alternator which Stanley Meyer used (attachment 2). The wiring is quite thin (resisitve), normally the original wire of an alternator is much more thick because of the amp flow at normal use in cars (>50Amps).
So the alternator can perform very well without breaking down of the voltage because of the high amp flow because of the electrolyses.

IMHO Meyer built the VIC based on the experience of the alternator with all the extra windings in the stator.

Jp, maybe you can ask your EE about that. I think it is the only way to put voltage on the WFC without flowing of amps, because the WFC nearly is an dead short condition because of the low resistance of natural water.

Good luck for testing!

regards


Edit: To performe with voltage over WFC and inhibiting the amps, also resistive coil wire works on a secondary side of any transformer, also on the VIC.

Other links to study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28signal%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Output_impedance

Found the signal with a higher overshoot (attachment 3).

Quote from Amsy on December 1st, 2012, 01:15 AM

Jp, maybe you can ask your EE about that. I think it is the only way to put voltage on the WFC without flowing of amps, because the WFC nearly is an dead short condition because of the low resistance of natural water.

That is what has me so baffled is the WFC appears to be a dead short with any voltage over 2.0.  Also, it makes it very difficult to find the capacitance.  But supposedly with a properly designed cell, you can push in AC around 42.8kHz and everything changes.  Then all of the sudden, voltages of 1200 are quite possible and the cell begins producing gas.  But the question remains, for a particular cell at some temperature, do you need 42.81257 kHz where 42.81319 kHz no longer works?  What kind of frequency tolerance is needed?  I've never heard anyone explain that.  This one factor alone bothers me because even with a perfect cell and VIC, you'll never see resonance because you will likely skip right over the exact frequency needed to make it work.  Does anyone understand Stan's PLL circuit well enough to at least find the frequency lock range and step size it is capable of?  Maybe this would give us a clue.

I suspect the tolerances of the electronics Stan had just couldn't keep the cell tuned and is why he switched his focus to the water spark plug.  But today, we do have those kind of electronics; relatively cheap too.  We just need to know what specs are needed.  With all digital electronics we should be able to do away with LC tank circuits and drive the cell direct to the nearest Hertz or tenth of a Hertz if necessary.  We can scan and lock simply by monitoring cell voltage or even gas production (via LED/opto sensors) if necessary.  It's my opinion that if coils and chokes are necessary, something else is going on and simple resonant high voltage is not all there is to it.  I mean, how hard would it be to connect an ultrasonic high voltage amplifier to a precision signal generator?  If that's all it takes, wouldn't lots of people cracked water by now?

Too much pretzel logic.  Someone surely understands how this thing works and can explain it.  With that knowledge, then we can pick out the most cost effective and straightforward way to energize a WFC and have it work, repeatably.

Quote from Dog-One on December 1st, 2012, 02:26 PM

Quote from Amsy on December 1st, 2012, 01:15 AM

Jp, maybe you can ask your EE about that. I think it is the only way to put voltage on the WFC without flowing of amps, because the WFC nearly is an dead short condition because of the low resistance of natural water.

That is what has me so baffled is the WFC appears to be a dead short with any voltage over 2.0.  Also, it makes it very difficult to find the capacitance.  But supposedly with a properly designed cell, you can push in AC around 42.8kHz and everything changes.  Then all of the sudden, voltages of 1200 are quite possible and the cell begins producing gas.  But the question remains, for a particular cell at some temperature, do you need 42.81257 kHz where 42.81319 kHz no longer works?  What kind of frequency tolerance is needed?  I've never heard anyone explain that.  This one factor alone bothers me because even with a perfect cell and VIC, you'll never see resonance because you will likely skip right over the exact frequency needed to make it work.  Does anyone understand Stan's PLL circuit well enough to at least find the frequency lock range and step size it is capable of?  Maybe this would give us a clue.

I suspect the tolerances of the electronics Stan had just couldn't keep the cell tuned and is why he switched his focus to the water spark plug.  But today, we do have those kind of electronics; relatively cheap too.  We just need to know what specs are needed.  With all digital electronics we should be able to do away with LC tank circuits and drive the cell direct to the nearest Hertz or tenth of a Hertz if necessary.  We can scan and lock simply by monitoring cell voltage or even gas production (via LED/opto sensors) if necessary.  It's my opinion that if coils and chokes are necessary, something else is going on and simple resonant high voltage is not all there is to it.  I mean, how hard would it be to connect an ultrasonic high voltage amplifier to a precision signal generator?  If that's all it takes, wouldn't lots of people cracked water by now?

Too much pretzel logic.  Someone surely understands how this thing works and can explain it.  With that knowledge, then we can pick out the most cost effective and straightforward way to energize a WFC and have it work, repeatably.

Hi dog-one,

that was also my thought, when I was reading about that. I don´t know exactly how this should work, because many things are self-contradictory...
From the electrotechnical side my experience were:
-a series LC circuit driven by the right frequency can produce higher voltages on C and L if the load in parallel (R) is high enough
-in a series LC circuit driven by the right frequency the current will be at maximum, not at minimum
-the load R=water produces in DC pulse mode nearly dead short
-if you stress a LC circuit with a low R, the voltage on the L and C will be at normal levels back again
-diodes in the vic and in the alternator cuts of the discharge of the C, but this is necessary for oscillating
-an alternator is a perfect DC source (3phase system) and the voltage is not alternating but oscillation is possible, because the 3phases are 3 different voltage sources
-a chobbed dc with the right frequency can stimulate an oscillation and therefor an LC resonant circuit
-as you said, it is quite hard to match the right frequency in a changing system like the wfc is (bubbles don´t have the same dielectric constant of water)

So I think with "resonance" there is a something different meaning.
This can be read in older patents (e.g. 4798661 Fig.8) that the current is restriced by other methodes. And in the text you can read, nothing about a special frequency. In the memo (e.g.) the resonant condition is reached when the maximum gas flows and the ionisation state is reached.... so very confusing and during many years always definded in other words in the patents and memos...

If you wire a VIC bifilar so that positive and negative paths are bifilar connected there is a stray capacitance between positive and negative path. that way the serial LC switches to a parallel LC circuit :-). and it mutates into a pulse forming network (PFN).

there should be some way to simulate that behaviour but up to now I didn´t get Spice so simulate anything that can be observed in an experiment with VIC and WFC :-(

Quote from bussi04 on December 2nd, 2012, 03:33 AM

If you wire a VIC bifilar so that positive and negative paths are bifilar connected there is a stray capacitance between positive and negative path. that way the serial LC switches to a parallel LC circuit :-). and it mutates into a pulse forming network (PFN).

there should be some way to simulate that behaviour but up to now I didn´t get Spice so simulate anything that can be observed in an experiment with VIC and WFC :-(

How about trying to build it in real life and see how it acts on an oscilloscope?
If what Meyer discovered isn't in any textbook then I seriously doubt that it's
in a computer software. :cool:

Quote from Lynx on December 2nd, 2012, 04:54 AM

Quote from bussi04 on December 2nd, 2012, 03:33 AM

If you wire a VIC bifilar so that positive and negative paths are bifilar connected there is a stray capacitance between positive and negative path. that way the serial LC switches to a parallel LC circuit :-). and it mutates into a pulse forming network (PFN).

there should be some way to simulate that behaviour but up to now I didn´t get Spice so simulate anything that can be observed in an experiment with VIC and WFC :-(

How about trying to build it in real life and see how it acts on an oscilloscope?
If what Meyer discovered isn't in any textbook then I seriously doubt that it's
in a computer software. :cool:

I do observe the real thing but there are so many variations that a simulation could be most helpful. simulation up now shows no similarities to the real thing ...

Quote from bussi04 on December 2nd, 2012, 03:33 AM

If you wire a VIC bifilar so that positive and negative paths are bifilar connected there is a stray capacitance between positive and negative path. that way the serial LC switches to a parallel LC circuit :-). and it mutates into a pulse forming network (PFN).

there should be some way to simulate that behaviour but up to now I didn´t get Spice so simulate anything that can be observed in an experiment with VIC and WFC :-(

hy bussi,

actually I thought also on this theory some time ago, but how you can calculate togehter the C and L?
I wrote this in a topic somewhere here (don´t find it in the moment).
Every L has a parasitic C component. The bifilar does have coupled capacity. Indeed when pulsing with the right (resonant) frequency, the Z of the network goes very high and inhibit the current.  

There exist the VIC readings for example:
Choke 1: L=1218mH C=157pF---> fres would be 11.507Hz
Choke 2: L=1093mH C=180pF---> fres would be 11.347Hz

I think this is no accident, and the resonance frequencys are very close.
So nearly the same... therefore I think one of the chokes is adjustable to match them.
In the new zealand video meyer talked about that the vic is processing on 10kHz and in the international patent you can read about 5kHz to 10kHz (don´t know if it is doubled). Also the PLL is searching in audio range in the steven / stan meyer video...
But what clearly can be seen, that this two chokes form a parallel resonant circuit which when driven on resonant frequency the Z goes to "infinity".

http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/russ/coil%20Readings%20and%20bobbin%20measurements.xls

So maybe it is possible with the alternator version....
but how is the behaviour of the parallel LC when the choke is wounded around the source magnetic core?

JP, I made a PDF of the images you posted on the Ionization forum, but I couldn't upload it there for some reason, maybe it was
too a big an attachment?
I'll upload it here instead.

Quote from Lynx on December 2nd, 2012, 02:23 PM

JP, I made a PDF of the images you posted on the Ionization forum, but I couldn't upload it there for some reason, maybe it was
too a big an attachment?
I'll upload it here instead.

Well ok, good.
I actually posted the articles in this or in Stephen Meyer thread link in my first post in this thread.
Nice to have them as one file but you should tell folks what they are.
One is a four page paper presented by Gary Johnson, IEEE called Electrically Induced Explosions in Water.
The second is a paper about Tesla, Moray, and Bearden.
My EE said that to him this is the most important information as to repeating Stan's work.

Cheers,
JP

Quote from MeyerandMe on December 2nd, 2012, 03:40 PM

Quote from Lynx on December 2nd, 2012, 02:23 PM

JP, I made a PDF of the images you posted on the Ionization forum, but I couldn't upload it there for some reason, maybe it was
too a big an attachment?
I'll upload it here instead.

Well ok, good.
I actually posted the articles in this or in Stephen Meyer thread link in my first post in this thread.
Nice to have them as one file but you should tell folks what they are.
One is a four page paper presented by Gary Johnson, IEEE called Electrically Induced Explosions in Water.
The second is a paper about Tesla, Moray, and Bearden.
My EE said that to him this is the most important information as to repeating Stan's work.

Cheers,
JP

You're quite right, I should have explained what it's about, my bad.

I read the whole thing yesterday, it sure has some interesting points in for
example the water being cold to the touch, doesn't appear to have turned into
steam, the water seems to increase in resistance the higher the voltage you
put on the electrodes..........interesting :cool:

Quote from MeyerandMe on November 27th, 2012, 08:55 PM

Quote from gpssonar on November 27th, 2012, 05:27 PM

That is a great looking piece of work. As far as the slots for tunning, those slot are there not realy for tunning, they are cut to match the surface area of the inner tube.  Alot of people think they are there for sound or ringing. Each choke has to have the same Cap. and Res. when hook to the cell, in order for it to be the same you have to match the surface area of the inner and outer tubes.

Hope this helps everyone,
gpssonar

Ok, let's answer that with numbers.
We can calculate the inner and outer surface areas here:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/object_surfacearea_tube.htm

My tube dimensions are .5 in inner tube O.D. and .625 in. outer tube I.D for matching surfaces.
The tube's matching surface areas are about 17.5 inches.
The actual length is 18 inches.

The small tube r is .1875.
The small tube R is .250
Length 18
That Small tube OD surface area is 28.27 sq/in.

My large tube OD is .75 in.
The large tube ID is .625 in.
For the calculator the small r is .3125
The large R is .375.
Length 18 in.
The Large tube inner surface area is 35.34 sq/in.

So  35.34 - 28.27 = 7.07 sq/in. is the difference

Does it look like there is 7.07 sq/in removed from Stan's outer tubes?
Also we don't know how long Stan's tubes were exactly.
I do think Stan had .5 and .625 in matching surfaces.

There are 18 slots.
Each slot is let's say a generous, 1.5 inches by .1875.
1.5 times .1875 = .280 sq/in.
.280 times 18 = 5.04 sq.in.

7.07 - generous 5.04 = 2.03 sq/in difference in matching surface area.
The calculation seems too far off.

Meyer's slots may only be 1.25 long and .100 wide.

This yields.
1.25 times .100 = .125 sq/in. times 18 = 2.25 sq/in.
7.07 - 2.25 = 4.82
That leaves quite a bit to remove to match surfaces.

Somebody check my math.

It doesn't look good to me that the matching surface area is an issue at this point.

If we did this for total surface area rather than matching surfaces this would be an even larger difference so...

If and when, or not,  we get some serious gas we can balance 1 set tube this way and see if it improves output. I don't think it's needed. Stan never said anything about it to me but that doesn't mean it won't help. I think it is more about the shape of the electrical fields between whatever surfaces you are using. I can maybe make a test with one tube much longer than another when we have gases.

Cheers,
JP

Matching  surface area , as you indicate, may not be critical. I suspect it has more to do with the release of the HHO bubbles from the surface.