2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.

Amsy

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #25, on January 2nd, 2013, 03:39 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2013, 04:21 AM by Amsy
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 27th, 2012, 04:28 PM
I should note that in this video I state that I get mabey 12v when connected to the cell.
Hi Russ,

As you allready stated in your video, you cann´t make this alone and I want to help with some thoughts. So maybe this can help you a little bit (some things are quite good known). :shy:

For me it only make sense to investigate the VIC. (Let us forget the 8XA and other circuits for a while). Because of replications and theoretical research we know that this circuits work with current (A range) and the VIC can work in mA Range.

What do we exactly know about the VIC?

Basically the two chokes should inhibit the current as much as possible I think. We know -because of some experiments- the WFC alone cann´t inhibit current. The tap water is an "electrolyte" which is conductive because of the pollution in it. Mainly iron (brown pulp).

To inhibit the current, the only possibility is to do this with the chokes:
1) resistive coil wire (Rs1,Rs2)
2) they are large enough (>1H) to block current with frequencys around 10kHz (L1,L2)

But there is also an effect which we should consider. Because of the multi layer of the coil, there is a large C in parallel to the L of the coil. This is called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_capacitance
It seems to be purpose to gain a large C component of the coil to lower the resonant frequency. (Cd1, Cd2)
I also stated this in this post http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=170&pid=10219#pid10219

Each choke coil for it self is a resonant circuit (parallel). FL1 & FL2



We know that the impendance Z of a parallel resonant circuit when matching the right frequency is nearly "infinity". This can inhibit the current very good. In this diagramm it is only for demonstration of the chart of Z. (the values are examples)



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

Nearly the same frequency. So therefore the secondary choke always shown as a variable L in the patents to match the data of the first coil.


Adding the resistive coil wire, one choke element´s Z can be very very high.
So the complete input voltage of the main secondary drops over the both coils because they work like a big impendance Z.

What will happen, if the core want to transfer the stored energy but it is limited in current. -->The voltage will rise automatically on the secondary main. Each ignition coil works like this. This grown voltage will be devided to the two chokes.

Ok, now we can inhibit the current and we can rise the voltage on the secondary.
The only way to get a potential difference measured over the WFC is to drive the two resonant circuits (C1 and C2) 180° out of phase. =bifilare wounding; when they are working in the same phase, this will not work I think.





So physically it is better to make the complete secondary side of the VIC electrically isolated to the primary side (floating ground). So the C2 can performe well and no current can flow back to the primary side when turning the phase.

But to establish the right frequency the capacity of the cell also has to be involved in the calculation -->PLL makes this automatically.

Because the two parallel resonant circuits are out of phase, they can create a potential difference which is changing ~10000x per seconds. But because of the diode, the C of the WFC can load only in one direction. The C of the cell cann´t discharge.

This voltage measured will always be 0V. Because no multimeter can measure such signals we should measure with an oscilloscope. But we need equipment for high voltage:exclamation:

Just some ideas. Maybe this can help you, when continueing testing the VIC and the cells.
I wish you all good luck! ;)

:)






 









DanB

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #26, on January 2nd, 2013, 02:21 PM »
Quote from Amsy on January 2nd, 2013, 03:39 AM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 27th, 2012, 04:28 PM
I should note that in this video I state that I get mabey 12v when connected to the cell.
Hi Russ,

As you allready stated in your video, you cann´t make this alone and I want to help with some thoughts. So maybe this can help you a little bit (some things are quite good known). :shy:

For me it only make sense to investigate the VIC. (Let us forget the 8XA and other circuits for a while). Because of replications and theoretical research we know that this circuits work with current (A range) and the VIC can work in mA Range.

What do we exactly know about the VIC?

Basically the two chokes should inhibit the current as much as possible I think. We know -because of some experiments- the WFC alone cann´t inhibit current. The tap water is an "electrolyte" which is conductive because of the pollution in it. Mainly iron (brown pulp).

To inhibit the current, the only possibility is to do this with the chokes:
1) resistive coil wire (Rs1,Rs2)
2) they are large enough (>1H) to block current with frequencys around 10kHz (L1,L2)

But there is also an effect which we should consider. Because of the multi layer of the coil, there is a large C in parallel to the L of the coil. This is called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_capacitance
It seems to be purpose to gain a large C component of the coil to lower the resonant frequency. (Cd1, Cd2)
I also stated this in this post http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=170&pid=10219#pid10219

Each choke coil for it self is a resonant circuit (parallel). FL1 & FL2



We know that the impendance Z of a parallel resonant circuit when matching the right frequency is nearly "infinity". This can inhibit the current very good. In this diagramm it is only for demonstration of the chart of Z. (the values are examples)



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

Nearly the same frequency. So therefore the secondary choke always shown as a variable L in the patents to match the data of the first coil.


Adding the resistive coil wire, one choke element´s Z can be very very high.
So the complete input voltage of the main secondary drops over the both coils because they work like a big impendance Z.

What will accure, if the core want to transfer the stored energy but it is limited in current. -->The voltage will rise automatically on the secondary main. Each ignition coil works like this. This grown voltage will be devided to the two chokes.

Ok, now we can inhibit the current and we can rise the voltage on the secondary.
The only way to get a potential difference measured over the WFC is to drive the two resonant circuits (C1 and C2) 180° out of phase. =bifilare wounding; when they are working in the same phase, this will not work I think.





So physically it is better to make the complete secondary side of the VIC electrically isolated to the primary side (floating ground). So the C2 can performe well and no current can flow back to the primary side when turning the phase.

But to establish the right frequency the capacity of the cell also has to be involved in the calculation -->PLL makes this automatically.

Because the two parallel resonant circuits are out of phase, they can create a potential difference which is changing ~10000x per seconds. But because of the diode, the C of the WFC can load only in one direction. The C of the cell cann´t discharge.

This voltage measured will always be 0V. Because no multimeter can measure such signals we should measure with an oscilloscope. But we need equipment for high voltage:exclamation:

Just some ideas. Maybe this can help you, when continueing testing the VIC and the cells.
I wish you all good luck! ;)

:)
I have a hard time with the VIC (the 5 coil transformer). Why call a winding a resonant choke? Is it not the same as the secondary? Same number of windings, same magnetic core, same current as the secondary. why not just make one secondary winding? (K.I.S.S.).


Jeff Nading

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #28, on January 2nd, 2013, 04:32 PM »
Quote from DanB on December 27th, 2012, 11:49 AM
Note:

H2opower is using 10 cells in series. This means each cell receives 1/10 the voltage. Putting 1000v across the tubes gives 100v each.

Look at the attached sheet from Stan. This is his single cell demo unit data. It shows the process starts at 30v and he goes up to 80v. also note the CURRENT the cell is using (it's amps not microamps). Reducing the current improves efficiancy but is not required to prove the process.

I think H2opower has found the process to get it to work. I think He is way off with one or more of his parameters, this is why he can only get it operating with all the tubes in series.
One thing we really need to put our minds to here, is the fact there has been no documented proof of large quantities of HHO production or measurements of such of any kind, other than brute force. So lets be a little couscous as to claims, we can be hopeful though. I am not picking on any one person hear, I just felt that this needed to be said. Great stuff guy's.:D:P

Ravenous Emu

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #29, on January 2nd, 2013, 06:09 PM »
Quote from DanB on January 2nd, 2013, 02:21 PM
Why call a winding a resonant choke? Is it not the same as the secondary? Same number of windings, same magnetic core, same current as the secondary. why not just make one secondary winding? (K.I.S.S.).
That's been my train of thought ever since I've gotten into this.  Just use a really big transformer.  To me, those 2 extra inductors just make the process more efficient.

But that's why we build and test :D:P

Thanks Russ for posting the video! :D

~Russ

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #30, on January 3rd, 2013, 03:35 AM »
Quote from Ravenous Emu on January 2nd, 2013, 06:09 PM
Quote from DanB on January 2nd, 2013, 02:21 PM
Why call a winding a resonant choke? Is it not the same as the secondary? Same number of windings, same magnetic core, same current as the secondary. why not just make one secondary winding? (K.I.S.S.).
That's been my train of thought ever since I've gotten into this.  Just use a really big transformer.  To me, those 2 extra inductors just make the process more efficient.

But that's why we build and test :D:P

Thanks Russ for posting the video! :D
one just don't know till they try them self's...

Amsy

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #31, on January 3rd, 2013, 04:20 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2013, 04:23 AM by Amsy
Quote from DanB on January 2nd, 2013, 02:21 PM
I have a hard time with the VIC (the 5 coil transformer). Why call a winding a resonant choke? Is it not the same as the secondary? Same number of windings, same magnetic core, same current as the secondary. why not just make one secondary winding? (K.I.S.S.).
I think the aim of the two chokes, is not to enlarge the secondary side. Because this would be easier by make the main secondary larger with more windings.

If you drive the two chokes like a resonant circuit (parallel), you have to decouple them from the rest of the system also from the voltage supply. Because they generate a sine wave for their own.
The voltage supply in the VIC is the main secondary. The diode decouples FL1 from the secondary main. It makes sense to decouple the ground from the primary side, so the FL2 is also a "free swinging system".
Quote from Jeff Nading on January 2nd, 2013, 04:32 PM
One thing we really need to put our minds to here, is the fact there has been no documented proof of large quantities of HHO production or measurements of such of any kind, other than brute force. So lets be a little couscous as to claims, we can be hopeful though. I am not picking on any one person hear, I just felt that this needed to be said. Great stuff guy's.:D:P
You are right when you say that. We have to keep this in mind....


dlpatte

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #32, on January 3rd, 2013, 06:10 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2013, 06:25 AM by dlpatte
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 25th, 2012, 09:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhZtwCG6Dw

so alot of people are wondering where i'm headed with the stanley meyer research. the answer is simple... there is still alot to do, but your help is needed. if you want to see where we have been and where we are goong. watch this entire video and you will know!

if you did not hear it from me... it probably is not true... you want to know the truth...  just ask. fairly simple.

god bless and thank you all so so much. with out your help we would all still be wondering and waiting.

please take the time to understand what im trying to do by watching this: "Live Open Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s8XS4suBM

theses men understand what it takes to make a change!

www.RWGresearch.com
 www.open-source-energy.org

~Russ Gries
Russ,

I’ve often wondered how you managed to do the project construction, videos, and web site and forum and still work and have a personal life.  Just watching you, it makes me tired.  I still don’t know how you do it, but thanks for being there and providing the conduit for open source research and providing the forum for brain storming by people from many disciplines and approaches, worldwide.  

I owe you an apology.  When you veered off from the Meyer projects and started the Pulse motor Build Off’s and “Popper” Noble Gas Engine build, I got a little frustrated and thought maybe you had been pressured or threatened to make you stop and change direction.  I am glad this is not the case and I understand the need to get away from it for a while.  Actually, if you do not take breaks from things that take so much energy and concentration, it stifles your creativity.  So, I’m sorry.

Can’t wait to get back to it, but only when you are ready.  

As I was reading this thread, I watched the video “Cold Fusion Reactions by Renzo Mondaini” at the link that element 119 provided in his post (#23).  I also found it fascinating.  I also watched on one of the suggested videos.  I found it interesting too and can’t help wonder if there is something in common to what is happening in these videos and what Stan Meyer was doing.  Just wondering?  The link is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJiLrG3fLY

Sorry this is so long.  Keep up the good work and keep the faith.
Dave




~Russ

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #33, on January 3rd, 2013, 07:11 AM »
Quote from dlpatte on January 3rd, 2013, 06:10 AM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 25th, 2012, 09:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhZtwCG6Dw

so alot of people are wondering where i'm headed with the stanley meyer research. the answer is simple... there is still alot to do, but your help is needed. if you want to see where we have been and where we are goong. watch this entire video and you will know!

if you did not hear it from me... it probably is not true... you want to know the truth...  just ask. fairly simple.

god bless and thank you all so so much. with out your help we would all still be wondering and waiting.

please take the time to understand what im trying to do by watching this: "Live Open Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s8XS4suBM

theses men understand what it takes to make a change!

www.RWGresearch.com
 www.open-source-energy.org

~Russ Gries
Russ,

I’ve often wondered how you managed to do the project construction, videos, and web site and forum and still work and have a personal life.  Just watching you, it makes me tired.  I still don’t know how you do it, but thanks for being there and providing the conduit for open source research and providing the forum for brain storming by people from many disciplines and approaches, worldwide.  

I owe you an apology.  When you veered off from the Meyer projects and started the Pulse motor Build Off’s and “Popper” Noble Gas Engine build, I got a little frustrated and thought maybe you had been pressured or threatened to make you stop and change direction.  I am glad this is not the case and I understand the need to get away from it for a while.  Actually, if you do not take breaks from things that take so much energy and concentration, it stifles your creativity.  So, I’m sorry.

Can’t wait to get back to it, but only when you are ready.  

As I was reading this thread, I watched the video “Cold Fusion Reactions by Renzo Mondaini” at the link that element 119 provided in his post (#23).  I also found it fascinating.  I also watched on one of the suggested videos.  I found it interesting too and can’t help wonder if there is something in common to what is happening in these videos and what Stan Meyer was doing.  Just wondering?  The link is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJiLrG3fLY

Sorry this is so long.  Keep up the good work and keep the faith.
Dave
Dave, thanks for the apology, ill except it even tho i know why you felt that way. and its ok. no worries!

Thanks for the response and ill check out that video. Manny blessings!

~Russ

adys15

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #34, on January 3rd, 2013, 04:30 PM »


I think the aim of the two chokes, is not to enlarge the secondary side. Because this would be easier by make the main secondary larger with more windings.

If you drive the two chokes like a resonant circuit (parallel), you have to decouple them from the rest of the system also from the voltage supply. Because they generate a sine wave for their own.
The voltage supply in the VIC is the main secondary. The diode decouples FL1 from the secondary main. It makes sense to decouple the ground from the primary side, so the FL2 is also a "free swinging system".


Yes you are right,i made an experiment with an inverted transformer and 2 separated chokes on the same core.When i measured the voltage output(fixed freq) from trans.was 80vac,when i conected the chokes (in phase)the voltage was 90vac( it varied a little at any freq),when i conected them out of phase the voltage was the same ,but when i changed the freq at aprox 1khz,it maxed out my meeter,over 1500v...so at a right freq.2coils could make a diference

DanB

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #35, on January 3rd, 2013, 05:40 PM »
Quote from adys15 on January 3rd, 2013, 04:30 PM
I think the aim of the two chokes, is not to enlarge the secondary side. Because this would be easier by make the main secondary larger with more windings.

If you drive the two chokes like a resonant circuit (parallel), you have to decouple them from the rest of the system also from the voltage supply. Because they generate a sine wave for their own.
The voltage supply in the VIC is the main secondary. The diode decouples FL1 from the secondary main. It makes sense to decouple the ground from the primary side, so the FL2 is also a "free swinging system".


Yes you are right,i made an experiment with an inverted transformer and 2 separated chokes on the same core.When i measured the voltage output(fixed freq) from trans.was 80vac,when i conected the chokes (in phase)the voltage was 90vac( it varied a little at any freq),when i conected them out of phase the voltage was the same ,but when i changed the freq at aprox 1khz,it maxed out my meeter,over 1500v...so at a right freq.2coils could make a diference
Very interesting. I have a couple of questions on the set-up.
Was the input signal sine wave or pulsed?
If pulsed, is there a diode across the coil for back EMF?
Was the only output load the meter?
Was the output voltage proportional to frequency change or was it like you hit a resonance peak?
nice work

adys15

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #36, on January 4th, 2013, 06:17 AM »
[

Very interesting. I have a couple of questions on the set-up.
Was the input signal sine wave or pulsed?

I pulsed  the primary with Stan's 9xb by a mosfet

If pulsed, is there a diode across the coil for back EMF?
yes the diode was before the chokes just like in Stan's setup

Was the only output load the meter?
yes no load atached only the meter

Was the output voltage proportional to frequency change or was it like you hit a resonance peak?
The voltage varied a bit from 90v-95v...when adjusting the freq.but only at a certain freq. the voltage was at peak
Thanks!

dlpatte

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #37, on January 6th, 2013, 06:24 AM »
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on January 3rd, 2013, 07:11 AM
Quote from dlpatte on January 3rd, 2013, 06:10 AM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 25th, 2012, 09:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhZtwCG6Dw

so alot of people are wondering where i'm headed with the stanley meyer research. the answer is simple... there is still alot to do, but your help is needed. if you want to see where we have been and where we are goong. watch this entire video and you will know!

if you did not hear it from me... it probably is not true... you want to know the truth...  just ask. fairly simple.

god bless and thank you all so so much. with out your help we would all still be wondering and waiting.

please take the time to understand what im trying to do by watching this: "Live Open Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s8XS4suBM

theses men understand what it takes to make a change!

www.RWGresearch.com
 www.open-source-energy.org

~Russ Gries
Russ,

I’ve often wondered how you managed to do the project construction, videos, and web site and forum and still work and have a personal life.  Just watching you, it makes me tired.  I still don’t know how you do it, but thanks for being there and providing the conduit for open source research and providing the forum for brain storming by people from many disciplines and approaches, worldwide.  

I owe you an apology.  When you veered off from the Meyer projects and started the Pulse motor Build Off’s and “Popper” Noble Gas Engine build, I got a little frustrated and thought maybe you had been pressured or threatened to make you stop and change direction.  I am glad this is not the case and I understand the need to get away from it for a while.  Actually, if you do not take breaks from things that take so much energy and concentration, it stifles your creativity.  So, I’m sorry.

Can’t wait to get back to it, but only when you are ready.  

As I was reading this thread, I watched the video “Cold Fusion Reactions by Renzo Mondaini” at the link that element 119 provided in his post (#23).  I also found it fascinating.  I also watched on one of the suggested videos.  I found it interesting too and can’t help wonder if there is something in common to what is happening in these videos and what Stan Meyer was doing.  Just wondering?  The link is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJiLrG3fLY

Sorry this is so long.  Keep up the good work and keep the faith.
Dave
Dave, thanks for the apology, ill except it even tho i know why you felt that way. and its ok. no worries!

Thanks for the response and ill check out that video. Manny blessings!

~Russ
Russ, This is the video I meant for you to review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jR2N6TP_0
I found it very interesting.

Dave

Jeff Nading

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #38, on January 6th, 2013, 06:58 AM »
Quote from dlpatte on January 6th, 2013, 06:24 AM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on January 3rd, 2013, 07:11 AM
Quote from dlpatte on January 3rd, 2013, 06:10 AM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 25th, 2012, 09:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhZtwCG6Dw

so alot of people are wondering where i'm headed with the stanley meyer research. the answer is simple... there is still alot to do, but your help is needed. if you want to see where we have been and where we are goong. watch this entire video and you will know!

if you did not hear it from me... it probably is not true... you want to know the truth...  just ask. fairly simple.

god bless and thank you all so so much. with out your help we would all still be wondering and waiting.

please take the time to understand what im trying to do by watching this: "Live Open Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s8XS4suBM

theses men understand what it takes to make a change!

www.RWGresearch.com
 www.open-source-energy.org

~Russ Gries
Russ,

I’ve often wondered how you managed to do the project construction, videos, and web site and forum and still work and have a personal life.  Just watching you, it makes me tired.  I still don’t know how you do it, but thanks for being there and providing the conduit for open source research and providing the forum for brain storming by people from many disciplines and approaches, worldwide.  

I owe you an apology.  When you veered off from the Meyer projects and started the Pulse motor Build Off’s and “Popper” Noble Gas Engine build, I got a little frustrated and thought maybe you had been pressured or threatened to make you stop and change direction.  I am glad this is not the case and I understand the need to get away from it for a while.  Actually, if you do not take breaks from things that take so much energy and concentration, it stifles your creativity.  So, I’m sorry.

Can’t wait to get back to it, but only when you are ready.  

As I was reading this thread, I watched the video “Cold Fusion Reactions by Renzo Mondaini” at the link that element 119 provided in his post (#23).  I also found it fascinating.  I also watched on one of the suggested videos.  I found it interesting too and can’t help wonder if there is something in common to what is happening in these videos and what Stan Meyer was doing.  Just wondering?  The link is:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGJiLrG3fLY

Sorry this is so long.  Keep up the good work and keep the faith.
Dave
Dave, thanks for the apology, ill except it even tho i know why you felt that way. and its ok. no worries!

Thanks for the response and ill check out that video. Manny blessings!

~Russ
Russ, This is the video I meant for you to review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jR2N6TP_0
I found it very interesting.

Dave
Most here have seen this video and has already been posted, now three times, twice by you.  I don't want to discourage posts from you Dave and appreciate the intent in which this one was given. I debated whether or not to say anything, but I felt the need to do so, I hope it does not offend you in any way and give my deepest apologies if some how it did. We do hold most all posts in high regard, as yours and you are as well. Thanks for your input and info and please continue to post, Jeff. :D:P  

Gunther Rattay

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #39, on January 8th, 2013, 02:33 PM »
Quote from DanB on December 28th, 2012, 03:13 PM
bussi04 wrote

8XA with an SCR will only work if all parameters needed are perfectly balanced. that means that the DC voltage by the diode is modified into symmetrical AC voltage by the chokes dynamics. if that works fine the SCR will interrupt at every pulse in the kHz range. If that balance doesn´t work the SCR will fire and shut down at 60 hz. so it´s wise to start with a MosFet instead of an SCR to find balance between chokes and WFC.

Very interesting.  Does this mean that we would need to start the cell using the 120hz frequency? Inorder to get the symmetrical AC voltage to start?
No, normally the SCR shall shut down at given pulse frequency between 2 kHz and 20 kHz independent from mains frequency. Once an SCR is fired it conducts until voltage over SCR drops to zero once in a while. if circuit works fine (L and C at correct values) that drop to zero will happen at each pulse because of L C balanced. on the other case SCR will only shutdown every 1/120 s when mains sine power supply drops to zero and switches off the SCR.

so the right way to start with 8XA is use of a potential free electronic switch with a MosFet instead of an SCR at frequency > 1000 hz.


element 119

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #40, on January 11th, 2013, 05:18 PM »
I have not followed the Stan M. EPG stuff that closely so forgive me if this has already been suggested?

If I understand correctly the idea is to create a magnetic gas and then use multiple coils that are pulsed in sequence to move the gas around the tube and generate electricity.

So my question is how about an ion wind setup inside the tube instead of the multi coils?

As the wind started to circulate it would eventually return to the starting point and then be boosted to circulate even faster. After a while maybe a very fast wind would be going around and around. Maybe use a non-magnetic plastic tube with (ion wind maker inside) for the crossover between the copper tube ends.  

If it worked then all you would need is the magnetic gas. ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzjMwqKv8Gg


element 119

NTJr3

RE: 2012 RWGresearch Stanley Meyer Research Update/Overview Questions Answered.
« Reply #41, on January 12th, 2014, 11:49 AM »
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on December 25th, 2012, 09:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbhZtwCG6Dw

so alot of people are wondering where i'm headed with the stanley meyer research. the answer is simple... there is still alot to do, but your help is needed. if you want to see where we have been and where we are goong. watch this entire video and you will know!

if you did not hear it from me... it probably is not true... you want to know the truth...  just ask. fairly simple.

god bless and thank you all so so much. with out your help we would all still be wondering and waiting.

please take the time to understand what im trying to do by watching this: "Live Open Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s8XS4suBM

theses men understand what it takes to make a change!

www.RWGresearch.com
 www.open-source-energy.org

~Russ Gries
(y) :D Russ