Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

Guys,  our circuit and tube replication of Raiv's is done and just needs conditioning now, we are entering Two universities with it in order to get a make shift Panacea lab and endorsement for open sourced engineers.

I do wish to publish our test results and process sere how ever it seems Humbugger under the user name 'HissyfitNihilism' is not moderated here so i don't wish to waste time sorting through his mess.


Mean time here is also a response you can put towards the universities if they question your results.

good luck all , Im off

"It would be worth responding in writing to the university's comments, stating that the Faraday supposed maximum has been proven to be incorrect, as electrolyzers built by Bob Boyce have achieved 216% Faraday on straight DC, and the Shigeta Hasebe DC electrolysis patent US 4,105,528 of 1978 shown at www.panaceauniversity.org/PatE14.pdf shows laboratory records of 1,000% the Faraday supposed maximum.

Further, the Faraday maximum quoted in the university correspondence relates to DC electrolysis, while the system to be demonstrated is not DC electrolysis but is pulsed water-splitting which is a completely separate system which draws additional energy from the surrounding environment.  When pulsed in a similar way, the Bob Boyce electrolyzer operates as a water-splitter and has measured efficiencies in the 1,000% Faraday range.

So while it is understandable that the two entirely separate systems have been confused on this occasion, it is necessary to point out that there is no direct connection between the two, and that due to the intake of additional environmental energy, the Law of Conservation of Energy is not broken.

It is also worth noting that Paul Zigouras has recently demonstrated a marine engine made by his company Zigouras Racing, operating with 200 HP of excess energy, run solely on the gases produced by splitting water with power produced by the engine electrics.  This would not be possible with Faraday DC electrolysis, but has been demonstrated to be perfectly possible with water-splitting using high-quality pulsed signals.

Paul Zigouras Infos

The information to date is:
1. The unit takes water in at one end and hydroxy gas exits the entire open end of the cell at the far end.  No water makes it as far as the exit.
2. The small unit has 20 to 30 plates 2-inches high, 8 inches long, the larger unit has 36 plates 3-inches high, 10 inches long.
3. The plates are 1/16 inch thick 316-grade or 318-grade stainless steel sandblasted with 60 grit alum oxide and spaced 0.025 inches apart (0.635 mm).
4. The voltage applied to the cell with the engine running is 13.8 volts.
5. The unit generates an output signal which is a very pure "perfect" square wave
6. The current is 190 amps for 5 gallons dissociated per minute
7. The oscillator frequency is 40 kHz
8. Paul says: "Two or three output transistors just will not hack it, you have to think big".
9. The COP of the cell is between 5 and 10
10. He started with plans from Kevin of WaterForFuel.com and modified them.  I have Kevin's data on order but I don't those plans really matter any more with all the extra information received today.
11. He uses a standard MSD 200-amp high performance alternator to supply the current via the battery.

This is actualy not how Meyer did it as his electronics found and auto-locked on to the resonant point of the cell and subsequently tracked it.  Paul's design is a long way from being perfect as most of the power does not produce hydroxy gas and the consequential loss of vast amounts of water makes it somewhat impractical except for stationary generators beside an unlimited source of water.

His unit with a less aggressive output drive, placed in a conventional electrolyser box like shown in D16.pdf, could well be a working solution.

Patrick

[leeroyjenkinsii]

I'm new here and don't know all the politics, etc. buy HissyfitNihilism seems like an ass to me.  If you haven't anything constructive to offer, why don't you fuck off!!!

Can we say fuck off here?

[leeroyjenkinsii]

Excuse my previous post.  It looks like it may have been in error.  I just read the sarcastic reply he had to ashtweth.  I read back further on his posts and see he is trying to explain his understanding.

Looks like I'm the ass here.  Also, the two of them may just need to get a room already.   

[RunningBare]

Erm, the field built is hardly 1+1, I do not know the exact figure, but to test out a hypothesis I rewound my levitation coil head with bifilar winding and it is "my" opinion that the field was more than twice the equivilent singular winding and the levitation of a half pound/233 gram steel ball bearing at only 21 volts 2 amps, while it is not scientific proof my video below shows an example of bifilar winding on levitation.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AelopbRoCQE

Keep your hair on! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil

Some bifilars have adjacent coils in which the convolutions are arranged so that the potential difference is magnified (i.e., the current flows in same parallel direction). The magnetic field created by one winding is multiplied with that created by the other, resulting in a greater net magnetic field.

A superb example of idiotic non-science tripe.  Just the kind of pure idiot fantasy Ashtweth loves!

Bifilar winding of a coil does not increase its magnetic field energy storage.  It increases its parasitic capacitance, thus lowering its self-resonant frequency.  Whoever drew this picture and wrote these words has misinterpreted Tesla and made him look foolish. 

Yes...it is multiplied by two, the number of windings.  But it is the same energy storage as a single coil with an equal number of total windings.  The idea that bifilar winding gives some great multiple of the inductive energy storage over a single-filar coil of same total turns is simply wrong and can easily be disproven by simply doing the experiment.  All wiki means is that the coils will aid each other if in phase (i.e. 1+1=2x) and oppose each other if anti-phase (i.e. 1-1=0x).  The idea that hundreds of thousands of times energy storage is magically achieved by bifilar winding is just pure rubbish.

[RunningBare]

Heck no, if I had to take a guess I would say somewhere between 3 to 4 times greater, at 250,000 my steel ball bearing would have struck the head sending everything into orbit! 

Do you think it was 250,000 times stronger?