Overunity.com Archives

@Everyone:
After over a decade of research both on and off the bench, I finally cracked the early technology of Stan Meyer wide open.  His device does actually work as he claims it does.  In the video I made, the water bath is comprised only of regular tap water from the faucet of my house.  After extensive run times, the water temperature was measured at 72 degrees F. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjHpdYVziQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjHpdYVziQ)


In recent days, I have been tuning the cell and have increased the gas production considerably. 




Peace & love to all,


Chess  ;D

But is OU attainable if you make it explode?

I did waste a bit of time on that crap.

But if you do like to waste your time, please experiment with the long lost patent, rejected patent.

Of his brother, Stephen, holder of secrets ( if any are good). Where is he now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80CdFTf6f4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jxpaBXxmrA

http://www.free-energy-info.com/PatE17.pdf

Good luck!

Hi Chess, I've never seen your work before, I guess electrolysis is not much of an interest, but was captivated by your work.  I only had time to look at the last page on the 'mystery experiment' site but will read more when I have the time. Well done for sticking at it.

What kind of efficiency are you achieving for your electrolysis?

Cheers, Pomo

Quote from: chessnyt on January 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
@Everyone:
After over a decade of research both on and off the bench, I finally cracked the early technology of Stan Meyer wide open.  His device does actually work as he claims it does.  In the video I made, the water bath is comprised only of regular tap water from the faucet of my house.  After extensive run times, the water temperature was measured at 72 degrees F. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjHpdYVziQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcjHpdYVziQ)


In recent days, I have been tuning the cell and have increased the gas production considerably. 




Peace & love to all,


Chess  ;D

As I have said, many many years ago, to that idiot forum you speak of.

Me I suggest, you listen carefully to words of Stephen and concentrate on his patent as best you can.

If you are to waste your time.

Or you should quit this activity.

You are licking a bone that is dry, and that bone, never had meat on it to begin with.

Go back in time, what do you really know for sure as rock solid fact?Your current method. What do those videos show you about it? Nothing...

Foolishly, you believe your own delusions now that you invested much energy into this project, you are committed at your own demise.

Quote from: pomodoro on January 11, 2016, 07:20:53 AM
Hi Chess, I've never seen your work before, I guess electrolysis is not much of an interest, but was captivated by your work.  I only had time to look at the last page on the 'mystery experiment' site but will read more when I have the time. Well done for sticking at it.

What kind of efficiency are you achieving for your electrolysis?

Cheers, Pomo

The numbers keep changing with every tweak of the system.  I will have to wait until I finish tuning the cell and its circuitry before I can release the correct numbers.  I'm currently honing in on the key principles behind the technology.


It appears that Stan was quite the genius.  His technology performs exactly as advertised.  He was not a liar after all.  All of his claims have been established now.   

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on January 11, 2016, 12:02:12 AM
But is OU attainable if you make it explode?

This is a presentation of my Stan Meyer demonstration cell replication as seen on the documentary film, "It Runs on Water". The water bath is comprised of normal tap water with no added electrolyte. The cell can run for hours and the water temperature remains under 73 degrees F.

This is not a perpetual motion device. I assure you that when the cell runs out of water, it will surely cease to operate. It will always require fuel, which in this case, is regular tap water out of the tap. The fuel is cheap, but it is not free, thus it is really NOT overunity, any more than an engine running on gasoline is.  This is NOT a fuel-less system.

It generates enough hydrogen to fuel an internal combustion engine which in turn is able to take over the total power supply input to the system with plenty of power left over for auxiliary electrical appliances/devices.

QuoteIt generates enough hydrogen to fuel an internal combustion engine which in turn is able to take over the total power supply input to the system with plenty of power left over for auxiliary electrical appliances/devices.

So many people have claimed... and so many people have failed to demonstrate. So now it's up to _you_ to PROVE this claim.

The laws of thermodynamics and electrochemistry say you cannot.

TK, Just curious - I know you are very skeptical about OU.  But can we agree that hydrogen rise up by itself,  and if you let it go very high and burn it there can you use the product-the water -to generate extra power on the way down (which is than a function of the height used)  ?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 12, 2016, 10:46:59 AM
The laws of thermodynamics and electrochemistry say you cannot.

And that is the reason some have chosen to go around those laws, because when you use them, you only get what you pay for.

The other issue is proof...

The team I'm familiar with only intend to prove to themselves Stan Meyer was right.  They refuse to prove it to anyone else.  Not their job.

What I know at the moment is at least one of these cells is producing a highly energetic fuel from simply rain water using far less power than the laws say is required.

I'm only the messenger.  Shoot me if you must, but it doesn't change a thing.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 12, 2016, 10:46:59 AM
So many people have claimed... and so many people have failed to demonstrate. So now it's up to _you_ to PROVE this claim.

The laws of thermodynamics and electrochemistry say you cannot.

I don't know if you know how many times that MAN made laws have been written only to be broken and then re-written again, but this is reality.  Anti-gravity devices were said to be in violation of Newton's law, yet some of these anti-gravity devices were recently declassified and stunned many in the scientific community.  Men writing the laws of science have been wrong before and I am certain they will be wrong again as long as mortal men are writing them down.  Unless you are the exception and you are perfect, then I shall retract my words.

Now I'm not going to prove anything.  I am simply going to replicate something that has already been done...

Vehicle idling on tap water:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytu-vwudz4

Vehicle driving on tap water:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E

Just as I have replicated Meyer's initial demonstration cell, I will also replicate his internal combustion engine demonstration.  I'm using a different engine, but his initial cell technology will be fueling it. 

First things first, though.  I intend to improve on Meyer's technology by further pushing the envelope in terms of gas production.  After solving Meyer's original technology, a whole new world has opened up to me.  There are things I had to "unlearn" in order to proceed. 

But practice your recitals of the science bible gospel if you must.  It does tend to make one look learned  ;D

As for me, I'll be driving that "impossible" car into tomorrow.


Peace & love,

Chess  :)

You demonstrated nothing, you proved nothing, you solved nothing, there is nothing.

Delusions, frauds, and lies.

Its all in your dreams, you are in a delusional mental state.

This is just the typical fireworks before the great realisation that you were conned.

Seen it many times.

But you are an adult, and you must come to terms with reality.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on January 13, 2016, 10:58:29 AM
You demonstrated nothing, you proved nothing, you solved nothing, there is nothing.

Delusions, frauds, and lies.

Its all in your dreams, you are in a delusional mental state.

This is just the typical fireworks before the great realisation that you were conned.

Seen it many times.

But you are an adult, and you must come to terms with reality.

Fraud?  Oh my!  What a grand delusion this is.  I am not selling ANYTHING.  Nor am I soliciting funding.  I have funded all of my own private research on my own nickel.  I never took a dime of ANYONE's money, so I owe nothing to ANYONE. 

It is you who has been found out to be the liar, as evidenced by your claims of fraud.  It's nice to know who the liars are.   

Jealousy...oh yes.  I have seen this many, many times before.  Envy can eat right through a man's soul.  This is very typical. 

But then you are an adult, acting like a child.  We tend to accuse others of what we are guilty of  ;)


Chess

chessnyt, with all respect, so far all we have are very hard to believe claims.
You can do whatever you want and make any claim. IF you want credibility, then some form of credible evidence is needed.
Afaik, more energy is needed to dissociate H and O from water, then is available by recombining them.

QuoteIt generates enough hydrogen to fuel an internal combustion engine which in turn is able to take over the total power supply input to the system with plenty of power left over for auxiliary electrical appliances/devices.

So are you backing off from this claim now? This is a simple enough thing to demonstrate.... so get to it. Where is your demonstration that this claim is true?

Note that the claim is made IN THE PRESENT TENSE. So you are claiming that this can be done NOW. Let's see you do it. Or admit that YOU CANNOT.




 

Quote from: memoryman on January 13, 2016, 04:01:20 PM
chessnyt, with all respect, so far all we have are very hard to believe claims.
You can do whatever you want and make any claim. IF you want credibility, then some form of credible evidence is needed.
Afaik, more energy is needed to dissociate H and O from water, then is available by recombining them.

@memoryman:
Anybody can claim that they can run an engine on HHO gas.  For example, Stan Meyer claimed that he could run an engine on nothing but HHO gas and he backed up that claim by showing the world an engine that idled on HHO alone.  But there was a little problem with that demonstration.  There was a long extension cord coming from his house/garage that powered the cell the whole time he was idling the engine.  So some could say, well yeah.  He basically ran the engine from the power of his house/garage, and not isolated from an external power source.  I get that.


Vehicle idling video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytu-vwudz4




Then he showed the world that he could later drive that same vehicle (with the same engine) down the road at better than cruising speed while that extension cord could not possibly have been attached to the vehicle.  This time, he even had an unbiased camera crew from a TV station that he did not own, filming the whole experience.   There was no external power source and the people filming the car were not his employees or friends.  That's a pretty powerful demonstration.


Vehicle being driven in front of a TV news crew video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74uarqap2E




Then he allowed a Lt. Coronel from the U.S. military to examine the vehicle while it was running and turned off.  From there, the list just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  From news crews and a Lt. Coronel to an expert mechanic of 40 years, to close associates and fans.


Now if you don't believe any one of those recordings on video, or witnesses that inspected the vehicle and actually rode with Meyer in his water powered vehicle, then I'm afraid that there is nothing I could show you that would convince you, even if I was to "show" you by making a similar video recording of myself doing the same thing.


I understand all the same laws that you and everybody else can recite, as I have been taught them too.  I understand that you can convert energy from one form to another, but there is always losses involved, thus the sum input power is always greater than the sum output power.  I get that.  I really do.


With standard Faraday electrolysis, you would never get an engine to run on HHO.  The main reason is exactly as you state by using more energy to split the water molecule than can be returned through burning it (recombining it).  The problem is that any standard Faraday electrolysis process must use high amounts of current.  In addition, there is a need to add an electrolyte to the water in order to make the water more conductive.  In doing so, heat is generated in the water bath as a result.  Waste heat in any system is a sign of inefficiency and massive losses.


On the other hand, you can use NO electrolyte at all and get very little production (if any) which will also prohibit you from fueling an internal combustion engine (starving the engine). 
Now with the preceding in mind, what if you could get the kind of gas production you receive when you use brute force, only minus the current flow?  Your efficiency problems go away, as does the waste heat in the water bath.  Now you are able to fuel an engine without overloading the engine to power the water splitting device in return.


So what you need is a cell that splits the water molecule yielding the same kind of gas production as with brute force electrolysis, yet using only a small amount of current (or wattage) at the same time.
With Meyer's technology, you are using voltage potential to split the water molecule with very little current flow, because he designed the technology around amp restriction.  This means that you can use very small amounts of energy (wattage) yet get the same amount of gas production you would receive using LOTS of current (wattage).

But voltage potential with amp restriction is not quite enough.  This is where things start getting much more complex.  Your electronics must also find the resonant frequency of the water, which will always depend on the amount of contaminants present in the water in parts per million (or PPM).  Sounds doable, correct? 


But wait.  Another road block is yet to arrive just in time to ruin your faith in what I'm saying, because despite meeting all of the criteria above, something else is going to go awry soon after you find this ever illusive resonance.  The target resonance is going to change on you automatically.  You see, after you begin to generate hydrogen and oxygen through this process, the contaminants ratio (in PPM) in the water are going to change, which in turn will affect its own resonance.  In other words, as you start generating HHO, the contaminants will remain in the water bath which will form a stronger concentration in relation to the remaining water (as the water will leave the cell) and your electronics must be able to detect this and change its own resonant frequency to match this new resonance while continually following after it.  So to lock onto to resonance is great, but not if your electronics/circuitry are not able to follow it wherever it goes and as fast as it changes.  This is truly what Meyer was doing.  I don't use the term genius loosely.


So now what happens when you get the kind of gas production as you do with brute force electrolysis, but you use only a fraction of the power?  You get a sustainable process where you are using less energy to separate the water molecule into its atomic state yet the return of energy is greater than the amount used to split it in the first place upon recombining it.  It's like the different of opening the safe with dynamite, as opposed to using the combination.  You are switching off the water molecule's covalent bond instead of blasting it apart with brute force.


So once again, you use a smaller amount of energy to split the water, than you get in return recombining it.   
 
Now I only gave you this detailed response because you showed a little respect.  A little respect goes a long way with me.




Chess    ;D

Hi Chess,

I have worked in electronics for over 50 years so I can recognize garbage about electronics pretty easily.  And most of the time when someone tries to explain how they have discovered Meyers secret they spout out a lot of garbage.  Your explanation is the most clear and easy to follow explanation about his process I have ever heard.  Thank you very much for sharing that information in a clear and I believe accurate way.  I have only dabbled a little in making HHO but I have seen a huge difference in production using pulsing instead in straight DC.  So I have no doubt you are correct about hitting the resonance point increasing production many times over straight DC or as you call it brute force.  Will you be sharing more information about your build with us?

Thanks again,
Carroll

Chess
You say all the right words and address the insurmountable issues
The biggest and most obvious "the moving Target".
You must be one very brite and determined fellow to have accomplished this .

Thank you
Chet

Hi Chess, thanks for the explanation. There are of course some ideas there which are not accepted by science, but if your results do  show considerably better than the best faradaic efficiency, then something new is going on.  Keep up the great work and please show us some of your efficiency results when you are ready.
Cheers Pomo.

Paul Zigouras in 2007 has done the same thing.

He build a controler for HHO cell that was also adjusting the frequency and allow to run a gas engine on HHO only !

He sold 1 units on EBAY and after that someone (MIB? petrol company?) bought the right of the invention and bought back the unit that was sell on EBAY

This is the description from EBAY in 2007 when he sold is Control module for HHo cell and look carefully in the description:

And after the description you have a comment from Paul Zigouras after the company was sold

"This is our first production ECM (electronic control module) for our standard water cell. This ECM is pictured on the right, and is rated at 150 amps output. This module comes completely calibrated to our 14-plate cell, and is plug-and-play -- no tuning required. If you are planning on running your car strictly on water, without the use of gasoline, this
ECM will run the car just fine as long as your engine is around 2.5 L or so. Larger engines will have limited throttle response, and should use the larger ECM (pictured on the left) which is rated at up to 400 amps. This larger ECM will be auctioned off in a few days on ebay. The unit in this auction is capable of putting out over 150 amps (12VDC) at 35khz.
This intelligent unit modifies the signal to allow for peak HHO gas output, while drawing minimal current. On smaller engines, you can generate up to 90 horsepower with our 14-plate cell, and over 150 horsepower with our 30-plate cell. The 30-plate cell requires the heavy duty version of this ECM, which only costs slightly more than the smaller version. This is version 1.0A of the ECM, which does not have any type of safeties built into it. Shorting the plates could cause damage to the electronics, so we recommend only using our cells for your projects. ECM has a 90 day warranty, if installed and used correctly. Warranty covers the ECM only -- labor and shipping is not included. If you are looking to run a V8 or other type of large engine, please call engineering at (508) 583-5133. We are currenty designing an ECM specifically for larger engines, even though doing so will consume a tremendous amount of water. Technical support is provided for the ECM at the number above, however, it should be pretty self-explanatory. There are only 2 wires in, and 2 wires out to the cell, so it is very easy to connect. Please note that using any other electrolysis cells other than ours will VOID your warranty. Buyer pays S&H.


From Paul:

Unfortunately, word of mouth has distorted many of the important facts. I did not personally sell the rights to the product; our company's investors did. And since they owned over 92% of the company, the employees and I got a very small piece of the sale. But it was a good Christmas Bonus

The good news is that the technology we sold was inferior to some of the resonance-drive technology out there today. Our new controllers cost 80% less than our original ones (which we can no longer make), and the performance is about 95% of the older controllers. I wouldn't say that the newer design is "better" but it's definitely a better bang-for-the-buck both in terms of manufacturing costs, and retail pricing.

As far as supression goes, I don't think it's any different than GM buying Saab. Companies regularly buy out other companies to protect their interests... It's been going on for hundreds of years, and probably will continue well into the future. I'm sure that if you start a company that builds 300,000 electric cars per year, the oil companies will buy you out in a matter of days. For every electric car that goes on the road, they lose over $80,000 worth of revenue (over the life of the car).

Quote from: citfta on January 14, 2016, 05:59:48 AM
Hi Chess,


I have worked in electronics for over 50 years so I can recognize garbage about electronics pretty easily.  And most of the time when someone tries to explain how they have discovered Meyers secret they spout out a lot of garbage.  Your explanation is the most clear and easy to follow explanation about his process I have ever heard.  Thank you very much for sharing that information in a clear and I believe accurate way.  I have only dabbled a little in making HHO but I have seen a huge difference in production using pulsing instead in straight DC.  So I have no doubt you are correct about hitting the resonance point increasing production many times over straight DC or as you call it brute force.  Will you be sharing more information about your build with us?


Thanks again,
Carroll

@citfta:
I'm glad that I was able to explain Stan's process in a way that the experienced builders would fully understand.  I just hope that I broke it down enough for the less experienced to be able to digest it as well.  I tried to put it in terms that both demographics would be able to grasp.

There were times when I thought that Stan was just making things up as he went along because I tried so many different setups that didn't pan out and it just left me scratching my head many times.  The thing that helped me the most was focusing in on where I was trying to go.  It's sort of like flying a plane.  If you don't know where the destination airport is, your chances of getting there is slim to none.  The first step is knowing what you are trying to do.  I remember times when I had to walk away from the bench for a couple of weeks just to collect my thoughts and regroup for another rigorous round of try something else.  The experimentation seemed to go nowhere at times and the only consolation was knowing what didn't work. 


I haven't decided yet on exactly what I want to do when I finish refining the process.  But know that I am working hard behind the scenes to see just how deep this rabbit hole actually goes. 

Quote from: ramset on January 14, 2016, 06:49:05 AM
Chess
You say all the right words and address the insurmountable issues
The biggest and most obvious "the moving Target".
You must be one very brite and determined fellow to have accomplished this .


Thank you
Chet

@Ramset:
I wish I could tell you that I was this really smart guy who could have figured this out even if Stan had never come along, but that would be my lie.  Honestly, I would have NEVER figured this technology out in one million years without Stan having done the real work in the first place.  Without Stan, I would never have tried to find this process, and I'm sure I would never have found it purely on accident all by myself.  I am simply a replicator who copied Stan, and therefore I will never be able to claim it as my own work.  Never.  I have no idea how Stan even thought of all this from the beginning.  I really don't.


But you are spot on about being determined.  I was determined to find out for myself whether or not Stan was really telling the truth or just blowing a lot of smoke.  So many things make sense to me now that I used to wonder about, such as the frequency issues.  Stan couldn't tell anyone the frequencies because his circuitry did this for him without having to calculate it manually.  Never give up.


Best regards,


Chess         

Quote from: pomodoro on January 14, 2016, 07:13:47 AM
Hi Chess, thanks for the explanation. There are of course some ideas there which are not accepted by science, but if your results do  show considerably better than the best faradaic efficiency, then something new is going on.  Keep up the great work and please show us some of your efficiency results when you are ready.
Cheers Pomo.

@pomodoro:
You are very welcome for the explanation.  It is much easier to explain something you are able to do than it is to explain things you have never done before.  So it is only through experience that I possess this advantage to explain what I am doing so well.

I think that it is to the detriment of science that men of science refuse to look at most things outside the accepted ideology.

Truthfully, I am very unimpressed by science.  Modern science in particular.  I believe that our modern society should be much further advanced than it is presently.  Some treat the world as if everything that is to be discovered has already been done.  As if there is nothing beyond their books explaining modern day processes and phenomena.  Nothing exists outside the sacred walls of their well established "laws" which is why I believe science is so limited.  For example; the common cold is still without a cure.  We can merely treat the symptoms but not the cause of the symptoms.  I find this very lacking.

The problem is, how do you teach someone who knows it all? If they believe that they already know all there is to be learned, and how to explain everything that occurs, then this limits ones desire or willingness to go beyond the well received concepts that exist today to discover new things.  It sort of paints them into a box.  If they were ever to admit that one of their beliefs had been violated, then they would feel that they were wrong and their professors before them were wrong, and this would shatter their own confidence in a system they have based possibly their whole careers upon.  It would undermine their core institutions.  It would also make them look silly or unlearned.  In science, reputation is nearly everything and to risk losing it is to risk losing credibility.
     
The greater problem is that there is no universal theory to describe the universe.  In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself.  This is a major discrepancy in consistency which is self-contradicting.

At one point, I almost decided NOT to get involved in my Stanley Meyer research at all.  It was because of what I was taught that I almost missed this great experience.  I was taught that what Stan was doing was simply impossible, thus a waste of my precious time.  And not just impossible in one aspect, but rather in several different aspects.  Namely, the law of conservation of energy.

Even after my initial breakthrough, I thought that the anomalies I was witnessing were merely malfunctioning or faulty test equipment.  I can't tell you how many times I checked and rechecked temperature readings and analyzed wave forms on my Tektronix oscilloscope.  I soon realized that not all of them could be wrong at the same time.

To prove anything to science was never my intention from the start.  It was simply to prove to myself whether or not what Stan had already done was in fact possible.  I am now convinced.  I truly believe that replication is the ultimate method of verification and validation. 

I will be releasing the data of my research upon completion of my refinements to the project. 


Cheers,

Chess  ;D

Another great read Chess, I do enjoy your style of writing as well as your content.  I ask myself if your experience changed you as it has another fellow that has had success with the Stanley Meyer technology.  I bet it has, seems it would have to.

Something soon many of us will have to contemplate is this world we live in--how much of it is truth and how much of it is fiction.  When you watch that newscast of Stan running his buggy and statement is made, "even the Pentagon is interested", one has to know there are people on this planet that knew Stan was correct all along.  We were so close to all that technology going right into a black hole and never coming out.  I'm so thankful guys like yourself dug in and become determined enough to dig it back out.  To the point though, how many other things haven't been dug out and are lost to the general public like ancient artifacts?  Was it just greed and money that corrupted our knowledge?  I'm almost afraid to answer my own question because to do so means we likely lived a life that was more than 50% a lie.

Knowledge is power; in this case awareness.  Something or someone is this world knew it and jumped through their own ass to make sure we never acquired that power, that knowledge.  No one can tell me the great academics and engineers of this modern era couldn't look at Stan's patents and see there was a lot more going on there than they claimed.  They caved to forces I would like to see abolished from this planet.  I see the same thing going on right now with the nuclear industry.  Any child could understand you do not use a highly deadly substance to power your lights and heat your home when there is no way on earth to get rid of this dangerous waste.  Simply a very bad idea, yet it's everywhere doing exactly what some knew it would.  With disasters like Fukushima that cannot even be cleaned up, poisoning our oceans and our air...  Stan's technology could have completely erased this mess before it started; anyone with a half a brain knows it.

It's a bitter sweet state of affairs.  Now we know what could have been.  We see much of our labor has been wasted, turning sweat into money, then into energy to power our lives.  It was never necessary.  So much time wasted.  Time we will never get back and a world we may never be able to clean up.  It makes  me very angry and sad at the same time.  I feel so manipulated, maybe raped is a better word.  And for what?  So some fat ass with more chins than a Chinese phonebook could  get rich?  I feel my pulse pounding just thinking about it.

I hope many of us can walk in your footsteps Chess and realize all of this for themselves.  Maybe we can fix the world a tiny piece at a time and when we leave this world, take with us the knowledge so this never happens again.  I can see no other option.

Very interesting posts.
@chessnyt: I see some limiting statements by you. Science is not always practiced as it 'should' be. After all, scientists are mostly human.
" In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself." Not necessarily true: none of them may be true; theories are just that: theories.
As to your Stan Meyers replication: I personally have experience with finding errors in similar claims. I keep going in the hope that someone will prove me wrong.
@Dog-One: your outlook on the past, present and future seems very dark to me. A see a very bright future for Thorium molten salt reactors in some form.

Quote from: memoryman on January 17, 2016, 08:34:46 PM
Very interesting posts.
@chessnyt: I see some limiting statements by you. Science is not always practiced as it 'should' be. After all, scientists are mostly human.
" In science, there are three separate theories instead.  One of them has to be correct, making two of them false, and so science even disagrees with itself." Not necessarily true: none of them may be true; theories are just that: theories.
As to your Stan Meyers replication: I personally have experience with finding errors in similar claims. I keep going in the hope that someone will prove me wrong.
@Dog-One: your outlook on the past, present and future seems very dark to me. A see a very bright future for Thorium molten salt reactors in some form.

@memoryman:
You are absolutely correct.  There is no doubt about that.  A theory is just that, a theory.  And it is also possible that all three of the scientific theories explaining the universe are wrong, just as you have stated.  Now I had given science the benefit of the doubt by stating that one of them has to be correct (because there can only be one right explanation).   So take away the one out of three chances and science goes from having a 33.3% chance of being right to a 0% chance.  That obviously doesn't help its case but rather extinguishes any hope of science being correct.     

That does not take into account the possibility that there is a partial truth in any/all of the three theories.
It is also possible that any theory can be unprovable.

Quote from: memoryman on January 18, 2016, 09:35:47 AM
That does not take into account the possibility that there is a partial truth in any/all of the three theories.
It is also possible that any theory can be unprovable.

@memoryman:
It is possible that there is some truth to what the weather man says as well.  If he says there is a 10% chance of rain and it rains the entire day, he is correct.  On the other hand, if it doesn't rain, he is also correct, as he only gave it a small chance of occurring. 

I think you have missed the underlying point.  The initial point I was making is that science disagrees with itself.  The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that.

Science does not agree or disagree with anything: it just IS. We, as human beings, interpret, infer, conclude etc.
"The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that." No, at the MOMENT we have (at least) 3 theories. We had others before and likely will have new ones again.
How does this apply to Stan's claims?
As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.
The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.
If you are interested in sharing more info about why you think that Stan was right, I am happy to sign a NDA. My interests are in experiments with nano cavitation as a form of lenr, and converting ambient heat into electricity.

Quote from: memoryman on January 18, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
Science does not agree or disagree with anything: it just IS. We, as human beings, interpret, infer, conclude etc.
"The fact that there are three separate scientific theories to explain the universe is proof of that." No, at the MOMENT we have (at least) 3 theories. We had others before and likely will have new ones again.
How does this apply to Stan's claims?
As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.
The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.
If you are interested in sharing more info about why you think that Stan was right, I am happy to sign a NDA. My interests are in experiments with nano cavitation as a form of lenr, and converting ambient heat into electricity.

@memoryman:
First of all, my response was to pompodoro .  In particular, I was responding to this reply:

Quote from: pomodoro on January 14, 2016, 07:13:47 AM
Hi Chess, thanks for the explanation. There are of course some ideas there which are not accepted by science...

If my response wasn't relevant, then I think that it should not have merited a response from you defending science.

Secondly, I have no shortage of people who want to examine what I have.  Some have contacted me privately because they do not want their identities to become public knowledge.  Some of these people fear retaliation from their peers and employers, and some are just a little cautious after what became of Stan Meyer.  I am not here to judge these people, but I will respect their wishes and keep them confidential.  If they choose to later reveal their involvement on their own, then that is their call.  No man is an island unto himself, thus I have agreed to make these concessions.

Notwithstanding, your offer is appreciated, and I take it as a kind and generous offer.     

Quote from: memoryman on January 18, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
As far as I can see, there is at the moment little supporting evidence.

I beg to differ with you.  I believe that Stan has driven the "impossible" car in front of enough credible people to support his claims while he was still in the land of the living.  But then a man sees what he wants to see and he disregards the rest.  (A little Simon & Garfunkle quote).

Quote from: memoryman on January 18, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
The same can be said for Joe Papp's noble gas engine, yet I think that there was something to that. His patents gave wrong and misleading information in them; maybe that is true of Stan's patent too.

I have never attempted to replicate the Papp engine, so I have no comment on that technology.

I do know that Stan's patents do not reveal exactly how to build his system.  At first I thought that some of his patents were redacted, but now I am leaning towards the idea that Stan was merely being protective of his invention. 

Quote from: Dog-One on January 17, 2016, 07:21:38 PM
Another great read Chess, I do enjoy your style of writing as well as your content.  I ask myself if your experience changed you as it has another fellow that has had success with the Stanley Meyer technology.  I bet it has, seems it would have to.

Something soon many of us will have to contemplate is this world we live in--how much of it is truth and how much of it is fiction.  When you watch that newscast of Stan running his buggy and statement is made, "even the Pentagon is interested", one has to know there are people on this planet that knew Stan was correct all along.  We were so close to all that technology going right into a black hole and never coming out.  I'm so thankful guys like yourself dug in and become determined enough to dig it back out.  To the point though, how many other things haven't been dug out and are lost to the general public like ancient artifacts?  Was it just greed and money that corrupted our knowledge?  I'm almost afraid to answer my own question because to do so means we likely lived a life that was more than 50% a lie.

Knowledge is power; in this case awareness.  Something or someone is this world knew it and jumped through their own ass to make sure we never acquired that power, that knowledge.  No one can tell me the great academics and engineers of this modern era couldn't look at Stan's patents and see there was a lot more going on there than they claimed.  They caved to forces I would like to see abolished from this planet.  I see the same thing going on right now with the nuclear industry.  Any child could understand you do not use a highly deadly substance to power your lights and heat your home when there is no way on earth to get rid of this dangerous waste.  Simply a very bad idea, yet it's everywhere doing exactly what some knew it would.  With disasters like Fukushima that cannot even be cleaned up, poisoning our oceans and our air...  Stan's technology could have completely erased this mess before it started; anyone with a half a brain knows it.

It's a bitter sweet state of affairs.  Now we know what could have been.  We see much of our labor has been wasted, turning sweat into money, then into energy to power our lives.  It was never necessary.  So much time wasted.  Time we will never get back and a world we may never be able to clean up.  It makes  me very angry and sad at the same time.  I feel so manipulated, maybe raped is a better word.  And for what?  So some fat ass with more chins than a Chinese phonebook could  get rich?  I feel my pulse pounding just thinking about it.

I hope many of us can walk in your footsteps Chess and realize all of this for themselves.  Maybe we can fix the world a tiny piece at a time and when we leave this world, take with us the knowledge so this never happens again.  I can see no other option.

@Dog-One:
Yes, the experience has definitely changed me.  The world has become a much larger ocean than I originally thought it was.  I realize now just how little I know and that I have much to learn.

It gives me great comfort to hear that others have accomplished what Stan has as well.  This ensures that the technology can never be buried again. 

Furthermore, I have no doubt that there are people with intimate knowledge of Stan's work who have taken cover and faded back into society after Meyer's demise. 

My paramount concern has always been to leave this world in a better condition than I found it.  It's not all about me.  It's about our planet. It's about our neighbors. It's about our children. It's about making a change before it's too late. It's about the future generations who will inherit what we leave behind.


Chess

Thank you, Chess.
I thought that your post was a response to me.
My offer is not for personal financial gain; I share your sentiment about " My paramount concern has always been to leave this world in a better condition than I found it.  It's not all about me.  It's about our planet. It's about our neighbors. It's about our children. It's about making a change before it's too late. It's about the future generations who will inherit what we leave behind."
I don't believe the 'doomsday' predictions and am very optimistic about the future.
Btw, the intent of the patent system is that in exchange for protection, the inventor is supposed to reveal his invention in the patent sufficiently that a working device can be made from the patent description. A patent should be revoked if that can not be done.

There is a patent where water is split using a very high voltage DC, without electrolysis, by using insulating electrodes. Unfortunately the water acts as a dielectric, storing charge, and when the molecule splits, the charge of the dielectric is the energy used in the dissociation.  So this 'potential only' method still uses a heap of current although insulators are used....

Chess
quote
My paramount concern has always been to leave this world in a better condition than I found it.  It's not all about me.  It's about our planet. It's about our neighbors. It's about our children. It's about making a change before it's too late. It's about the future generations who will inherit what we leave behind.

end quote

Chess,
I believe this reason is the only reason that matters ...it is why Most of the open source  regulars are here.

I truly hope your findings prove to completely validate this technology , it would make total sense that a frequency can do this to water as this also is a path in LENR research of late [with similar "frequency hunting" issues.

very exciting indeed !

respectfully
Chet

Alot of bullshit has been said, and straight up non-intelligent gibberish, easily claimed baloney. Voltage... Not amps... No shit man... I get it. I think we are passed this point by now.

Many many years ago, when I was a young guy, I followed this story to its known limit.

We had access to all the pictures first, everybody who visited the buggy told me it smelled like a dead end.

If you listen to his Brother's interview, he clearly says that when Stan died, nobody knew what was really happening, that even Stan was not sure. The story ends there, with his brother, now he said he "understood" the technology, and asked, why is snow white?

That was his clue, for you, why is snow white. He talked about how the cell was a waveguide, and how he was a top 5% engineer from the Navy, how his father made him build things, because he did not want him to become a hack. You can tell he finds them annoying and really looks down on anybody who would ever try to ask him for help solving these secrets, that he worked so hard to earn.

You should track down his only patent and analyze it here, dedicate your life to the question, why is snow white. Then you would be respected by your peers, right now you are just respected by the ignorants, Ratset and Alzheimerman.

If you are a hardcore believer then this is how you should continue. But you are probably a hack, so you probably wont understand these basic things I am telling you.

The state of Stan's research...It was all in a "becoming state", an idea for future research, in need of perfecting, in the quest of understanding, unfinished.

Of course he would not admit to that.

I am sure that what you were left with on the internet was just the baloney part, of whatever Stan discovered, as was those useless dusty documents that were in possession of the Buggy owner.

Arm
it is good to know such talented intuitive and gifted business men walk amongst us in this open source community.

You are truly a GEM.

and of course if you can't do it No one can...
what a tremendous asset you must be to yourself.....

Well I guess Chess better keep his secret after that barrage of abuse!  Still, ten years of investigation deserves some respect.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on January 20, 2016, 03:00:24 AM
Alot of bullshit has been said, and straight up non-intelligent gibberish, easily claimed baloney. Voltage... Not amps... No shit man... I get it. I think we are passed this point by now.

Many many years ago, when I was a young guy, I followed this story to its known limit.

We had access to all the pictures first, everybody who visited the buggy told me it smelled like a dead end.

If you listen to his Brother's interview, he clearly says that when Stan died, nobody knew what was really happening, that even Stan was not sure. The story ends there, with his brother, now he said he "understood" the technology, and asked, why is snow white?

That was his clue, for you, why is snow white. He talked about how the cell was a waveguide, and how he was a top 5% engineer from the Navy, how his father made him build things, because he did not want him to become a hack. You can tell he finds them annoying and really looks down on anybody who would ever try to ask him for help solving these secrets, that he worked so hard to earn.

You should track down his only patent and analyze it here, dedicate your life to the question, why is snow white. Then you would be respected by your peers, right now you are just respected by the ignorants, Ratset and Alzheimerman.

If you are a hardcore believer then this is how you should continue. But you are probably a hack, so you probably wont understand these basic things I am telling you.

The state of Stan's research...It was all in a "becoming state", an idea for future research, in need of perfecting, in the quest of understanding, unfinished.

Of course he would not admit to that.

I am sure that what you were left with on the internet was just the baloney part, of whatever Stan discovered, as was those useless dusty documents that were in possession of the Buggy owner.

@ARMCORTEX,

At first I was going to dismiss your post. Then I thought you may be a paid troll like that other guy but then, reading your post
made me realize you are just an unsuccessful old failure and your want to shower your bitterness on others.

When I read the first post in this thread by chessnyt I was delighted to hear of his success. dont let your jelousy destroy you.

@chessnyt,

Congratulations on your success. I feel your elation. I thank you for coming forward and proving that Stan's idea worked. You
want to leave the world in a better state.  Who doesn't but, we are out numbered by the trolls.

Isn't the 'paid troll' label getting old? It is amazing how you judge people based on...nothing.

Quote from: MasterPlaster on January 20, 2016, 08:27:21 AM
@ARMCORTEX,

At first I was going to dismiss your post. Then I thought you may be a paid troll like that other guy but then, reading your post
made me realize you are just an unsuccessful old failure and your want to shower your bitterness on others.

When I read the first post in this thread by chessnyt I was delighted to hear of his success. dont let your jelousy destroy you.

@chessnyt,

Congratulations on your success. I feel your elation. I thank you for coming forward and proving that Stan's idea worked. You
want to leave the world in a better state.  Who doesn't but, we are out numbered by the trolls.

@MasterPlaster:
There are always going to be sour grapes and bitter people in this world who speak out of frustration and failure in their own personal life.  It's clearly sad to watch and it will ultimately lead to further mistakes and embarrassment. 

The last I had seen of Stephen Meyer, he was asking for donations to build a fuel booster.  He clearly doesn't possess the initial technology that Stan had discovered or he would at least be able to replicate Stan's demonstration cell, which would have probably brought in thousands of dollars in donations all by itself.  Even the current owners of Stan's demonstration cell are not able to get it to perform as Stan did, so the crown jewel of Stan's technology is obviously missing something.  Personally, I don't think that Stan trusted anybody with all of his secrets after having had prior inventions stolen from him.  You can have the fancy cell, the great big dial, and all of Stan's patents, but without the missing pieces, it's all just a pretty paperweight.

What people fail to realize is that there was more than one technology; the fuel injection technology being completely separate.  It was a system that was never completed before Stan's death, and even Stephen has not been able to finish it and has moved on.

Thank you for your comment and congratulations.  You are 100% correct.  I am extremely excited about my success.  This is not only a missing piece to a much larger puzzle, but it's also a vindication of the late Stanley Meyer.   


Best regards,

Chess

If a man cannot trust his own twin brother, than he is a fool.

So from your rationale... I come up with this conclusion.

For 10 years of your life, you have followed a fool then. You are even the bigger fool, a fool or moronic proportions.

If you read what I said many years ago, you would have saved 7 years of your life.

10 years bro... Honestly that is sad, very embarassing.

And still, you continue to claim BS, your brain needs to be reprogrammed, knocked out, you are asleep bro.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on January 20, 2016, 11:47:35 AM
If a man cannot trust his own twin brother, than he is a fool.

So from your rationale... I come up with this conclusion.

For 10 years of your life, you have followed a fool then. You are even the bigger fool, a fool or moronic proportions.

If you read what I said many years ago, you would have saved 7 years of your life.

10 years bro... Honestly that is sad, very embarassing.

And still, you continue to claim BS, your brain needs to be reprogrammed, knocked out, you are asleep bro.

@ARM
It's like I have already said before.  IF Stan had shared all of his secrets regarding the demonstration cell with Stephen, then Stephen should have been able to make a new one by now.  Where is it?
 
Furthermore, with Stan's original technology, he was able to run the dune buggy on nothing but tap water.  Why hasn't Stephen been able to do the same thing?
 
His motive to keep his original cell setup secret may have also been to protect Stephen.  We will never know.  But for whatever reason, the fact is that money was donated to Stephen and not even a successful demonstration cell has come of it.  If Stephen knew, we would have it by now.  I believe he started soliciting donations over three years ago.
 
Now you have already accused me of fraud, yet I have NEVER EVER even asked for one dime for my project, nor am I selling ANYTHING.  All of my private research was funded on my own nickel.  Stephen has asked for money and has given us nothing in return, yet you accused me of being the scammer? 

Instead of asking others to get in touch with and follow Stephen, why don't you stop being so lazy and track Stephen down yourself?  Or is it because you already know that he has nothing?

Be careful how you answer.  You've already been caught in one lie.   

Quote from: chessnyt on January 20, 2016, 11:39:30 AM
What people fail to realize is that there was more than one technology; the fuel injection technology being completely separate.  It was a system that was never completed before Stan's death, and even Stephen has not been able to finish it and has moved on.

Mr. Walker has done some calculations on what would be needed to build a functioning VIC for the injector and his analysis boils down to needing something other than thousands of feet of stainless steel wire.  The impedance match needed pushes the limits of the material we have available to us and is likely the reason Stan was unable to finish this stage of development.  So my take from his research is even if you know Stan's system inside and out, the water spark plug system would be nearly impossible to build and probably even more difficult to tune and keep running.  Engine temperature alone would be a huge hurdle to deal with.

The water fuel cell on the other hand is well within our grasp.  I think fairly soon, by Summer at the latest, there will noise on the street in several countries around the world.  Keep a listen...

Many people tried to persuade me to tackle Meyer's fuel injection technology at the beginning of my research.  It's simply amazing how many arm chair researchers try to steer experimenters away from their original plans, as they try to impose their own will on others to chase after their own dreams and favorite brands of research.  And believe you me, they will never give you ANY kind of respect until they have successfully hijacked your research, your forum threads and your life.  What this stems from is simply laziness on the part of these non-building researchers.  They won't build anything (at least not anymore) and they haven't been very successful, but they sure will tell you where you ought to go, research and build.  BEWARE of these people!  They are also blind guides, and when the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch.  If they knew where the answers were, they would be the first in line, but they have no clue and so they want you to start digging for gold (with your resources) with their self-prescribed treasure maps on their behalf.  Don't fall into their trap.

Quote from: Dog-One on January 20, 2016, 05:53:53 PM
Mr. Walker has done some calculations on what would be needed to build a functioning VIC for the injector and his analysis boils down to needing something other than thousands of feet of stainless steel wire.  The impedance match needed pushes the limits of the material we have available to us and is likely the reason Stan was unable to finish this stage of development.  So my take from his research is even if you know Stan's system inside and out, the water spark plug system would be nearly impossible to build and probably even more difficult to tune and keep running.  Engine temperature alone would be a huge hurdle to deal with.

The water fuel cell on the other hand is well within our grasp.  I think fairly soon, by Summer at the latest, there will noise on the street in several countries around the world.  Keep a listen...

@Dog-One:
I completely agree with you about the water fuel cell being within our grasp.  Yes, the fuel injection technology was never completed and you cannot expect to solve a much more complex problem if you cannot even solve the introductory (or basic) problem.  It's like teaching a baby to run before they can even crawl.

Keep me posted on your success.

@Everyone:
I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank all the individuals who have approached me privately.  I appreciate your moral support and kind words.  I will be sharing my progress with you in the near future. 


Thank you,

Chess  ;D

You made your false claims, you told your bullshit, you had your phony taps on the back from everyone.

Its time to go "tune" your cell some more now Chessy.

AKA, scratch your head, your ass, eat doritos, touch the water with the cheese from your fingers, wich will add ions thus increase production, go sleep after, in your dreams you will get confused with reality and actually think you have it working now.

Come back to the forums to tell us that the Cell has been "tuned"... Bingo... Cell is now 100% as advertised...Has been "tuned"... Time to go tell forum.

Such a hack this guy...

ARMCORTEX, that post was totally uncalled for. There was nothing constructive about it, just abuse.
Chessnyt, I wish you success. I am 'helping' another inventor with an impossible OU device (as I have done before).
It's about the journey, NOT the destination.

( I know very little about this topic, and only know some very basics about electricity etc  )

I have always wondered if it is 100% accurate to say that  -
[ the energy required to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water ]  = [ the energy required to fuse hydrogen and oxygen back together to form water ]

Here is  one  reason I question that -
-  imagine you have 2 magnets floating nearby each other,  and then you give one magnet the slightest-push( using the absolute minimum energy ) required for the 2 magnets to join together
-  Now, using the absolute minimum energy,  separate those two magnets to the distance they were before
          I am not sure that the energy required to separate the 2 magnets,  will equal the energy required to join them.

But of course,  I assume the process by which atoms join together,  and separate,  must be very different .

___________

  I also thought that perhaps they could use graphene( or lattices made of graphene ) or some of the newly invented super-light-weight-foams/gels( some of which I think are made of metals )  to maximize the electrical-conductors surface area in the electrolysis process .

@Everyone:
I have been tuning many different parameters in the system.  Gas production is way up now and I haven't even reached the ceiling of this process yet.   

Sorry about the sound.  I tried adding a music sound track but I screwed it up.  I need to learn how to use good video editing software.  If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears.

The link to my recent video is at the bottom of this post.  I ran extended runs for a total of 65 minutes and vented the hydrogen to atmosphere through a bubbler.  The water bath temperature before testing was measured at 68 degrees F.  After testing, it was measured at 70 degrees F.  This data (and many other parameters) is all being recorded and logged which helps me to track efficiency.  Efficiency is actually higher at this time than it has been previously. 

Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GodfosDVYO8


Cheers,

Chess  ;D ;D ;D ;)

A good free Video Editing Software is Windows Movie Maker (which I use)
http://windows.microsoft.com/de-at/windows/movie-maker

This one should be good, but costs about Euro 80.--
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424347,00.asp
http://de.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector-ultimate/features_de_DE.html

This one is also good, but costs about Euro 100.--
http://www.adobe.com/de/products/premiere-elements.html


I think that the free Windows Movie Maker is good enough for straight forward videos. It even runs under Windows 10. It allows to add narration (voice over) and music. The offered graphic features are good enough, who needs fancy stuff. Video editing can not make good videos, only the contents can be good.

One can also add nice things (links, text, music) with the YouTube video editing function, once the video is uploaded to YouTube.

Greetings, Conrad

Chess
Thanks for the update !

Chet

Chees, cheers for the update.  The very low temp rise is impressive, but unless it actually drops in temp, where is the dissociation energy coming from?

Quote from: conradelektro on February 01, 2016, 11:03:22 AM
A good free Video Editing Software is Windows Movie Maker (which I use)
http://windows.microsoft.com/de-at/windows/movie-maker

This one should be good, but costs about Euro 80.--
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424347,00.asp
http://de.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector-ultimate/features_de_DE.html

This one is also good, but costs about Euro 100.--
http://www.adobe.com/de/products/premiere-elements.html


I think that the free Windows Movie Maker is good enough for straight forward videos. It even runs under Windows 10. It allows to add narration (voice over) and music. The offered graphic features are good enough, who needs fancy stuff. Video editing can not make good videos, only the contents can be good.

One can also add nice things (links, text, music) with the YouTube video editing function, once the video is uploaded to YouTube.

Greetings, Conrad

@conradelektro:
Thank you for the suggestions.  I downloaded the free Windows Movie Maker and it was very easy to add my sound track to the video.  I then uploaded it to YouTube and it was rejected because the song was copywrite protected  ::)  Anyways, thanks for the advice.  I just need to find music that is not protected.

@ramset:
You are very welcome for the update.  I'm glad it's all good news thus far  ;D


Best Regards,

Chess

Quote from: pomodoro on February 02, 2016, 07:48:16 AM
Chees, cheers for the update.  The very low temp rise is impressive, but unless it actually drops in temp, where is the dissociation energy coming from?

@pomodoro:
I don't think the temperature of the water bath will ever drop.  So far, the starting temperature of the water has always been colder than the room temperature thus the water will at best acclimate to its surrounding environment.  I have built cells in the past that have required an electrolyte and it has been my experience that even then the water bath temperature rises, and does not drop.  When operating those types of cells, the temperature rise is quite dramatic and always rises way above room temperature (some have even boiled).


Cheers,

Chess

How many moles of hydrogen are you currently producing per Faraday?

Quote from: pomodoro on February 02, 2016, 09:29:42 AM
How many moles of hydrogen are you currently producing per Faraday?

I do not have the answer to your question; however, the question you're asking is a good one. 

I am currently using a PSI feedback integrated into my tuning test equipment apparatus which allows me to analyze gas production on the fly.  This does not give me LPM data, but it works extremely well in the tuning process to measure subtle changes in gas production in real time while I'm tweaking various parameters. 

I am in the process of acquiring a hydrogen LPM flow meter, which will give me accurate measurements of the actual gas production.  This data will be released as soon as I am finished with the tuning process and I am in possession of the flow meter.  Thus far, I have not reached a ceiling.  This, to me, is the exciting part.

Expanding a little more on your previous posting concerning the water bath temperature; I cannot explain the heat (or shall I say, the lack thereof) anomalies.  I've been doing this for a very long time and I have never witnessed any of the anomalies I am seeing currently EVER.  Honestly, I am struggling to wrap my head around what is actually occurring. 


Regards,

Chess

Chess, thank you for your excellent posts. Although I personally see little chance of this leading to 'the Holy Grail', I am still willing to provide my assistance (not money!) if wanted. I have done this several times (in the background) because I encourage experimentation: the voyage is more important than the destination.

Chess, cheers for the reply. I believe that there must be some dissolved salts already in there because pure water had a resistivity of 18M ohm.cm. Very little current could ever flow. Exposure of this water to atmospheric CO2 already lowers this value to quite some extent. It would make sense to measure its conductivity with a cheap meter.  As far as the moles of H2 are concerned, a linear flow meter calibrated for H2 will not give accurate results if oxygen is present as it seems to be in your electrolytic cell. A measure of the total volume of gas in an inverted measuring cylinder filled with water would give a reasonably good estimate.

Quote from: pomodoro on February 03, 2016, 02:52:08 AM
Chess, cheers for the reply. I believe that there must be some dissolved salts already in there because pure water had a resistivity of 18M ohm.cm. Very little current could ever flow. Exposure of this water to atmospheric CO2 already lowers this value to quite some extent. It would make sense to measure its conductivity with a cheap meter.  As far as the moles of H2 are concerned, a linear flow meter calibrated for H2 will not give accurate results if oxygen is present as it seems to be in your electrolytic cell. A measure of the total volume of gas in an inverted measuring cylinder filled with water would give a reasonably good estimate.

@pomodoro:
Thank you for the information regarding the flow meter.  I will cancel the acquisition of the hydrogen flow meter.  I didn't realize that the oxygen content in the gas would interfere with accurate measurements from the flow meter.  You just saved me a bundle of money ;D

Your alternative to taking gas flow measurements will be implemented instead.  I will have to resort to the primitive method of using a one liter bottle full of water inverted in a five gallon bucket with the HHO displacing the contents.  This will not be accurate, but like you said, it will at least give me a ball park figure to work with.

I have received some additional advice from another source to insulate the cell with foam or fiberglass.  I will also be heeding this advice in order to find out if the two degree rise in temperature is due to the process or simply acclimation to room temperature.  This same individual has also suggested weighing the water before and after test runs, storing the water in my lab, along with many other very clever suggestions to determine whether the process is endothermic or exothermic.  I will be including this additional information in my data logging.

Time seems to be my worst enemy at present as I work a full-time job that requires an average of 60 hours a week.  I have a lot of work to do but it will be done as opportunity allows me to.

As far as dissolved salts in the water; don't forget that this is city tap water, which contains a whole host of contaminants (fluoride, chlorine, minerals, etc.).  This also lends to the conductivity in the water.


Regards,

Chess   

Chess,

Very interesting topic you've implemented here.

May I commend you on your well constructed postings?
Your grammar, spelling, demeanor and very clear
(unambiguous) explanations are a superb example of
how it should be done!

All chess needs to do now is present some accurate data and figures. Not all that easy to do, but oscilloscope volts and current to the cell and time to generate 100 ml of gas would be a start.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on February 04, 2016, 06:33:07 PM
Chess,

Very interesting topic you've implemented here.

May I commend you on your well constructed postings?
Your grammar, spelling, demeanor and very clear
(unambiguous) explanations are a superb example of
how it should be done!

@SeaMonkey:
Thank you for the comment.  I try to put forth my best efforts in all that I do in order to maximize the results.  This build is no exception.  Additionally, I try convey clear and accurate communication to those interested in these efforts. 

@pomodoro:
Room temperature during test runs is 75 degrees F and the resistance of the tap water (according to my Fluke digital multi-meter) is .749 mega ohms.

@Everyone:
Determining whether the process is endothermic or exothermic is the next order of business.  This a very relevant and important determination to make.  This was a factor that I simply overlooked in the past, but thanks to an anonymous source, I am now paying close attention to this detail as it does indeed merit investigating.

I am in the process of creating a "cocoon" around the fuel cell using fiberglass insulation.  I am also acclimating the tap water used in testing to room temperature beforehand. 

Please be patient with the forthcoming results.  My limited free time is hindering an expedient conclusion.


Best regards,

Chess

I had a quick look on the net and there are a few journal articles that clearly show that voltage pulses of short duration charge the double layer only at first, because the speed of initiating electrolysis is quite slow.. Then,  the double layer discharges by the electrolytic process.
The efficiency reported  for electrolysis is considerably higher than DC, but not OU. Quite amazing.

Chess, are you sure you have been working on water electrolysis for ten years ?? Not being rude but surely you should know after that time that you can't use a multimeter to measure the resistivity of water. First of all its resistivity not resistance, also, you can't use DC , it needs to be by AC.. ;) ;)

Quote from: pomodoro on February 07, 2016, 06:32:08 PM
I had a quick look on the net and there are a few journal articles that clearly show that voltage pulses of short duration charge the double layer only at first, because the speed of initiating electrolysis is quite slow.. Then,  the double layer discharges by the electrolytic process.
The efficiency reported  for electrolysis is considerably higher than DC, but not OU. Quite amazing.

Chess, are you sure you have been working on water electrolysis for ten years ?? Not being rude but surely you should know after that time that you can't use a multimeter to measure the resistivity of water. First of all its resistivity not resistance, also, you can't use DC , it needs to be by AC.. ;) ;)

@pomodoro:
No, I have not been working on water electrolysis for ten years.  It's more like 35 years.  Fortunately for me, the state I live in does not require a license or a degree in chemistry to perform electrolysis yet.  I've been building and operating electrolysis cells since I was a teenager.  In all this time, I have never used a resistivity meter, as I had been using distilled water mixed with KOH (and sometimes substitute electrolytes) in exact ratios in most cases. 

My background is far from being a scientist (like this is some great big revelation).  I have never once EVER claimed to be a scientist.  The mere fact that SOMEONE had to anonymously suggest that I check my process to determine if it is endothermic or exothermic should have been a VERY strong clue.  I think everybody noticed it was NOT my idea.

Additionally, I never even thought to insulate the cell until it was suggested to me just recently (another BIG clue along the way).
My background is in electronics, and in my professional career, I specialize in industrial automation.  I did mention that I do all this "building" and experimentation in my SPARE time, did I not? 

The scientific interests that will be reviewing my work at a later time will be using much more sophisticated testing and measuring equipment than I have available to me.  They will also be thoroughly analyzing the test water (I would imagine they know what a resistivity meter is, being they are REAL chemists).  I would also imagine they might be taking calorie measurements instead of the cheap and simple "K" thermocouple probe readings I am taking.   

I hope you are not crossed by my having to point out that tap water is in fact NOT pure water?   ;) ;)


Cheers,

Chess

Chess there is no need to be a scientist to know about water conductivity, far from it. Its one of the most basic and useful tests done for determining the quality of water. All sorts of people without degrees  use cheap conductivity meters to measure the salinity of water. Hydroponics, aquaponics ,swimming pools, lakes, rivers, dams, and yes, tap water too! The quality of your gear looks impressive so its clear that you are a clever person. In the end its the quantities of gasses being made per quantity of electricity that is of paramount importance,nothing else comes close.. Measure the gas volume and the volts /current from the mains. Does that require a room of scientists to do?

Quote from: pomodoro on February 08, 2016, 02:22:16 AM
Chess there is no need to be a scientist to know about water conductivity, far from it. Its one of the most basic and useful tests done for determining the quality of water. All sorts of people without degrees  use cheap conductivity meters to measure the salinity of water. Hydroponics, aquaponics ,swimming pools, lakes, rivers, dams, and yes, tap water too! The quality of your gear looks impressive so its clear that you are a clever person. In the end its the quantities of gasses being made per quantity of electricity that is of paramount importance,nothing else comes close.. Measure the gas volume and the volts /current from the mains. Does that require a room of scientists to do?

@pomodoro:
The answer to your question is no.  I am going out on a limb on this one  ;)

Cheers,

Chess

Chess
Personal experience is Most valuable indeed , I believe that other fellows who noticed unusual things happening
in front of them ...followed their nose and intuition to a happy discovery ..[Steven Marks playing with sound systems comes to mind ]

the fact that you are evolving A lot of _gas_ with no heat is truly interesting ,yes water chemistry and conductivity are
always relevant , but I would never diminish your personal experience and intuition !

at this point a qualified input power to a known out put in _gas_  would be a good start [even as outlined here with the submerged bottle and stop watch]

and of course qualifying the Gas and its composition ??



Thanks for sharing !

Chet

Quote from: pomodoro on February 03, 2016, 02:52:08 AM
I believe that there must be some dissolved salts already in there because pure water had a resistivity of 18M ohm.cm. Very little current could ever flow.

@pomodoro:
For someone who knows about resistivity meters, how could you NOT know that tap water contains dissolved salts?  Additionally, I have another question for you.  Does it take a room full of scientists to determine that tap water has dissolved salts in it?


Cheers  ;)

hI chessnyt, for free and good music try ccmixter.org, in the "remixes" page you can find a lot of free tracks without restriction of use for non commercial projects  :D

Quote from: ramset on February 08, 2016, 09:06:37 AM
Chess
Personal experience is Most valuable indeed , I believe that other fellows who noticed unusual things happening
in front of them ...followed their nose and intuition to a happy discovery ..[Steven Marks playing with sound systems comes to mind ]

the fact that you are evolving A lot of _gas_ with no heat is truly interesting ,yes water chemistry and conductivity are
always relevant , but I would never diminish your personal experience and intuition !

@Ramset:
The degree of reaction of the tap water to small amounts of wattage is a little surprising, but completely explainable when done consistently in resonance.  At first I dismissed the heat anomalies as faulty test equipment.  Then I leaned towards efficiency to rationalize my findings.  But now, I have more than doubled the gas production and the waste heat has actually DECREASED!  This is what bothers me.  This is not right at all.  Efficiency is one thing but this process is NOT 100% efficient.  So where is the waste heat?  Could it be absorbed by the conductors of the cell and dissipated through the external copper?  This is all I have come up with as of late.  Maybe my conductors are acting as heat sinks and are dissipating the heat outside the cell to ambient air.

This really has me thinking.  I can't help but want to figure out what is going on.  I know there should be more heat.  I have always had significant heat in other electrolytic cells I have built before (straight DC and pulsed DC with various duty cycles).  And although I am not adding any electrolyte to the water bath, it comes with its own in small quantities.


Regards,

Chess     

Damn, i believed some advertisement from the water company. They said they supplied us with pure water. Silly me.  :(
As far as your efficiency is concerned, you may have reached a very high value. Not that I've done this, but those journal articles claim well over 90% from the inductive pulse.[size=78%]

Quote from: chessnyt on February 08, 2016, 11:23:22 AM[/font][/size]@pomodoro:
For someone who knows about resistivity meters, how could you NOT know that tap water contains dissolved salts?  Additionally, I have another question for you.  Does it take a room full of scientists to determine that tap water has dissolved salts in it?


Cheers  ;)

If you all haven't been to this site, it's worth checking into and sending the two main guys an email or two.  They will get you headed in the right direction.

http://stanmeyerreplications.net/


Also, spend a moment watching the videos here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/hydrofuelincanada/videos

@Everyone:
After extensive testing, it turns out that my process is endothermic and not exothermic.  So the missing waste heat mystery has been solved.

I read something interesting today:

Quote from: Bob Smith on February 15, 2016, 11:06:13 PM
Eric Dollard speaks on work going on that seems to be related to this topic, I believe, here, starting at 1:38:00 --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lWoLH21ITys#t=5881

"...doing the hydrogen-oxygen separation dielectrically instead of by electrolysis, as far as I'm concerned, from what I've seen definitely works. So the situation is, is to work with the appropriate harmonic wave form. The harmonic wave form is the critical part. And act upon water as a dielectric and to separate them by neutralizing the intermolecular binding forces ...it takes no energy to break the intermolecular binding forces by that means. Electrolysis is a forced situation. This isn't a forced situation. It's kind of an unlocking situation.  Now, the result of that is that you have hydrogen and oxygen separated, which desire to engage thermodynamically. Now when you go thru that thermodynamic conversion, that will give rise to energy. So, you have a situation with - potential situation - ...no energy required to break the water apart... "

Gee...where did I hear this before?  Give me a minute...   It sounds VERY familiar...

Quote from: chessnyt on January 14, 2016, 02:16:26 AM
With Meyer's technology, you are using voltage potential to split the water molecule...

...It's like the different (difference) of opening the safe with dynamite, as opposed to using the combination.  You are switching off the water molecule's covalent bond instead of blasting it apart with brute force.

If Eric did in fact state what was quoted earlier, then he sure knows what he is talking about.  This is indeed a bright man.

Very exciting things are going on behind the scenes.  Stay tuned  ;D ;D ;D


Chess

P.S.  And no, I am not running for president  ;)

Quote from: chessnyt on February 16, 2016, 05:50:31 AM
@Everyone:
After extensive testing, it turns out that my process is endothermic and not exothermic.  So the missing waste heat mystery has been solved.

I read something interesting today:Gee...where did I hear this before?  Give me a minute...   It sounds VERY familiar...
If Eric did in fact state what was quoted earlier, then he sure knows what he is talking about.  This is indeed a bright man.

Very exciting things are going on behind the scenes.  Stay tuned  ;D ;D ;D


Chess

P.S.  And no, I am not running for president  ;)

Bernie will win based on there being no competition due to your not running.

Quote from: SoManyWires on February 16, 2016, 01:04:34 PM
Bernie will win based on there being no competition due to your not running.

I would have considered running, but they said I couldn't use the Oval Office for conducting experiments  ::)

Nonsense; the Oval Office is continuously used to conduct experiments, mainly social.

@Chessnyt
Glad you picked up on that EPD quote. It got smothered pretty quick when I put it up - no surprise there.  Here's another one from a man named John Myatt, who is a NZ Maori, I believe. He claims he was there when Meyer went to NZ and gave the Maoris his technology. Here's his explanation with a few extra bits removed:

Quote
The key to the Stanley Meyer fuel cell lies in the "Tesla Choke" that uses "Tesla's Regenerative Effect" to effectively recycle charge by recycling the Back EMF of each + pulse to add to the next + pulse. This regenerative effect in resonance essentially cascades the input charges to 1000's of volts greater than what you actually input into the water capacitor.​

I use a Torroidal Core 1.50 inch in diameter, 0.25 inch thick, 200 turns of 24 gauge wire, 600 turns of 36 gauge wire with a blocking diode to isolate the impulses. I feed this torroid with a rectified 260 Volt Variac transformer switched using a circuit and only use about 110 Volts of this. I use a Stanley Meyer Capacitance calculator (WFC v1.0) and then use an online Tesla Inductance and Capacitance equations calculator to determine the resonant frequency of my fuel cells.

The 1 amp is restricted on the Tesla Choke, consumed by a light bulb before entering the Fuel cell and lastly is annihilated within the fuel cell itself because the input signal is 180 degree's out of phase in resonance. What your left with is PURE + & - charge without the magnetic (Amperage) stream. This pure charge without amperage is what rips apart the molecular structure of water gravitationally into its Hydrogen and Oxygen components.

The method of operation of a Fuel Cell is similar to Tesla's anti-gravity field theory that uses an EM gravitational field transmitted 180 degree's out of phase with the Earth's gravitational field creating a Standing-Wave that cancels out the effects of Earths-gravity on the craft allowing the craft to be magnetically repelled from the Earths magnetic field. In the case of a Fuel Cell the covalent bond that binds matter together is cancelled out within the fuel cell by using a resonant signal 180 degree's out of phase which simply switches off this covalent connection allowing the attraction of Pure + & - Charge without its magnetic-(current) losses to rip apart the water.

To cancel out:

Magnetism- the Hot electricity with its magnetic component passes itself at a 90 degree angle leaving only (Cold) pure charge without its radiating magnetic field component. Cold Electricity is also known as negative resistance.

Covalent Bond of matter- a pure charge Cold resonant signal is transmitted 180 degree's out of phase so that the signal passes each other at a 90 degree angle, pure charge can then rip apart matter into its elements.​

Gravity- the EM gravity field with its hot magnetic component is transmitted 180 degree's out of phase with the earths gravity field so that the signal passes each other at a 90 angle leaving the magnetic field of the craft to be repelled just like a magnet from the earths own magnetic field.

I haven't upped the voltage in this demo because I know people will just kiss my ass to no end. This video only demo's negative resistance to show that it is possible to have a amperage restricted reaction... I don't give a Poo if anyone understands this simple tech.

The HOT magnetic component of electricity is what enslaves mankind. The only reason we have the magnetic component in our electricity grid is because it can be measured as it radiates a magnetic field. This radiated field is measured and this is how the power companies bill us. When you buy electricity you're actually paying for is its magnetic field losses to surrounding space- this was designed into the system more than 100 years ago so that our energy expenditure can be metered. There is a secondary function of radiating a magnetic field in that as we consume power we are radiating more losses to surrounding space, so we have to buy more power. For example the Pentium chip in your computer, as this heats up it actually becomes less efficient and consumes more electricity as it radiates more losses in the form of heat to surrounding space.

John Myatt

Source:  http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1153.0
All the best,
Bob

Here's another post by the same person, I think (J Myatt) from a YT video which has since been removed (surprise, surprise):

QuotePublished on Jun 4, 2013
  The WFC v1.0 software is Stanley Meyer's original software given to the Maori's in New Zealand from when Meyer went to NZ to share his technology. I used to give this software away on the net and teach people how to calculate and dial into resonance.

You can make your own Tesla Choke using a 20mm cardboard tube. You just wind 2X 190 turns of 5/10mm (Magnet Wire #24). The polarity of L1, L2 is very important as L1 must cancel out the Flux of L2.
.
There's a picture in one of the slides on Stanley Meyer's Denver presentation that I'd uploaded in my video's.

Tesla Choke
• At LC resonance the positive pulse goes through blocking diode to the positive Tesla Choke.

• Positive pulse hits one side of the bifilar Tesla Choke coils.

• The Tesla Choke coil becomes NORTH charged at the end the diode is attached.

• The positive pulse hits the positive outside tube.

• The positive pulse hits the water.

• The positive pulse potential hits the negative inside tube.

• The positive pulse potential hits the other Tesla Choke coil wire connected to the negative tube making that end NORTH.
.
Both Choke coils are wrapped the SAME way on a ferrite core. Stanley Meyer's diagrams clearly show that the positive choke has NORTH at the diode end of the positive Tesla Choke and the negative choke has NORTH at the Tesla Chokes opposite end.
.
The most important aspect is that these fields with NORTH at each end of each of the Tesla Choke coils are that they are in polar opposition to one another, thus restricting current flow to the fuel cell. The Tesla Choke both restricts magnetics (current) to the cells and cascades back-EMF voltage spikes to very high potentials. Also the blocking diode prevents any reversals of current flow which prevents arcing from taking place within the cell. The system is actually series-resonant, so the output voltage is limited only by the Q of the system (by the resistance of the wires in the resonator coil).

Another way is we could just use Tesla patent 593 138 to transmit power and step the voltage up at the transmitter end, then step it back down at the receiver end. Rather than using only a step-down transformer in the receiver, instead we use a hi-Q resonator, and we allow the resonant voltage to rise to a very high value. As a result of this, massive amounts of EM energy will be "sucked" into the receiver and use this energy to power our HHO cells or sell power to the power grid.

Here's where I posted it:  http://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg410388/#msg410388
Bob

Bob Smith,

It rather looks like the purpose of the circuit is to provide
the two plates of the WFC with the same polarity of potential
at a very high voltage.  This would set up between the plates
a strong field of electrical repulsion rather than attraction
as would be the case when the plates are of opposite polarity.

The result would be very little current flow, if any, between the
plates.

What are your thoughts on the quote from J. Myatt?

Sea Money,
I had seen some posts back in 2007 that seemed to indicate that resonance was the direction for proceeding, but for various reasons, these went quiet.  Eric Dollard's brief explanation that Chessnyt picked up seem in keeping with this idea - not by electrolysis but by dissolving intramolecular bonds with dielectricity (hi voltage, no current) at resonance.  (In one of his early Borderlands videos, EPD shows how resonance will separate dielectricity/voltage from magnetism/amperage - something replicated by Kurt Kinen on YouTube). John Myatt's posts also seem to be in keeping with EPD's explanation.  I think there are a few different ways to skin this cat, but they seem to have dielectricity, resonance and dissolution of molecular bonds (not electrolysis) in common.  I can't comment on Myatt's setup further than that because I haven't built it.  I initially became interested in his posts because of the regenerative feedback aspect, which I believe could be applied to a number of different energetic initiatives. That said, I think it has to be done carefully and with proper safety, as the voltage can climb quite fast to dangerous levels.
Bob

Look at the schematic at 38 seconds into this video, and again at 1:11. I don't have time to translate it now. John Myatt also talks about the blocking diode; same principle, I believe:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goyvk9tT86c
Bob

Quote from: Bob Smith on February 17, 2016, 11:03:31 PM
Look at the schematic at 38 seconds into this video, and again at 1:11. I don't have time to translate it now. John Myatt also talks about the blocking diode; same principle, I believe:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goyvk9tT86c
Bob

There is another aspect to this so called "blocking diode", many haven't considered.  Keep in mind a diode is also a switch; a pretty fast switch too.  It is quite possible this diode creates a particular delay due to its switching speed that creates a very high frequency harmonic--possibly undetectable on the oscilloscope unless you are looking for it.  This high frequency harmonic may very well be responsible for the unlocking effect if its timing is just right to match that of the molecular bonds in water.

I mention this because Akula posted a video some time back where he was adding semiconductor gate delays to some device he was working on to achieve a very specific nanosecond delay.

I would be very curious if anyone actively working on a Stan Meyer VIC has tried using many different types/brands of diodes to see if they get wildly varying results.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 18, 2016, 05:02:51 AM
There is another aspect to this so called "blocking diode", many haven't considered.  Keep in mind a diode is also a switch; a pretty fast switch too.  It is quite possible this diode creates a particular delay due to its switching speed that creates a very high frequency harmonic--possibly undetectable on the oscilloscope unless you are looking for it.  This high frequency harmonic may very well be responsible for the unlocking effect if its timing is just right to match that of the molecular bonds in water.

I mention this because Akula posted a video some time back where he was adding semiconductor gate delays to some device he was working on to achieve a very specific nanosecond delay.

I would be very curious if anyone actively working on a Stan Meyer VIC has tried using many different types/brands of diodes to see if they get wildly varying results.

@Dog-One:
The SCR is my preference.  It acts as a diode BUT it automatically turns itself off when the supply voltage is broken in a DC circuit (after first having been gated, that is).  But you ideally want to use them on AC circuits (such as the secondary side of a transformer) to act as a VERY fast switch as you can gate them for whatever duration you desire AND they turn themselves off (switch themselves off) on the 2nd half of the AC waveform (providing you have interrupted the gating voltage).  I find them EXTREMELY useful as fast acting switches that facilitate superior control of frequency. 

Chess

Quote from: Bob Smith on February 17, 2016, 11:03:31 PM
Look at the schematic at 38 seconds into this video, and again at 1:11. I don't have time to translate it now. John Myatt also talks about the blocking diode; same principle, I believe:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goyvk9tT86c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goyvk9tT86c)

The schematic diagram is a very basic revelation of
concept, but it is too simple.  The significant details
of how the phase relationships of the electrode drive
pulses are achieved or how the "splitting of the positive"
is done still remain a mystery.

Could it be that the electrodes of the WFC are driven
with positive flyback pulses which are somewhat unbalanced?
This would enable the strong repulsion between the plates
but at the same time enable a weak current from the less
positive to the more positive plate.

Once it is discovered how frequency, waveshape and polarity
must be manipulated to find the desired effect the riddle
may be solved.