Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[LtBolo]

@ Visual Echo

I'm a businessman. I'm also a technologist. I have seen great ideas come and go. In the end, the only stuff that persists is that which is commercially viable. You want change the world? Productize. And the cool part is that you get to make some money along the way. I believe it is all semantics, but when I say commercialize, I mean build a product that solves a problem. There is a tremendous amount of talk about the MIB. With the greatest respect to experimenters, I'd say that the MIB really don't have to do too much...folks tend to shoot themselves in the foot.

Brown glop? It's iron, chromium, and nickel oxides...and in 316 possibly a bit of molydenum oxide. Count on it....there really isn't anything else it can be. Oh I'm sure there will be traces of other things, but those are the biggies.

Tubes? Ok...according to my math, your inner tube should ring at ~1166Hz, and your outer tube should ring at ~1588Hz. Multiply those by 0.8 to get a good estimate of their freq in water.

Well...the tuning makes it possible to ring both with the same input waveform. If you don't tune them, you'll only be able to resonate a single pipe and will probably reduce the potential for cavitation. Again, I'm not sure which direction it will go when slotted...probably up...but I haven't confirmed that. I would speculate that if you tuned the outside pipe up to 2332Hz, then you could drive the cell at 1166Hz and they would both ring pretty nicely. The wave interaction between the first and second harmonic would be a bit more complex and might work even better. But that's speculation.

PLL? To lock onto what? Everything I have heard has suggested that there is a magic resonance that occurs in the VIC, and that at that resonance power drops and gas increases. And since the capacitance moves, you needs to tweek the freq or the inductance or something to keep it making gas. Well series LCs aren't really resonant, and I have personally never seen any magic frequency that reduced power and increased gas. Man I'd love to though. My company is well capable of building the controls to make this work...we're an automation company. That said, I don't see the need yet. If there is a magic freq, it's likely to be the accoustic resonance of the tubes...which doesn't change...well, not much.

BTW, hang your tubes at 22.4% of the distance from the ends to get the best ring of from the first resonance node. There are other mounting points that produce other freqs (13.21%, 9.44%) but the fundamental is best. If you don't mount them that way, you'll damp them badly.

@ stephenafreter

I'm familiar with many of those. In many cases there are statements to the effect that that OU has been acheived, but no specific power/gas computations to back that. Heck I can make great volumes of gas with a tube array and a pulsed power supply....but that doesn't make it OU. I will spend some time pouring through the math, where math exists, and see what comes out.

Just in a quick glance of Dave Lawton's, the very first Faraday comparison seems to be wrong. He's comparing the output of 0.27 watts at Faraday (0.1875A @ the optimal 1.47V) to 0.73 watts at Xogen (0.1875A @ 3.9V) and arriving at the conclusion that it is 300% of Faraday's efficiency. By my math it is more like 129%. Impressive, if true, but not terribly useful. Although with only 29% OU, it could also be measurement error. Using averages or RMS for currents in pulsed DC apps becomes difficult to get stone cold accurate numbers.

Even Stan's numbers were questionable. Take a detailed look at the International Independent Test Evaluation Report...sheesh, whatta mouthful...page 60 or so...where he is spelling out the efficiency. The Faraday (prior art) assumptions appear to be really wrong....1cc of gas per amp hour @ 2 volts. Huh? That's 2WHr per CC....only 3 orders of magnitude off from the generally accepted number of 2.4WHr per LITER (1000CC). According to thoise numbers, by my math, Stan was actually at about 200% of Faraday...again, impressive...but far from the 1700% that is often attributed. If Stan has other detailed production analysis reports, I'd love to see them. It seems pretty coincidental, however, that the 1700% number that we hear all the time is numerically similar to the 1696 efficiency factor cited in that paper...which is actually 169,600%, not 1696%...but either would be hugely impressive. Just not sure that either is real.

Anyway, my point remains: Where exceptional results are claimed, exceptional proof must be offered...and even then, be skeptical.

[HeairBear]

Hi LtBolo! I'm glad you have stopped in and talked a bit. What about resonance of a single wire of a certain length? What if the circuit was not grounded? Isn't there still a voltage potential present even though the circuit is not grounded? Would that not solve some issues of restricting current without the use of resistance? If Stan's devices did not use any type of Aether, how do you explain the cooling effect of the water? I apologize for all the questions. I am a bit tired and don't have the energy to write more than a few lines. Maybe tomorrow I'll have a bit more to write. Till then, have a great day!

[Visual Echo]

I would speculate that if you tuned the outside pipe up to 2332Hz, then you could drive the cell at 1166Hz and they would both ring pretty nicely

EXCELLENT idea, thank you.  Hopefully I won't have to cut them much.  Can you post a link showing this math, how you determine the pitch given pipe measurements?  That's pretty cool stuff there, I can't figure it out.  If it's too weird, don't sweat it, there's a reason I flunked differential equations. http://www.hibberts.co.uk/ has software tools which make determining pipe pitch easy, that's all I used.

since the capacitance moves, you needs to tweek the freq or the inductance or something to keep it making gas.

Exactly why Meyer did the PLL circuit.  The explanation in the patent is lacking, but if a 'pulse pickup coil' can return a signal when in 'resonance' which isn't there otherwise (apparently the chokes do this), I can use that to tune the frequency.  The 74HC7046 chip even has a lock detector circuit on it that Meyer draws separately in his patent.  This didn't make sense to me the first time I studied it, but I also can't figure out another way to determine that floating 'resonant' frequency.  I'm thinking I have to get it working to understand.

22.4% of the distance from the ends

Bingo again.  I read this on a site about wind chimes.  I think the way people hang the pipes with plastic 'cookies' is either a bad way to go... *or* all this talk about pipe tuning is overrated.  I'm thinking about hanging them from outside the cell PVC using stainless steel rods tapped into the sides of the pipes at 22.4% from an end, the rods also being the electrical connections.

I used bad goop in my cell, so I have to redo it anyway.  Read: just because it says "Premium Tub and Tile" on it doesn't mean it's actually waterproof.  If it 'cleans up with water' it won't work.  Duh, yeah, butter my backside and call me a biscuit.

?ZeroFossilFuel? has an interesting idea in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKjUzsNj8NM (also see http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ru8YQ6HUwbU ).  I haven't yet heard what became of that.

LtBolo: I've posted many of these ideas in other forums with no response, so I *really* appreciate your arguments.  It's ragweed season here, I need all the thinking help I can get.  Big thanks to you too, HeairBear, in this and other posts.

[LtBolo]

@ Visual Echo

The math is ugly. I didn't trust it, but finally managed to get two separate functions producing the same answer...and those answers matched what I measured. I backed into the estimate for speed of sound in the metal, which ended up around 4925 m/s...which seems very believable. Just found the formulae by looking up wind chime tuning and then scratched my head a while.

To be one octave up on your outer pipe it looks like about 9.9 inches. I think I would cut a small notch first and just get a sense of how much notching will move the pitch, then if it isn't far enough, consider cutting them off to a heavy 10" and grind down to match.

@ HeairBear

Not sure of acoustic resonance in a single piece of wire...that will be more complicated and will require length, wire diameter, and wire tension...just like a guitar string.

We've kicked a lot of stuff around here and we just can't see how the descriptions of circuit behavior can be reconciled with reality, at least if the purpose is to put a high voltage across the water to drive dissociation. It might be possible to have very high transient voltages...like nanoseconds wide...but I find it hard to believe that you are going to see a high voltage across 10s of ohms without a humdinger of a current flow. I believe that the VIC can make big volts, I've just never seen them survive first contact with the cell. Doesn't mean it can't be done. It just defies my training...and experience.

Cold? That's kinda relative, doncha think? Did his cell actually get 'cold', or did it simply not get hot? Two different things. The higher the ratio of gas to power, the greater the likelihood that it will shed heat efficiently enough to slow or stop the heating. That said, a very good theory would relate the Mills hydrinos. According to Dr. Mills, when hydrinos react with other elements, it is endothermic...meaning the hydrinos attempt to absorb all of the energy that was initially released in the catalyzed reaction...in short, they'd get cold. Part of his patent even talks about using hydrinos as a basis for a very efficient refrigeration.

Is that the answer? Who knows? It's just that with all the talk of tapping aetheric energy and cold electricity, I still don't see a self runner. If you can power a load, then you can turn a generator...with isolated windings...and loop that sucker back. If you can't loop it back...well...hold on to your wallet. All of the discussion about why it can't be looped back is bogus...if you can do work...then you can loop it back. If you can't loop it back, it isn't real.

So...barring a new revelation about cold electricity that can be verfied...I am personally looking for a more plausible theory. I am actively investing my company's time and money in this, and I need a proveable theory to justify continuing. I have found a few that I like, but they are all coming out of the cold fusion world, and all are related to excess heat, not gas. But I feel like the discrepancy may relate to the much higher voltage per unit distance in Meyer style electrolysis as compared to wider electrode spacings and lower voltage (most use electrolytes) in cold fusion experiments, but that it yet to be proven.

[HeairBear]

Maybe this link will better explain what I am trying to accomplish with my recent research into Stan's work.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/01archives/Work.html