Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[LtBolo]

Ah...you didn't mean acoustic resonance in a wire, you meant electrical. And by single wire, you meant Avramenko style. You know, that all could pan out. I certainly hope so...I really want to find that cold electricity and such can be tapped to do work, and it would be great if Avramenko was an implementation of that.

Seems more to me like a standing wave of sorts...a fancy antenna. Whether that proves capable of doing work greater than lighting LEDs remains to be seen. I'm all for it, I just won't bet the farm on it. And barring any breakthroughs, I'm going to continue to pursue this from an orthogonal perspective.

[HeairBear]

Not an antenna, but, a wave guide. The circuit resonance is going to have to ring the anode or outer bell to get the strongest vibration assuming we use T304 stainless steel. We may be even be able to form fit a piezoelectric element into the inner section of the cathode much like those used in the industry for mixing and such, but, that route is very complex and costly for the average joe. Pons and Fleischman's device wasn't even that complex and yet they are the pioneers of cold fusion today. In my opinion, cavitation and cold fusion are not very efficient ways of producing Oxyhydrogen for an "On Demand" system.

For any of you whom do not play or own an electric guitar and a descent amplifier, go to a music store or friend to demonstrate electricity sustaining a resonance in a vibrating guitar string. We call it feedback and Jimi Hendrix was the creator of such a cool effect. If your amp is loud enough, you can experiment with vibrating certain objects in the room with loud feedback or any note/s played. You could hang your tubes and find the notes that work the best. Sympathetic Vibration Excitation? I had the pleasure of standing next to one of Jimi's purple marshal double stacked 100Watt amps set on 3. It shook my entire body and clothes vigorously. They used the amplifiers to record from across a lake and unfortunately, the purple became sun bleached pink.

So, if we are electrically tapping the anode, aren't we sympathetically vibrating the cathode? Would the "Voltage Sync-Pulse Circuit" possibly enhance the ringing of the anode and cathode equally?

[LtBolo]

Inefficient? You really think so?

Mills work suggests a reaction that is well beyond chemical, and just a bit this side of nuclear, in terms of energy yield. That's huge. One cold fusion patent...6638413...suggests about 600% OU. The original P&F work was wimpy by comparison to current results. The big problem with cold fusion is that they produce heat rather than gas, and that is a far more difficult thing to harness efficiently. I feel strongly that when the dust settles, OU gas production will be explained in terms of cold fusion, hydrino, or cavitation....not resonance or aether. Although I do feel that acoustic resonance is what is driving cavitation, but I consider that to be an implementation detail, not the cause.

Don't know if you noticed part of my critique of some of the HHO work, but according to Meyer's own analysis, once his faulty prior art assumption is corrected, he only demontrated about 200% of Faraday...at least in the data included in the International Test Report. I personnally think that if you scrutinize the science of many OU electrolysis claims, the numbers will drop considerably...many to below 100%. I do believe that there are examples...Meyer among them...but not to the level claimed...and in the end, you may only dream of 600%.

As for resonance playing a role...yes...but not in that way people think. Resonance does not create energy, nor does it do any more work than is required to create it. What resonance does is allows that energy to be summed over time, allowing more energy to be focused on a task. When you resonate a glass to break it, you are summing energy over time...not creating more energy. Say it takes 100 units to break the glass. You provide 10 units of energy per time unit. The energy in the glass decays at a rate slightly slower than the rate energy is provided. Over time, the total active energy in the glass increases, eventually rising above the 100 unit threshold necessary to break the glass. The 100 units then got consumed when the glass is broken and is no longer present to do other work.

As applied to water, you can slowly resonate water until it rises to a threshold necessary to break it...sure. But for every molecule of water you break, a certain amount of energy was consumed. The only way you get more out than you put in, is to draw it from somewhere else. Aether? Sure, if you like. I prefer to look elsewhere...at least until someone comes up with a definative proof in the form of a self runner. There is enough university and more mainstream science being done into cold fusion/hydrino/cavitation...which are probably all manifestations of the same process...to make me think that the answer to Meyer and others will ultimately be found there.

[HeairBear]

When you say OU, are you referring to COP > 1? Like you stated earlier, most people just throw out a number which can be construed in several ways. It's nit picking to me, If it works, it's much cheaper to operate, and I can build it easily, that's good enough for me. I don't want money or fame and I will share it with any who seek it for free. Trying to find the self runner I'm sure is possible, but probably not for me in my current situation. I'm just looking for more efficient ways of using the energy I am consuming already. Free Energy doesn't work well for people like me who live in apartments of inner cities. We can't have solar panels, wind generators, or even gas generators to supplement the existing household usage. Some landlords don't allow you to fix your vehicle on the property you rent to park. And monopolies are supposed to be outlawed? I have only one choice who to buy power from and they are greedy assholes on top of it.

LtBolo, have you done any previous OU research? How did you come to search for self running technology? Have you read any of Dr Stiffler's work? http://67.76.235.52/DrStiffler/ It's rumored that the site is only online during the weekends. I think you will find his work interesting and also in the field of research you are looking towards. Let me know your thoughts on his findings if you have the time.

[LtBolo]

OU vs COP? Probably COP > 1, where the inputs are water and electricity and the output is gas of sufficient volume to drive a generator that would supply the required input electricity as well an enough excess to do meaningful work. But the differences are substantially semantic and related to scope and I think frequently used to confuse. In short, I don't believe in real OU...once at the proper scope...but if the only consumable in the system is water, it might as well be OU and I think OU conveys my meaning clearly.

Stiffler? Yeah, I've seen his stuff. Why am I interested in a self runner? Because that is the only true measurement of whether you are really tapping aether or not. It is so easy to confuse yourself with an o-scope or meter or cap or battery or whatever, but if you can power a meaningful load in a closed loop without any apparent input from the scope we would call tangible matter and energy, then you have my attention. Stuff that is powering insignificant loads, or tossing around the same energy over and over and very slowly draining a cap or battery, doesn't qualify as anything more than a parlor trick or grade school science project.

I am not a garage experimenter. I run a significant engineering company and have the capacity to invest considerable funds if warranted. I do not have investors and unlike most of the names thrown around here, have made my money by selling real products to real customers. There is enough happening in HHO research to suggest to me that something real is happening...but it is one thing to make enough HHO to improve your car's fuel burn and an entirely different thing to make enough gas to power a gas microturbine-based generator. One is cute. The other world changing. I have no time for cute, but world changing is worth the effort.

I realize that all may sound a bit arrogant, and perhaps it is. But it is the truth and it is my perspective. I grow so weary of all of the discussions about how we will change the world and put big oil out of business and so on. If anyone has really achieved what they have claimed at the levels they have claimed, then closing the loop should be easy. If you can't close the loop...well...I would question your original conclusions. Many cling to these beliefs like a religion and grasp at any info that they perceive as supporting their faith, but trust me, business is agnostic at best and will chew up and spit out anything based on less than the most solid reality.

Stan Meyers picked at this for nearly 20 years after the initial patents...and yet no product. He died as paranoid and broke as ever. Xogen had the benefit of others' work in the field...and money...and where is their product? Heck, where is Xogen? On the other hand, Blacklight Power just annouced a 50KW prototype reactor, and financing to move to full commercialization. Remains to be seen whether they will get there, but I give them about a 10,000% better chance than guys like Meyers.

I have lurked this site for a while. The only reason that I decided to start posting was to engage some of those who have claimed OU...Ok, how about 'beyond Faraday' instead...in discussions so I could better ferret out whether they are legit or not. If so, I am prepared to invest. If not, I will return to making things I know I can sell.