Relative Permittivity of Water

[Torana]

...who knows ya might be right .....
Crux wfc..... same Aaron or another ? .....
either way stans formulas are doing their damage posthumous and being passed on to the unsuspecting/unquestioning .

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=102

I see the 8XA is being wheeled out again.  1981 to 2011 = 30 YEARS!    MANY people have built that variac based circuit with the same results.

Theres a BR (f doubler,rectifier) , a Thyristor (high I ,stud mount rectifier) , a diode (high I rectifier) and a reverse diode across the Thyristor.

Whats a thyristor and whats it doing between 2 diodes?
Whats a diode doing across the SCR ? .......protection from a spike getting thru .....the STUD MOUNT DIODE! !

Theres an 8A BR , into a 35A SCR , into a 35A diode , a 15 - 25W I limiting R into an opto (a 25W GATE! !) into a .4 - 2 H choke x 2 = 4 H series.

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

I.I.T.E.R 1995.   
page 22 : The 8XA has no component values only 110 VAC and a 10 A breaker , so who ever added component values needs to slap their name on it and hilite the fact that it bee ALTERED.

[Torana]

..Also page 117 according to stan...VW = 65 mph @ 25mp litre of water (semi metric/imperial trick)
so thats 2.6 litres of water per hour based on stans WORD.
It would be hard to say Stan Meyers was honest based on his videos and memos.

http://www.icubenetwork.com/files/watercar/non-commercial/stanley_meyer/News%20Release.pdf

1996 11A page 10 = 7.4 micro litres per inj cycle to run 50 hp engine
1994 10 page 4 = 18 micro litre per inj cycle @ 65 mph **
**Injector volume = 1/8 dia x 2 cm, column of water per cycle

WFC report page 117 = 65mph @ 25 mp litre of water = 2.6 litre per HOUR

1 litre / .0000074 = 135135.135 inj cycles per litre
2.6 litre / .0000074 = 351351.351 inj cycles per HOUR
351351.351/60 = 5855.8559 inj cycles per MINUTE

1 litre / .000018 = 555555.55 inj cycles per litre
2.6 litre / .000018 = 144444.44 inj cycles per HOUR
144444.44 / 60 = 2407.4074 inj cycles per MINUTE

1 injection cycle corresponds to 1 firing/ power stroke.(4 STROKE)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle
1600 cc ,4 cylinder , 50 hp @ 2200 rpm.  (MINUTE)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

1 litre/18 gm = 55.55 mole
2.6 litre/ 18 gm = 144.44 mole

Stans figures and Legit figures look so much a like, but then dielectric value 78.54 looks just like 78.54 OHMS , it almost looks exact but in reality its BOGUS misinfo.

Eugene Mallove was right to ask stan publicly for "the numbers" , because stan meyers simply did not present ANY relevant material to ANYONE,ANYWHERE at ANY TIME.
People wouldnt even be aware of why or what Mallove was on about, just a disturbance in the back ground.....a nay sayer..
No researchers have any info .

[Torana]

I had a look thru "the book of lies"/ Tech Brief pg 219 TAB 37
VW = 3000rpm,  .0074 ml water injection cycle.

So using 3000 rpm as the basis
1 inj cycle correspomds to 1 firing ,@ 2 firings per rev
65 mph @ 25 mpl = 2.6 litres per hour
3000rpm x 60 = 180000 rev per hour
2 firings per rev = 360000 per hour
2.6 litre / 360000 = 7.22 micro litre

Using 7.4 micro litre as a basis
2.6 / .0000074 = 351351.351 inj /firing per hour
351351.351 / 2 = 175675.68 rev per hour
175675.68 / 60 min = 2927.928 rpm

LA to NY = 2462 miles
2462 / 65 = 37.88 hours ,no tinkle*
2462 / 25 miles = 98.48 litre of water
98.48 / 3.79 = 25.98 US gallons **
98.48 / 4.55 = 21.644 IMPERIAL gallons ** (.....only trying to make this work!) (Canadian gallons yea?)

The available info given = 65 mph , 25 mpl , 3000 rpm, 7.4 uL ,"18 ul injection cycle @ 65mph" , "65 mph @ 25 mpL"  and 22 gallons from LA to NY.
18 micro litres doe not fit.

Using 18 uL as basis
2.6 / .000018 = 144444.44 inj / firing per hour
144444.44 / 2 = 72222.22 rev per hour
72222.22 / 60 = 1203.7 rpm @ 65 mph ***

SO Some figures work some dont

[Torana]

...Might aswell take a look at H20powers figures...
#1 ;Data given.  f= 1830 hz ,  C = 3.77883 nf ,  Xc = 23015.04 ohms
    * IF ..11 series caps = 253165 ohms    (ideal world)**
    C total 11 series caps = 343.53 pf
    everything checks out.

#2 ; A series Z total of 863.94 ohms   .   **Calc break down based on Z and f figures.
     ** All caps being equal ; 863.94 / 11 = 78.54 ohms each
    @ 120 hz =  (1 / Xc) / (2 pi f ) = C
    .0127323 / 753.98224 = 16.886 uf each
    C total 11 series = 1.535 uf

    @ 1830 hz = ( 1 / Xc ) / (2 pi f ) = C
     .0127323 / 11498.229 = 1.10753 uf each
     C total 11 series = 100.666 nf

OMG theres a ratio....
253165 / 863.94 = 293:1
1.10733uf / 3.77883 nf = 293:1
100.666 / 343.53 pf = 293:1
**physical dimension = 1:1

The only option is #2 set is 293 times larger.
If dimension of plates and gap is the same throughout , it all falls apart when calculating the C formula C = k A / d .   Reverse formula C d / A = k  . In this case the variable is k.
A = cm , d = cm , C = farad , k = ratio,constant  , Ohms is not a component

The figs of #2 are not compatiable with physical dimension/world. #1 and #2 are not compatiable.    78.54 ohms stuffs everything , it cant be calculated in C formula and if used as Z it will in turn stuff the C formula either way.

** If someone (STAN) dishes out false info , it DOES have a knock on effect sooner , later or repeatedly , that leads to mistakes.

This is NOT discouragement or a kick in the nuts to H2Opower or anyone else.

[Torana]

This was brought to my attention .. THANX.
This is an example , if I were to start a thread ripping into stan meyers , Id be shut down on day one.
It didnt take long for the thread to turn ugly, clearly showing division but at least water dielectric value is being questioned.  (2009).

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7004.0

No where have I ripped into stan meyers , or anyone , all I have done is point out the dielectric value of water and by *chance* , how stans info is rubbish and misleading.

I have no control over what stan meyers wrote so theres no manipulation by me. 

Most news papers and tech magazines write corrections if a previous article is found to be incorrect.
Heres an example of stan demanding the same from an article about HIM, while HIS own material is laden with misinfo ,false formulas and dare I say it .. LIES!

Cease and desist / notice to retract..
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_11_1.html

Funny how its a one way street.  I have never seen stans info questioned , which stuns me.
People dont want to see the Tech Brief fall over because then theres nothing, so the safest / ONLY option is to reject anything contrary to the Tech Brief.