http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2278
I´m not totaly sure yet if this knowledge about delrin helps us when we introduce cold electrisety. I belive we are in general talking about two different methodes, well we are but...
I just need to study it further, that´s all. Cold electrisity is - as i mentioned - a new subject.
I´m allsow looking into the circuits of the Keppe motor, it´s similar to Bedini.
Delrin + Cold Electrisety = true for the Meyer WFC??? .. interesting question - it looks like it!
Statistics: Posted by Hydrogenworld — Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:37 pm
]]>
Here’s an experiment I did today, just to try and prove a theory.
From what I remember Nafion is a telfon based plastic, I wrapped a steel bolt with PTFE tape, (plumbers white tape). I used this as my cathode, my anode was SS. I used DC 12V supply. Experiment was tried with both tap water and with electrolyte to raise the ionic balance (easier to see reaction)
Result:
Electrolysis was performed but very slowly. The hydrogen gas produced grew into bubbles of about 2 to 3mm before releasing.
Here’s the interesting bit…………the voltage from the electrolyte to ground was 0v. When the anode was removed the gas production from the cathode continued at a slower rate, the voltage in the electrolyte went up to 0.7v. when the anode was replaced a burst of oxygen was released and the voltage dropped back to 0v
Conclusion:
The PTFE tape was acting as a proton exchange membrane. The supply voltage 12v dc was pulling the available H+ ions through the membrane to gain an electron. The process continued without the anode until the attraction on the cathode was equalled by the increase in OH- ions in the electrolyte. When the anode was replaced the circuit was completed and the OH- ions earth themselves through it and regained the ionic neutral balance.
Easy to replicate………….
Br
Nee
Statistics: Posted by saisunee — Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:38 pm
]]>
Hmm ... i´ll have to say, i dont know!
The closest anwser i have is that the H+ iones gets saturated whit energy and that is the reason why they won´t form H2 clusters.
I have no formel education in electrochemestry!
(and it could be a trick question?...he)
Statistics: Posted by Hydrogenworld — Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:25 pm
]]>
Can I play devils advocate? I am still not quite with you on this.
Shear voltage potential without adding any electrons to your electrode, ok. Your electrodes have a charge balance so no flow from one to another. The voltage pulls the water apart increasing the ionisation rate of it. The H+ ions go to the neg electrode, you have not put any electrons there with your high voltage, but being a conductive metal it is full of electrons. The H+ ion will remove an electron. Also the pos electrode will attract the OH- ion and receive the electron from it. So for this “pulse onâ€
Statistics: Posted by saisunee — Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:58 am
]]>
I´m going to answer your questions as good as a can, but remember that radiant energy is a new feild of science for me as well. So here we go.
The Basic Understanding of Stanley Meyers Technology. There are 2 main points to realize with Stanley Meyers Discovery.
1.Voltage Fields
2.Restricting Electron Flow (Current)
Basically raising the electrostatic field (voltage field) to a heightened level attenuating to place spacing and having a resistive element or a inductor tuned to high impedance to matched to the frequency input will choke off electron flow and strip the already distorted electrons and recombine them as certain intervals to release gas now on demand. Well that is my therory after reading all the patents, but I am very open to others opinion and value any comment on the patent and theories you may have.
Voltage Dissociation of The Water Molecule (by Stanley A. Meyer)
Placement of a pulse-voltage potential across the Excitor-Array (ER) while inhibiting or preventing electron flow from within the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (AA) causes the water molecule to separate into its component parts by, momentarily, pulling away orbital electrons from the water
molecule, as illustrated in Figure (1-9). The stationary "positive" electrical voltage-field (El) not only attracts the negative charged oxygen atom but also pulls away negative charged electrons from the water molecule. At the same time, the stationary "negative" electrical voltage field (E2) attracts the positive charged hydrogen atoms. Once the negative ectrically charged electrons are dislodged from the water molecule, covalent bonding (sharing electrons) ceases to exist, switching-off or disrupting the electrical attraction force (qq') between the water molecule atoms.
The liberated and moving atoms (having missing electrons) regain or apture the free floating electrons once applied voltage is switchedoff
during pulsing operations. The liberated and electrically stabilized atom having a net electrical charge of "zero" exit the water bath for hydrogen gas utilization. Dissociation of the water molecule by way of voltage stimulation is herein called "'The Electrical Polarization Process". Subjecting or exposing the water molecule to even higher voltage levels causes the liberated atoms to go into a "state" of gas ionization. Each liberated atom taking-on its own "net" electrical charge. The ionized atoms along with free floating negative charged electrons are, now, deflected (pulsing electrical voltage fields of opposite polarity) through the Electrical Polarization Process ...imparting or superimposing a second physical-force
(particle-impact) unto the electrically charged water bath. Oscillation (back and forth movement) of electrically charged particles by way of voltage deflection is hereinafter called "Resonant Action", as illustrated in Figure (1-10). Attenuating and adjusting the "pulse-voltage-amplitude" with respect to the "pulse voltage frequency", now, produces hydrogen gas on
demand while restricting amp flow.
Stanley A. Meyer.
Some basics behind separating the water molecule with High voltage, minimal current and high gas yield, Stanley Meyer and Possibly Daniel Dingle. Contents:
1.The water molecule
2.Normal electrolysis
3.Why should we use High voltage?
I will try to give two links. The first will be from a source other than from Stans work the second from Stan. I found it was in my best interest to study the basics first so I could understand the principle behind this effect.
The water molecule: The main two things to realise about the water molecule is it is dipolar meaning it has a positive a negative side and the hydrogen atoms are held to the oxygen atom by a electrostatic force.
The main thing to realise here is that this process involves the exchange of electrons with ions and protons (I wont go into the specifics it's all there) Electrolysis creates a circuit were ELECTRONS FLOWS, another thing to realise is the direction of flow for electrons is from Negative to Positive, conventional current flow tell us differently. Why should we use high voltage? Remember I said the water molecule is held by a electrostatic attraction definition of a electrostatic (voltage field!!)
http://amasci.com/miscon/voltage.html
"voltage is basically two points with more electrons than the other. The greater the difference in the number of electrons the higher the voltage"
and if we increase voltage we increase the voltage field.
Quote from link above: "What are the three kinds of invisible field? Gravity,
magnetism........and voltage!
If the water molecule is subject to a pulsating high voltage field (electrostatic field) at the correct frequency, plate spacing, and restriction of electron flow. This hopefully will develop efficiencies above normal electrolysis. Anyone who has used high voltage will say, as soon as I raise the voltage level between my 2 plates it just arcs across the first thing to understand is why it does so:
1. Remembering voltage is just a amount of electron difference between two points and when it has exceeded a threshold point a direct short will occur in the form of a arc. This creates a direct pathway for current to flow. Once this happens your voltage drops and you have lost your all important VOLTAGE FIELD.
2. "WE CAN STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING" remember a voltage is a potential difference (more electrons on one side than the other) remembering the current flows from negative to positive. So what if we had no electrons on the negative plate? Answer- electron flow has now been eliminated so voltage can now raise to a extremely high, without the possibility of it arcing because there are no ELECTRONS TO LEAK and now we have a very large voltage field without the possibility of a voltage drop (an arc) Also a important thing to note is like charges will repel and unlike
will attract. That is what is happening to our negatively charged electrons
orbiting our oxygen and hydrogen atoms, they are being attracted to the positive voltage potential and are taken momentarily and during a off period of the pulsing operation they are allowed to partially recombine releasing gas now "WITHOUT ELECTRON FLOW" THROUGH A CIRCUIT
AS YOU WOULD SEE WITH NORMAL ELECTROLYSIS. WE ARE ONLY USING THE VOLTAGE POTENTIAL....... THE VOLTAGE FIELD TO PULL APART THE WATER MOLECULE.
So to put it more simply, if you were a positive voltage field (lack of electrons) and you needed some electrons and you could not get them from the negative (earth) because they were being blocked by a resistor, where is the only place to get some? Answer - from the" WATER MOLECULE" (breaking the electrostatic bond).
It is NOT necessary to know about what a dipole is, etc... to make the things work. It is only necessary to easily see what Meyer and other were doing.
Let me ask you this...when you measure voltage...what are you measuring? Electron charge or voltage potential? They are two totally different things. First of all, where does the source charge come from? isn't that the big mystery with "electricity?" We all are told and we can all observe what this mysterious charge does but no textbook can explain where it comes from? I believe it is cruicial to understand what a dipole is. Of course it is something with two poles. If the poles have a balanced potential, there is no movement possible. I think we can agree on that. If one potential is higher and one lower, then there is obviously movement capability. I think we can agree on that too. Now, lets look at the most common dipole that we use all the time. A battery. It is claimed that the electrolytes in a battery create some chemical reaction that produces an electrical charge and this electrical charge is what goes out of the battery and over the wires and powers whatever is connected to the battery. This would of course be a bare bones explanation of what a battery is.
Is this really what is happening?
It is important to understand what the Aether is. Michaelson/Morlay spelling?? have already been disproven long ago. They have also been proven to have miscalculated what they were doing when they "proved" there is no Aether, which is absolutely ridiculous. So in fact, there is an Aether just as Einstein predicted. In fact, the Aether does exist as Tesla knew way before and at a much higher level than Einstein ever did.
We know that there is unlimited vacuum energy...infinite potential available in 3d space and time. It is everywhere and we are immersed in it like a fish is in water. When I say vacuum, I'm not talking about a tube with atmosphere sucked out. All space is literally the vacuum. It is a misleading word because it causes people to think it is empty when the opposite is true. In essence, more accurately, it is a Plenum (having an infinite abundance).
Mathematically, E.T. Whittaker showed in 1903 the unlimited potential available. In conventional physics/math, what they all show the potential to be is this: take a cup and scoop out a cup of water from a flowing river in a moment in time. That is what they call the potential? That is totally nuts! What about the rest of the infinite river? That has caused so many problems it isn't even funny. The basics of these physics and math are so
fundamentally flawed, they are useless when dealing with devices that do no operate according to manmade self-proclaimed "Laws."
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf
Now, we are immersed in a sea of energy...then what? This sea of energy is filled with virtual photons - called virtual because as soon as they are there, they instanly dissapear. So they are in a state of flux...popping in and out and ridiculous speeds. Perhaps they are traveling like a mobius strip..1/2 here and 1/2 there, whereever that may be. Anyway, by the fact that they have a positive charge, there must be a virtual negative charge as well for obvious reasons. How do we tap this energy? We do it all the time and don't even know it.
When you have a battery with electrolytes, the electrolytes do ONE thing only. That is to separate internal charges so that + is on one side and - is on the other side. Each terminal on a battery is connected of course to
each side of the electrolytes by connections. The terminals will be + and -. That is a potential difference and that is what makes a battery a dipole. The electrolyte charges that were separated are NOT the charge carries of some mysterious charge that goes out the battery to power something. That is a myth. They only establish a dipole. Now that we have a dipole, then what? The vacuum energy is very symmetrical in nature. Pretty much the same throughout in all directions (generally). With a battery - a dipole - sitting inside of 3d space and time where this Aether or vacuum energy is, the symmetry of the photon (different from regular light photon that we see) energy is broken. One polarity of the Aether goes to one pole and the opposite to the other pole. If nothing is connected to the battery, the Aether radiates outward spherically in all directions at the speed of light.
If a light bulb is connected to the battery, you close the circuit. The Aether at the + terminal flows over the wire towards the - terminal and induces the electrons to flow that pile up at the filament of the bulb and turn to
photons that radiate out as light. There is ALSO the opposite polarity flow that goes out the - terminal towards the + terminal butting heads against the flow. This is what breaks apart the electrolyte charges so that the
strength of the potential difference of the electrolytes get less and less. This is what kills the battery because the loop was closed and the circuit is caused to kill its very own dipole. It was not killed because some mysterious charge was used up in the battery.
This flow is called the Poynting flow usually designated a j-phi I believe. Heaviside also knew of this flow but he actually got the vectors right. Also, the amount of flow that goes over the wires...only 10 to the -13th power (1/11trillionths) of it gets diverged into the wire to move electrons to the surface from the copper atoms 3rd electron field. Imagine that! Every atom is literally a perpetual motion device. Where do you think the electrons get the energy potential to sustain their perpetual motion? Look at the mass of the electron, it sure wasn't given some incredible push that keeps it in motion. It is sustaining by interacting with the Aether.
Once something is set into motion, it will stay in motion unless it is acted upon by something else. This literally permits perpetual motion. It never said that once something is in motion that it will stay in motion until something acts on it, which most definitely will happen.
Anyway, overunity doesn't have to have a single thing to do with perpetual motion. Anyway, That is where the flow comes from to light a light bulb and NOT some charge carriers inside the battery. I don't blame you for your explanation of that because that is in fact what is taught. Does that mean that they are correct? They first tell you that is what holds the charge and turn around and tell you it is a mystery where the source charge comes from. Take a bathtub, fill it up and put a plug in the hole. It is all nice and symmetrical.
Pull the plug...make a potential difference and the water goes towards the hole and down the pipe. You broke the symmetry of the water. This is
EXACTLY where the battery gets its source charge from except not a pipe..flowing over a wire at light speed while the electrons that are induced into movement only move at inches per hour literally!
You can read Lee and Yang's presentation speech as they were given the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1957/index.html
"for their penetrating investigation of the so-called parity laws which has led to important discoveries regarding the elementary particles"
It is because of their work that we understand that a dipole breaks the symmetry of the Aether. That is where the source charge comes from and not electrons. The Aether moves like a gas under pressure. It is a conductive gas that is conductive to + and -. If you have a battery and you put a voltmeter on it, you get a volt reading. 12vdc for example. That reading has nothing to do with a charge in the battery. When connecting the leads to the meter, the Aether flows to the terminals and over the wires on the meter and that induces electron flow in that circuit. You are literally taking a pressure reading of the gas. Voltage is nothing more than the pressure of the flow of the Aether over wires. It has NOTHING to
do with electron charge. To clarify, a battery can be charged with hot current..electron current and you will have electrons piling on plates. You CAN also charge a battery in a superior way by charging it with cold current, which is void of electrons. This is a fact. The battery never warms and either does the circuit charging it. Likewise, you can charge a cap with hot current or electron flow and those pile on the plates. Depending on the
potential difference between the plates because of the electrons you will get a potential difference. That is true. However, you can charge a cap with "cold electricity", which is void of electrons by spiking the cap with PURE VOLTAGE POTENTIAL and NO ELECTRONS and the cap WILL charge up. The pressure of the aether here is what is measured when using a voltmeter. It is not measuring a potential difference between plates on the caps based on electrons on one plate. You can charge the cap both ways. One, you will have a cap that will be warmed up and one will be room temp.
Think about this. You have a little bitty battery and you have a monster battery. They obviously would have an enormous difference in the amount of charge if it was like the establishment teaches. Both batteries can read
12volts brand new. Therefore, it is not really measuring a charge at all because if it was, the bigger the battery, the bigger the charge and the reading would be higher. We know that is not the case. I hope this clarifies what voltage potential really is and what a dipole is and what the voltage is NOT. This understanding jeopardizes oil money as it has all along. Remember, Morgan said to Tesla...that's nice Mr. Tesla,
but where do we put the meter? They want everyone to believe energy must be a non-renewable consumable and have everyones mindset tuned to scarcity and lack of instead of abundance.
If you get the chance to watch Energy from the vacuum PLEASE do so, it is utterly nessesery to understand what Radiant Energy is. Here´s a link: and get a copy of Tom Bearden´s book: Energy from the Vacuum. Allsow, download the book i linked to in my prior responce - http://www.scribd.com/doc/7740567/secre ... technology.
You CAN use the Bedini circuit to get things roling.
Link:
*******
This is a new science for me and my understanding is limited, so i need to read much more to udnerstand it better. My posts on this - radiant energy - have gottn little responce so fare, so i will probably just do my research and build my WFC accordning to what i have writen. I have given you my knowledge and understanding, allsow the know how. What you need to do now is to start researching this @ a higher level - but you whant get it here at oupower, sorry guys! This forum is stuck on the electrolyser and amp flow (closed systems). This post - my reply - deals whit OPEN SYSTEMS, VOLTAGE POTENTIAL and RADIANT ENERGY.
The electrolyser deals whit CLOSED SYSTEMS, ELECTRONES and ELECTROLYTES. One system, and one system only will give you the results you are looking for - my opinion.
I hope that whitin a 12 month perriod to uptain a prof of concept to use in my car based upon this technology and i am looking forward to it. I´m a very busy whit my job and research, so there isn´t much time over to write in the forum. I am allsow busy constructing my company. But my responce here should get you started. So good luck to you and everybody.
Statistics: Posted by Hydrogenworld — Mon Dec 01, 2008 10:18 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
http://www.rexresearch.com/leach/4272345.htm
Statistics: Posted by kevinsatterfield — Sun Nov 30, 2008 12:46 am
]]>
I whould like to say this: I´v been here for a while and i´v been reading almost every post in this forum, but my "understanding" of Meyer did not come from oupower, it came from Bedini. I´m not claiming that i know everything about M´s WFC, but what i am saying is that i´m on the right track and i whould like to share that whit you. I know everyone here whants the same thing - to run there car on water, so that´s simple.
I saw that someone mentioned that Meyer was flawed in saying the inductor increases frequency. That isn't a flaw, of course it increases frequency when a pulsed input is put into it and there is a blocking diode. One pulse is given and it goes through the blocking diode, charges the inductor and gets to the cell with less amps. That is one pulse. When the pulse is cut off, the inductor collapses in the SAME direction because the blocking diode prevents it from going opposite polarity and this is pulse #2 going to the cell. You paid for one and got 2 pulses. For example, lets just stick to straight wall cycle. 60hz going into the bridge to turn it into pulsed dc will be 120hz pulsed dc. Remember that there is one dc pulse for each half othe ac. 120 hz pulsed into the inductor will get 240hz at the cell. So, the freuency is increased by using the inductor. Of course we want higher frequency than this, but this is only for an example. The secret is pumping radiant energy into the water and this puts it into a higher energy state. You're swelling the water up with the Aether. Each time a coil is given a pulse, there will be a certain volt and amp over a certain time. When the pulse is shut off, the collapsed SPIKE is pure voltage potential with no current. That is why it is virtually a straight line. You're converting work back into potential. The spike is time compressed energy...pure Aetheric potential or radiant energy. Think about it...you're turning work back into potential. It is the radiant potential that you are wanting to pump into the water unidirectionally. Frequencies are important but that is a case by case situation. Based on cell spacing, material of it, voltage, etc... there will of course be optimal frequencies for each system and they will all be different. It has nothing to do with a magical frequency that water will mysteriously separate at. There are frequencies that can do that but that isn't what Meyer was doing I don't believe. It is essential to understand what energy is and that energy is NOT the capacity to do work, what electricity is and to realize that there is no such thing as electricity...electricity is truly an adjective to describe an event...where the source charge comes from and for example if you power your system with batteries, the charge does NOT come from the inside of the battery...it is important to understand what a dipole is and how a dipole gets a flow over wires. It is a myth that we don't know where the source charge comes from. These things are really necessary to duplicate something but if you understand the above and a little more, it will be overwhelmingly obvious what Meyer was doing. It is obvious he didn't know but he still got results.
The patents are there to give the concept, not the actual working model. Same as the xogen patents. It will not work using the exact same circuit and input of 12v, etc... that shows the concept of what they are using but that doesn't mean their working models are that same circuit.
Measure the joules of input energy from the input source over a given time. When the battery is charged, power a resistive load (light bulb) from it and measure the joules being used to light that bulb until the battery is back down to the voltage that it was before charging. The joules will be more than what left the input source. This is overunity. Hundreds of % in fact and up to a few thousand is possible without a doubt. This is what the fakes out there want you to measure: Well lets measure the input and hook meters to the output of the circuit and measure that hundreds of volts, etc... that is all BS. The ONLY honest way to test this kind of thing is measuring WORK. Measure work in and then measure usable work AFTER the battery is charged. You can't directly measure potential like this with devices becaue there aren't any devices that can measure pure Aether. The devices we use .... and this is important... only measure wasted energy. They all want to hook the output of the circuit back into the input source (battery) or whatever and have it run itself. That is ridiculous...that closes the loop and kills the dipole. Anyway, this is my 2 cents.
There is one book that spells out word for word what Meyer's is doing, what Gray did, etc... that is chapter one on Tesla in this book: That book was used as a Rosetta stone to cracks Grays patents and therefore revealed some of Teslas secrets.
So to sume it up - the secret is cold electrisety (same as negativ electrisety). Only voltage potential, no current! You can trow this away or you can study it further, that is up to you. All i am saying is that this is the answer i´v been looking for and this is how i am going to do it.
Bedini´s circuit is an excellent start to understand Meyer.
John Bedini discharging the radiant energy from the storage capacitors - The Radiant Energy is slightly green in natur and it is THIS energy you whant to send to the WFC.
The current appears after the radiant discharge.
Have a nice day!
Statistics: Posted by Hydrogenworld — Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:05 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>