Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

Stanley Meyer => Stan Meyers demo cell system => Topic started by: Dynodon on January 15, 2010, 17:11:33 pm

Title: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 17:11:33 pm
I have been meaning to put this down,but keep forgetting with everything else going on.
Warp pointed this out a while back and I felt the same way and suggested a simple test.
Stan states that he was producing 7 psi a minute.And that for every one psi he gets one litre of gas in a one litre cavity space.
Wrong!!!
My friend and I did a test.We pressurized a one litre cavity to 15 psi,knowing that atmoshere pressure is 14.7.Then the pressurized one litre cavity was released into an inverted bottle water test.
It only filled the bottle once exactly.
So to make one litre a minute with a cavity of one litre volume,you will need to pressurize it to 14.5 psi.
So what does this mean?
Stan's demo cell was only producing @ 500 cc per minute!!!

This changes alot! But it still works out better than faraday,but not by much.We calculated 104% efficientcy.

Don
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 17:23:57 pm
Well I am gonna say this again , the only thing keeping this research alive for me is the fact that xogen seems to be doing it without any special ceramic , otherwise I would be tempted to believe that Meyers was somekind of Band-aid for the Puharich method . Now once I get absolute confirmation that xogen does it , I will be much more releaved . Who is Stephen Chambers , was he a relative of Meyers or an business partner ?

xogen.ca

I will refer to the discussion on waterfuelcell.org

http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1477&start=15
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 17:46:30 pm
Hi Dankie,

My understanding is that Stephen Chambers is Stan and Stephen Meyer's brother-in-law.  I can't cite an exact reference but I seem to have read it somewhere.

Dynodon,  what you report has been confirmed by others.  There are other problems in the Technical Brief as well like omitting the neutron in doing calculations with atomic weights.  The neutron is relevant.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 18:25:33 pm
Hi Dankie,

My understanding is that Stephen Chambers is Stan and Stephen Meyer's brother-in-law.  I can't cite an exact reference but I seem to have read it somewhere.

Dynodon,  what you report has been confirmed by others.  There are other problems in the Technical Brief as well like omitting the neutron in doing calculations with atomic weights.  The neutron is relevant.

Regards,
Andy

Yes I also heard that , from forums and unofficial sources .

It would be an coincidence that both are unrelated .

From the Interview he made , he seems to has been too or lived in  or is living in Canada .
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 19:57:40 pm
i think  where stan really shows effeciency is when he combines a ressonant water cavity with a electrical particle generator... using the expanding gas to drive a turbine that drives a magnetic gas that drives the cell... a system like this stan claims runs until it runs out of fuel (water)... and u dont have to burn your fuel to produce the gas...
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 22:22:56 pm
icould see being off a few a few hundred cc but a few liter is hard to mistake the error are so significant stan had to know he was not being truthfull
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 23:35:43 pm
Psi is pounds per square inch that is different from BArs or atmospheres. If in one minute a space of 1 liter is compressed to 10 bar(145psi) you will have produced 9 liters of gas in one minute. Because the space was not in vacuum. 

psi x 0.068948 = bar;        1 Psi = 0,06 bar

 bar x 14.50368 = psi.      1 bar = 14,5 psi



Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 23:36:46 pm
I have been meaning to put this down,but keep forgetting with everything else going on.
Warp pointed this out a while back and I felt the same way and suggested a simple test.
Stan states that he was producing 7 psi a minute.And that for every one psi he gets one litre of gas in a one litre cavity space.
Wrong!!!
My friend and I did a test.We pressurized a one litre cavity to 15 psi,knowing that atmoshere pressure is 14.7.Then the pressurized one litre cavity was released into an inverted bottle water test.
It only filled the bottle once exactly.
So to make one litre a minute with a cavity of one litre volume,you will need to pressurize it to 14.5 psi.
So what does this mean?
Stan's demo cell was only producing @ 500 cc per minute!!!

This changes alot! But it still works out better than faraday,but not by much.We calculated 104% efficientcy.

Don

I don't recall where Stan said this(I'm not saying he didn't, I just don't remember where I heard or seen it).  Was it on one of the videos or tech brief or ...

Was it clearly stated that the cell was completely sealed while producing that amount of gas, or was that while supplying gas?

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 23:38:36 pm
I also never saw such statement.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 15, 2010, 23:49:54 pm
icould see being off a few a few hundred cc but a few liter is hard to mistake the error are so significant stan had to know he was not being truthfull

True , who made that report ?

Before I even continue wasting my time , I must know who is Stephen Chambers .

I cannot believe Stan was a fraud , if he was they did a better job with him than with 9/11 .

Dynodon , do you know people who witnessed the dead inanimate body of Stan Meyers @ his funeral ?

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 00:02:18 am
The gas measurements are taken from the internation independant evaluation report.Stan never said them in a video.

As for anyone seeing Stan at the funeral,Iv'e never looked into that.I'm pretty sure he is dead.
Don
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 11:38:06 am

@Dynodon


I bet it would be popular if you made a video of the demo tube cell, with the alternator setup, and showed us how much gas it produces at maximum..  :)
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 12:07:28 pm
I thnk its safe to say that that the alternator  will not work , it is basicly a regular non-modified alternator .

The 3 phase alternator setup has been tampered with .

I am now more interrested in confirming if Stephen is legit before I continue any further .

If he is than I will put aside all of Stan's previous designs as purely experimental work , as he said in the interview .

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 16:02:09 pm
waytogo,the original alternator is not there.We're investigating that right now.It looks like one of the previous owners dammaged it and sent it to a repair shop,and got a stock rebuild back.Still following up on that story to confirm.If we can find the build specs,we'll make a new one,for demo-ing.We found pictures that will help,but need further detalis.Sorry can't post those pics.And there was two different boards for the alternator,not sure which one was used for the tube cell.
Don
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 16:32:05 pm
Dynodon is correct.

I did that same test, one liter cavity 7 PSI a minute = to about 0.5 LPM.
also you can re-view Stan's Videos showing the tube cell with a PSI meter, you can see the rate as the needle moves up, it does match 7 PSI a minute. His gauge is a PSI gauge not BAR.

Bottom line: Stan lied.
 
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 18:05:16 pm
Its not looking good .

What I wanna know now is if theres an ounce of truth to special electrolysis without that Puharich ceramic .

And Who is Stephen Chambers .

Also , did that EPG work ? That would at least confirm his genius .

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 18:32:13 pm
@Dynodon

Ok.. thank you for the answer. Stan could had used the alternator/redi-line generator as we today use a effective power inverter. You can drive a small car engine on HHO until the batteries is powerless. There is a big room for the batteryes in front of that buggy..

I am now working on my big cell, four gallon (ca.15 liter) water with 12 tubes 18 inches tall and will publish test data if it does perform well.

@electrojolt

Stan could had fooled himself... and then us...

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 19:25:15 pm
Quote
My friend and I did a test.We pressurized a one litre cavity to 15 psi,knowing that atmoshere pressure is 14.7.Then the pressurized one litre cavity was released into an inverted bottle water test.
It only filled the bottle once exactly.
So to make one litre a minute with a cavity of one litre volume,you will need to pressurize it to 14.5 psi.
So what does this mean?
Stan's demo cell was only producing @ 500 cc per minute!!!


dynodon i feel u may have the wrong perspective with this...  u have to reach 15 psi to be able to reach the point to release a liter of gas  into another container,, the 2 are balance capacitance between each other...   when u release the gas and only filled the bottle once with 14 psi are u saying that there isnt another 7 pounds still left in the cell?..... the liter container u expel the gas into is it sealed or no?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 20:01:26 pm
My friend and I did a test.We pressurized a one litre cavity to 15 psi,knowing that atmoshere pressure is 14.7.Then the pressurized one litre cavity was released into an inverted bottle water test.
It only filled the bottle once exactly.
So to make one litre a minute with a cavity of one litre volume,you will need to pressurize it to 14.5 psi.
So what does this mean?
Stan's demo cell was only producing @ 500 cc per minute!!!
I don't exactly know what you are saying.
You know that 14.7 psi is 1 atmosphere, if there was air in the cavity or something other than vacuum it had this 1 atm of pressure, so you pressurized it to 15 psi, a difference of roughly 0.3psi? This 0.3psi difference gave you 500cm³ with a bottle test?
so how do you know that stan's cell did produce 500cm³ / minute from that? also the bottle test equally distributes pressure between your bottle and the cavity and is not a very accurate way of measuring the volume of gas.
as you know from the gas equation p1*v1 = p2*v2. so if you have greater volume available (cavity + bottle) the pressure will sink, but how do you want to know how much gas you produced from this method?

or did you pressure it from 1 atm to 2 atm (14.7psi+15psi)?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 20:07:57 pm
No,your not looking at this right.When you pressurize the 1 litre cavity above the water in the test cell to 14.7 psi,then release it into another 1 litre bottle,both bottles will be at zero pressure.If you have any pressure left,it will balance out between the two.Then that means you have more than 1 litre in each bottle.
When you start out with the air cavity space above the water,it is at 1 atmosphere.When you pressurize that cavity to 14.7 psi,now your at two atmospheres.Then when you release that pressure into another 1 litre cavity,you end up with 1 atmosphere in each bottle.
0 psi on a pressure gauge is equal to 1 atmosphere.
If you make 1 litre a minute, than that is equal to 1 atmosphere of pressure or 14.7 psi,in a 1 litre cavity.
Hope this helps
Don 
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 20:45:03 pm
No,your not looking at this right.When you pressurize the 1 litre cavity above the water in the test cell to 14.7 psi,then release it into another 1 litre bottle,both bottles will be at zero pressure.If you have any pressure left,it will balance out between the two.Then that means you have more than 1 litre in each bottle.
When you start out with the air cavity space above the water,it is at 1 atmosphere.When you pressurize that cavity to 14.7 psi,now your at two atmospheres.Then when you release that pressure into another 1 litre cavity,you end up with 1 atmosphere in each bottle.
0 psi on a pressure gauge is equal to 1 atmosphere.
If you make 1 litre a minute, than that is equal to 1 atmosphere of pressure or 14.7 psi,in a 1 litre cavity.
Hope this helps
Don
yes indeed, thanks.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 20:54:02 pm
I did this test with my cell months ago.

Cavity  = 205.8 Cubic Centimeters (NOTE: I did not include the volume inside the pipes above the cell, because this volume is not accounted for the measurements will not be exact, but close enough for me at this stage of the game)

Salt Water: 5 psi in 16 seconds
Tap Water: 5 psi in 81 seconds
Rain Water: 5 psi in 113 seconds

5 psi @ 205.8 cc  Cavity = 115 cc of gas produced

Salt Water = 431 cc/min
Tap Water = 85 cc/min
Rain Water = 61 cc/min

All tests performed with 10 volts on the Variac, no other electrical measurements taken.
This is with Four 3" Tubes and a Deregulated Delco Remy Alternator.


To those who have not done this test... DO IT!
If you do this test you will understand.

Everything starts with 1 atm = 14.7 psi = 0 psi on the gage
I only went to 5 psi because that's how high my gage goes.
I discharged the gas (while the cell contained 5 psi and production was off) into an inverted container, and measured the volume.
I lifted the inverted container *slightly* so it sucked water up just above the water line in the bucket. This ensures that the inverted container is not maintaining a positive pressure when I take the volume measurement.

I only performed this test once, and I don't know anything about the mineral content in any of the waters tested. So the results are mostly qualitative and minimally quantitative.

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 21:06:00 pm
A few things I want confirmed .

1- Is is true that he screamed out of a restaurant  had been poisoned and then his dead inanimate body  was seen in a casket .

2- Is it true he received multi-million dollar funding and was about to build a research center . Nobody willing to spend a  few million would risk that much without knowing for sure  , no sense at all .
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 21:26:31 pm
isnt the rumor that  he run out of the  diner screaming the same day he signed that multi million dollar contract 
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 21:40:39 pm
Well I dont know , its all internet rumors from 15 year old thing . I dont believe anything from google regarding this .
Wsnt he dinning with NATO troops ? I dont think NATO would have financed that ...

If he really died that would be good ... Sorry Stan ...

In the event of Stan s death , what would of happened with that money anyways ?

Here is a report , it seems like he did die and vomitted in a parking lot ...  I would like to see that official certificate of death or get this confirmed by a witness .

I would be strange if he was never exumed and never had a burial for a christian ...

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg14099.html
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 21:59:08 pm
i see  that stan could have a misleading statement but if stans graph is tru 25 volts each  @4.4amps will produce 1000cc a min,,    50 volts will do 2,000cc a min @4.4 amps.. 100 volts will do 4000cc in a min,,, he shows that when u reach 12.6 @4.4 amps the climb in production becomes proportional with voltage compared to electrolysis.. 
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 22:16:01 pm
my 2 cents:

Stan deliverd the gas under a little bit of pressure.
If you look at the vid of the Idle buggy, or if you look at the pics of similar test, you always see that they keep the tubecell underpressure.
So, they release gas from a cavity under pressure.

That has 2 reasons.
1. the engine cannot suck all gas out of the cell. That is very import. I see that importance in my own tests.
2. As long as the cell is under pressure, you have less change for backfire.

The amount of gas coming out of such pressure system, is the same as from a non presure system...as far as i was able to see and measure.


Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 22:35:31 pm
when the buggy was idling in the driveway,he states 13.5 psi, 5 volts and 2 amps to the rotor.The gages are hooked to the rotor of the alternator,and has no refference to the volts on the cell.
Don
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 16, 2010, 23:30:01 pm
Well I tried googling all of the deaths and funerals of past inventors like Henry Moray , EV gray , Puharich etc ...

All pretty much a big nothing about death or relatives information or funeral in the first 5 pages basicly ... Some conspiracies etc ...

Pretty much as you would expect , this is not found on google but in town records etc ...
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 00:23:47 am
even if you think that stan is still alive you should still be respectfull of his family and others and stop saying his cold dead lifeless body it just not polite

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 01:20:15 am
even if you think that stan is still alive you should still be respectfull of his family and others and stop saying his cold dead lifeless body it just not polite

W/E ... Stan or Stephen wont be reading these posts .

I need to be sure that he died the way they say he did .



Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 10:18:34 am
even if you think that stan is still alive you should still be respectfull of his family and others and stop saying his cold dead lifeless body it just not polite

W/E ... Stan or Stephen wont be reading these posts .

I need to be sure that he died the way they say he did .


@Dankie

Man, what is going to change for you, if you know it? You don't believe he was poisoned? I'm almost completely sure. Do you know why? Because i'm sure that his system works! And i can say, you should not find out about his death. Think about if he had a kind of life stile like trying to save the world, while people didn't helped him like he thought they should. And if he just said, oh boy i don't want to  have to continue living being the water car inventor and at the same time being a failure because of the  inability to release it, because also of the threats.  Maybe he still alive and have faked his death, to try to live a "normal" life. Big deal. What do you think, that you are going to find him? You wont. If he was able to invent the wfc, he is also able to disappear too, so forget about this and let his secretes to rest in peace. Living or not living, the important is that his ideas will remain alive forever.

So again, I can ask you a favor, Please don't touch the past! you will find very terrible surprises, and probably takes out an history that must remain secret. Respect Stan He really deserves.

check this movie is quite nice and source of inspiration.

 
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 10:27:20 am
This video is made in brazil, and it brings to you many advices!

the audio is in english and you can also read the english subtitles.  Please watch it you all

Peace for all of you

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 13:19:37 pm
I have researched his death .

I am pretty sure  , 99% sure , taht he died the way they say he did .

The nature of his death , if true , can be some evidence to confirm that his device did work .

Believe me , I want to believe he did it . I mean no disrespect for Stan , but I wanna be 100% SURE .

Now if somebody has direct , or indirect evidence , in wich a logical deduction of chain of events can lead us to  being more sure , plz share your hypothesis and observations .
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 13:39:06 pm
can we stay ontopic here?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 22:28:14 pm
ok this is the strongest view i can come up with on how stan may have got 7000cc from 7 lbs pressure in his cell....  i dont see anywhere in stans evaluation that says the temp of the water in the fuel cell... stan says that this process is a cold process not interacting with the temp of water... i think stan would use colder water in this process at least colder then room temp.. water is at its most dense point at 39.2 degrees F.. density i beleive has a proptional relation to dielectric resistance, stans ideal circuit is one that restricts amps and allow voltage... .. i think stan liked it in the 70 degree region when showing off.. 70 degrees water is in a higher density then room temp...   if the water is 72 degrees and is being relesed into a chamber that is surrounded by a ambient room temp and or environment would it not expand due to room temp?.. this also means if the gas is cold entering into the intake of a vehicle the ambient air temp will cause the fuel gass to interact exothermaly.. mean the gas would want to force a expansion of it self into the medium that holds a constant ambient tempature... (ambient air)
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 18, 2010, 17:05:48 pm
i decided to pick up a book i have been meaning to read and flipped to a random page in the book to read this lol..


The treatise "Minerva Mundi"  attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, contains, under the most poetical and profound allegories, the dogma of self-creation of beings, or of the law of creation that results from the accord of two forces, these which the alchemist called the Fixed and the Volatile, and which are, in the Absolute, Necessity and Liberty.

When the Masters of Alchemy say that it needs little time and expense to accomplish the works of Science. When they affirm above all, that but a single vessel is necessary, when they speak of the great and single furnace, which all can use, which is within reach of all the world, and which men possess without knowing it,  they allude to the philosophical and moral Alchemy..  In fact, a strong and determined will can, in a little while, attain complete independence; and we all possess that chemical instrument, the great and single furnace, which serves to separate the subtile from the gross, and the fixed from the volatile. This instrument, complete as the world  and accurate as the mathematics themselves, is designated by the sages under the emblem of the pentagram or star with five points, the absolute sign of human intelligence.

The end and perfection of the Great Work is expressed, in alchemy, by a triangle  surmounted by a cross: and the letter Tau, the last of the Sacred alphabet, has the same meaning.

The "elementary fire" that comes primary by attraction, is evidently Electricaly or the Electric Force, primarly developed as magnatism, and in which is perhaps the secret of life or the vital force.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 18, 2010, 19:39:43 pm
Well thats great outlaw , theres nothing like a good book .

I love geo-political books , I never really read much till I knew how interresting things really were lol .

I am currently reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's the grand chessboard .

 Theres alot of mediocre authors , have to research the good ones .
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 18, 2010, 19:48:07 pm
this isnt out of your average buy at the bookstore book.. its in the freemasons book.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 18:04:38 pm
Okay yesterday i had a discussion with electrojolt with the result that we both believed stan's demo tubecell was not only not overunity, but very inefficient.
I have given it a thought over the night and day and since i had come to that conclusion yesterday only based on vague memories of electrolysis efficiency i got my calculator out and tried some things.

Here are the assertions needed:
-  pressure meter measures in PSI not in Atmospheres
-  the voltage and current values were not going into the circuit at all but directly into the tubes, no power loss at other components
-  there is no electrical polarization process and it's normal electrolysis
-  1 liter [volume] = 10³ cm³ = 10³ cc = 1000 cc
-  the faraday constant is 96485C/mol, it’s the charge on which 1 mole of a substance is created
-  stan created 470ml / minute at 40 Amps (12,5V) – NOT 7l/min
-  the decomposition voltage of 100% efficient electrolysis of water is 1,23V
-  1As create 0,19cc of gas (*http://www.chemieonline.de/forum/showpost.php? p=263191&postcount=14)

With 40A of current, 60s of time, 1,23V of minimum voltage, regular electrolysis at 100% should create 40A * 60s * 0,19cc = 456cc gas. This requires 1,23V * 40A * 60s = 2,95kJ of energy.

The 4cc for an hour at this current like stated in the test is ridiculous and wrong.

Stan created 470cc in 60 seconds using the same current, that is roughly 100% the faraday efficiency. The assumption was that it is normal electrolysis, so not 12.5V * 40A create gas, only 49,2W of the 500W do this, the rest is dissipated as heat. This is of course very inefficient, although the current/charge use in general is very good. The numbers of the only published test result and of course the nature of the invention speak against him.

Although there are factors which speak for him: Several people, including a tv documentary, noticed NO heat creation when 450W of heat should have been dissipated, there are several people who claim to have replicated the invention (in parts), the circuit (if used) is well known as a voltage multiplier which wouldn’t allow for a current that high.
My conclusion is that if the test data is real the EPP exists, although the efficiency of that process is not known and may be under unity. It is very unlikely to have a common electrolysis process with that gas creation for the charge put in.
It is also likely that the 500Watts were going into the circuit total (for the motor which drives the alternator for example) and were not used wholly for gas creation purposes as asserted.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 19:59:27 pm
I did the test, here are the results:

Cavity = 1 in * 4 inch * 3.14 = 12.56 Cubic Inch = 205.8 Cubic Centimeters

Salt Water
5 psi in 16 seconds

Rain Water
1.3 psi in 30 seconds
2.6 psi in 60 seconds
4 psi in 90 seconds
5 psi in 113 seconds

Tap Water
1.9 psi in 30 seconds
3.7 psi in 60 seconds
5 psi in 81 seconds

5 psi @ 205.8 cc  Cavity = 115 cc of gas produced

Salt Water = 431 cc/min
Rain Water = 61 cc/min
Tap Water = 85 cc/min

All tests performed with 10 volts on the Variac, no other electrical measurements taken.
This is with Four 3" Tubes

This is with a normal alternator, now you might be wondering why so many people have built this set up and not figured out how he ran the dune buggy on water.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 20:04:16 pm
They probably measured the input to the motor, divided it by 9 for each tube and then measured the gas output.
If i remember correct the alternator circuit didn't even have a vic, only the pulsing waveform for the motor?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 22:24:06 pm
I actually think they measured the current used right at the cell right at the cell.

so if he in did ran the dune buggy with only 0.5  lpm  of hho, then he must have been doing something else.

this something else is what we need to find out.

some people think we can create some new gas using oxygen and nitrogen . oxygen is pretty easy to manipulate. now nitrogen is a different beast. with its triple bond it is very hard to break. but recent discoveries show that hafnium works as a catalyst to break the nitrogen molecule. once broken then it can easy bond to other molecules.

i contacted this company to see if i could order some.  but they don,t sell to individuals.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 22:47:42 pm
Do they sell outside usa?

Steve
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 22:53:36 pm
so if he in did ran the dune buggy with only 0.5  lpm  of hho, then he must have been doing something else.

this something else is what we need to find out.

no he didn't run the dune buggy on 0.5 lpm, the test results you are talking about is for a normal alternator, the dune buggy was run on an RVIC, the "something else" is called the voltage intensifier circuit
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 15, 2010, 22:58:20 pm
didn't he have a video showing the buggy running on that 9 tube cell ?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 01:12:25 am
yes, and he specifically said he was using the alternator to restrict the amps, that's a 60+ amp alternator, do you think he has normal windings in it?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 01:39:48 am
yes do think the windings were stock. to restrict amps he controlled the current going to the rotor, that lowers the magnetic field induced in the stator controlling the current flow to the cell.

so we know that the tube cell in the 1st videos idled the buggy  and we know that the cell couldn't produce more than one liter of hho even at 60amps.

so how did the engine idled with such low amount of hho?

the only way i can see the engine run on that little amount of hho is that he had to be creating something else.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 02:03:37 am
Stan was not a fraud, He was just covering up what he was really doing. Allthough he has "2" different claims.

1. Running the buggy on water
2. Spitting water using voltage potential.

Fact, He may have Not used voltage potential to run the buggy. He may HAVE split water with voltage potential tampering with the molecule on the atomic level.

Running the buggy, and using voltage potential is 2 different Claims.

"YOU DRAWN YOUR ON CONCLUSION" In your Own Head. This is called

Psychology
Psychology
Psychology
Psychology

http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=978.0;attach=5653


http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1343.0.html
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 02:04:21 am
didn't he have a video showing the buggy running on that 9 tube cell ?

Psychology
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 02:04:44 am
yes, and he specifically said he was using the alternator to restrict the amps, that's a 60+ amp alternator, do you think he has normal windings in it?

Psychology
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 02:36:57 am
Phycology?  The study of algae?  I don't get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycology

Andy
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 02:50:31 am
the windings were not stock, the "something else" you are looking for is the voltage intensifier circuit
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 05:21:30 am
so on the video where the buggy is running with the 9 tube setup was already using the vic ?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 06:09:47 am
Phycology?  The study of algae?  I don't get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycology

Andy

lmfao, haha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology would be the correct term. lol. Psychology is what I meant to type.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 06:20:05 am
yes, the vic was developed before 1981, and not seen in in the patents until it was filed in 1987, 4826581, even though he patented the control circuits for the plate cell and pulsed alternator in 4798661 filed in 1985, he omitted the resonate charging chokes completely, and as he says in New Zealand in 1989 "there were two things i wouldn't tell them in the lectures back in the states, number one i wouldn't tell them how to restrict amps with the voltage intensifier circuit, and number two, i wouldn't tell them how to produce the magnetized gas"

the fact is, we have information now, and an understanding now, that experimenters did not have 1-2-3 years ago when many got stuck and gave up.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 06:29:20 am
in fact in 1983 he patented, 4613779, his own rotary vic design that has better efficiency than the alternator because he eliminated opposing magnetic fields, read that description and every other description of the vic and you'll learn it's the same characteristics, he went to solid state after this because of his KISS principle, the rvic is more expensive and complex than a core and some coils
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 06:35:16 am
yes, the vic was developed before 1981, and not seen in in the patents until it was filed in 1987, 4826581, even though he patented the control circuits for the plate cell and pulsed alternator in 4798661 filed in 1985, he omitted the resonate charging chokes completely, and as he says in New Zealand in 1989 "there were two things i wouldn't tell them in the lectures back in the states, number one i wouldn't tell them how to restrict amps with the voltage intensifier circuit, and number two, i wouldn't tell them how to produce the magnetized gas"

the fact is, we have information now, and an understanding now, that experimenters did not have 1-2-3 years ago when many got stuck and gave up.

Plz tell me wich part exactly at what time .
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 06:45:48 am
read the patents yourself
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 10:05:21 am
yes do think the windings were stock. to restrict amps he controlled the current going to the rotor, that lowers the magnetic field induced in the stator controlling the current flow to the cell.

so we know that the tube cell in the 1st videos idled the buggy  and we know that the cell couldn't produce more than one liter of hho even at 60amps.

so how did the engine idled with such low amount of hho?

the only way i can see the engine run on that little amount of hho is that he had to be creating something else.


Hohoho,

Not so quick.
The testreport on the Stan tubecell talks about 40 amps.
My tubecell is very close to the one of Stan.
When it ran on full load on the alternator, like 20V by 30 amps it was possible to get around 1 ltr a minute.
So, my 2 cents are that Stan was idle that Bug with something like1 max 2 litres a minute.

Steve

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 16, 2010, 10:10:37 am
in fact in 1983 he patented, 4613779, his own rotary vic design that has better efficiency than the alternator because he eliminated opposing magnetic fields, read that description and every other description of the vic and you'll learn it's the same characteristics, he went to solid state after this because of his KISS principle, the rvic is more expensive and complex than a core and some coils

Donald,

You are right about that patent. We also know that you have to show the patentoffice a working device.
But i never seen anyone confirming the fact that Stan Meyer beated Tesla's alternator design.
He made a more controlable setup with pulsing the rotor for sure.
We can replace the coil on the rotor with magnets to save like 10 watts.
But you need a magnetic field passing a coil to get current.

What kind of opposing fields?
Rotor vs ?
Fields inside the rotor?

Or did Stan just add more coils to the same magnetic field? Meaning having more efficiency towards the magnetic field.







Steve
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 17, 2010, 02:14:19 am
It eliminates the opposing magnetic field problem because on one layer the coils do not move move, just the secondary, then on the next layer the secondary stays still and the coils move, so you never have magnetic fields moving against each other - just the secondary moving relative to the coils, where the coils alternate between north south north south, so yes, it does do exactly as he says and eliminate a lot of problems with the conventional car alternator, and in particular it he designed it to be a "current limiting voltage source" with "power isolation" where a "pulsed input results in a pulsed output" and he even talks about it being used to control a car accelerator.

It's all right there, if you want to read it. This is a rotary vic.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 17, 2010, 09:23:35 am
It eliminates the opposing magnetic field problem because on one layer the coils do not move move, just the secondary, then on the next layer the secondary stays still and the coils move, so you never have magnetic fields moving against each other - just the secondary moving relative to the coils, where the coils alternate between north south north south, so yes, it does do exactly as he says and eliminate a lot of problems with the conventional car alternator, and in particular it he designed it to be a "current limiting voltage source" with "power isolation" where a "pulsed input results in a pulsed output" and he even talks about it being used to control a car accelerator.

It's all right there, if you want to read it. This is a rotary vic.

Thanks you for your explanation  ;)
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 29, 2012, 04:35:02 am
Here is the article written in 2007 by the local paper.

The Columbus Dispatch

The car that ran on water
 Nine years after his death, inventor's dreams -- and suspicions -- linger
 Sunday,  July 8, 2007 3:47 AM
 By  Dean Narciso
 THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Stanley Meyer during a test of his dune buggy, about 1980. This screen shot was taken from a DVD sent to The Dispatch by his twin brother, Stephen Meyer.
 
Click to enlarge graphic
Web Extras
Video, audio and background information on Stanley Meyer's quest for a water-powered car
 After more than 20 years of research and tinkering, it was time to celebrate.


Stanley Allen Meyer, his brother and two Belgian investors raised glasses in the Grove City Cracker Barrel on March 20, 1998.

Meyer said his invention could do what physicists say is impossible -- turn water into hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to drive his dune buggy cross-country on 20 gallons straight from the tap.

He took a sip of cranberry juice. Then he grabbed his neck, bolted out the door, dropped to his knees and vomited violently.

"I ran outside and asked him, 'What's wrong?' " his brother, Stephen Meyer, recalled. "He said, 'They poisoned me.' That was his dying declaration."
'Cloak and dagger'

Stanley Meyer's bizarre death at age 57 ended work that, if proved valid, could have ended reliance on fossil fuels.

People who knew him say his work drew worldwide attention: mysterious visitors from overseas, government spying and lucrative buyout offers.

His death sparked a three-month investigation that consumed and fascinated Grove City police.

"Meyer's death was laced with all sorts of stories of conspiracy, cloak-and-dagger stories," said Grove City Police Lt. Steve Robinette, lead detective on the case.

If Stephen Meyer was shocked at his twin brother's collapse and death, he was equally amazed at the Belgians' response the next day.

"I told them that Stan had died and they never said a word," he recalled, "absolutely nothing, no condolences, no questions.

"I never, ever had a trust of those two men ever again."

Today, Stanley Meyer is featured on numerous Internet sites. A significant portion of the 1995 documentary It Runs on Water, narrated by science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and aired on the BBC, focuses on his "water fuel cell" invention.

James Robey wants a permanent place for Meyer in his Kentucky Water Fuel Museum.

"He was ignored, called a fraud and died without his small hometown even remembering him with so much as a plaque," Robey wrote in his self-published book Water Car.

Meyer had euphoric highs and humiliating defeats. He was kind and generous yet paranoid and suspicious. He would be hailed as a visionary and a genius. He also would be sued and declared a fraud.

As many of his more than 20 patents expire this year, and gasoline prices hover around $3 per gallon, there is growing interest in his inventions. But it remains unclear how much was true science and how much was science fiction.
'Always building'

Meyer was born and lived on Columbus' East Side before moving to Grandview Heights, where he finished high school.

He briefly attended Ohio State University and joined the military.

"We were always building something," Stephen Meyer recalled of their youth. "We went out and created our toys."

At 6 feet 3 and with a booming voice, Stanley Meyer was charismatic and persuasive, equally conversant with physicists and bricklayers.

He was also eccentric. His favorite phrase was "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition," friends said.

He once called Grove City police to his home and laboratory on Broadway to report a suspicious package. The Columbus bomb squad detonated the parcel, only to discover it was equipment that he had ordered.

His focus on water as a fuel began in earnest in 1975, a year after the end of the Arab oil embargo, which had triggered high gas prices, gas-pump lines and anxiety.

"It became imperative that we must try to bring in an alternative fuel source and do it very quickly," Meyer says in the documentary.
'Something for nothing'

The basis for Meyer's research, electrolysis, is taught in middle-school science labs.

Electricity flows through water, cracking the molecules and filling test tubes with oxygen and hydrogen bubbles. A match is lighted. The volatile gases explode to prove that water has separated into its components.

Meyer said his invention did so using much less electricity than physicists say is possible. Videos show his contraptions turning water into a frothy mix within seconds.

"It takes so much energy to separate the H2 from the O," said Ohio State University professor emeritus Neville Reay, a physicist for more than 41 years. "That energy has pretty much not changed with time. It's a fixed amount, and nothing changes that."

Meyer's work defies the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

"Basically, it says you can't get something for nothing," Reay said.

"He may have had a nice way to store the hydrogen and use it to make a very effective motor, but there is no way to do something fancy and separate hydrogen with less energy."
'I was a sucker'

Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.

"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.

Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.

Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.

Roger L. Hurley, a retired Darke County judge, defended Meyer and still believes in him.

"I would not represent someone who I would consider to be a shyster or a bum," said Hurley. "He was a nice guy."
'The Lord sent me'

Meyer's creativity seemed to peak after he met Charles and Valorie Hughes, truck drivers who lived in Jackson Township.

Julia Hughes, the youngest of their seven children, was 5 years old when Meyer rang the doorbell of her home on Marlane Drive.

"His first few words were, 'The Lord sent me here to this home; I'd like to use your home as an experiment,' " she said.

Maybe it was the two-story garage-shop or the privacy of towering oak and sycamore trees; Julia isn't sure what Meyer saw there. But she knew her parents didn't have room for a struggling inventor.

Yet after visiting with the family for several hours, Meyer stayed the night, and then the next few years in the late 1970s.

In return, Meyer built the family a solar silo, designed to both heat and cool the home. The structure required thousands of clear resin "light guides," a crude form of fiber optics, which Meyer baked and molded in the family kitchen. Julia Hughes recalled the chemical stench.

The system was supposed to channel the sun's rays into the tower's base to heat water and generate electricity for an air conditioner. Despite extensive efforts that included re-plumbing the house, the invention never worked.

That didn't bother Charles Hughes, Julia's father, who is retired in Jackson, Ohio.

He would see Meyer power his tractor for 15 minutes on well water, he said. He would put his nose to the exhaust.

"There was no fumes whatsoever," he recalled. "It was just clean, hot air.

"He was just very trustworthy, very religious. I just had the feeling that he would not take anything from me, and he never did," Mr. Hughes said.
'Sell out or sit on it'

Belief in Meyer continues today. So does suspicion about plots to silence him.

Stephen Meyer recalled a phone call to his brother's home in the 1980s.

"He turned to me and said, 'They just offered me $800 million. Should I take it?'

"I said, 'Hell yes. How much money do you want?'

"He got very quiet. When he got into that thinking process, I just let him alone," Stephen recalled.

Charlie Hughes, now 36, vividly recalls the strangers who visited his parents' home in the late 1970s.

He had been playing outside when the driveway suddenly filled with limousines. Men in turbans stepped out. In "stern, thick accents," they asked for Meyer. "I remember, because I was not allowed in my own house that day."

They left briskly. Charlie was about to go inside when the driveway filled again, this time with military vehicles. "Army brass," he recalled.

At dinner that night, Meyer told them: "The Arabs wanted to offer me $250 million to stop today. You and this lovely family can live in peace and prosperity the rest of your days."

The Army officials, meanwhile, had questioned Meyer about what the foreigners wanted, thinking that a deal might have been struck, Charlie recalled Meyer telling the family.

Meyer discusses the offers in the Clarke documentary.

"Many times over the last decade, I have been offered enormous amounts of money simply to sell out or sit on it … The Arabs have offered me a total of a billion dollars total pay simply to sit on it and do nothing with it."
Coroner's report

The Grove City police investigation of Meyer's death included taped interviews of more than a dozen witnesses.

Absent, however, were audiotapes of the two Belgians, Phillippe Vandemoortele and Marc Vancraeyenest.

The men had agreed to purchase 56 acres along Seeds Road in Grove City. The city had approved a research campus there two months before Meyer's death.

Lt. Steve Robinette said it's possible the men's interviews were not taped.

Calls and e-mails to Vandemoortele and Vancraeyenest for this story were not returned.

The Franklin County coroner ruled that Meyer, who had high blood pressure, died of a brain aneurysm. Absent any proof of foul play, the police went with the coroner's report.

The only detectable drugs were the pain reliever lidocaine and phenytoin, which is used to treat seizures.

And what became of the dune buggy that captivated a community for at least a few years?

A longtime friend of Meyer's, who doesn't want to be named because he fears that people will bother him about the invention, led a reporter to the basement of a property south of Columbus recently.

"I really shouldn't be showing you this," he said.

After passing through several darkened rooms scattered with computers and electrical equipment, he opened a door. In the far corner of a garage sat the buggy, its leather seats cracked, its engine partially covered with a cloth.

A decal on the bright red paint declares: "Jesus Christ is Lord."

Then the man quickly led the way out. Lights went dark. Doors clicked shut.

In his front yard, he sat on a lawn chair and sipped fruit punch. He watched the cars and trucks drive by on the road, burning gasoline.

dnarciso@dispatch.com

Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 29, 2012, 16:43:42 pm
when the buggy was idling in the driveway,he states 13.5 psi, 5 volts and 2 amps to the rotor.The gages are hooked to the rotor of the alternator,and has no refference to the volts on the cell.
Don

In all fairness he stated " Able to * maintain * 13.5 psi " that appeared to be as the buggy was running.Also if memeory serves correct the tube cell was clear of any white cloud indicating alltho mainting 13.5 psi the cell was under enuff vaccum to pull the cloud out and build enuff preasure to maintain 13.5 psi.Would be nice to know the diameter of his gas out tube and the engine vaccum at idle of the buggy we could possibly determine how much gas he was actually using to idle the buggy.But did he have a modified throttle body allowing more or less engine vaccum?
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 29, 2012, 17:05:35 pm
when the buggy was idling in the driveway,he states 13.5 psi, 5 volts and 2 amps to the rotor.The gages are hooked to the rotor of the alternator,and has no refference to the volts on the cell.
Don

In all fairness he stated " Able to * maintain * 13.5 psi " that appeared to be as the buggy was running.Also if memeory serves correct the tube cell was clear of any white cloud indicating alltho mainting 13.5 psi the cell was under enuff vaccum to pull the cloud out and build enuff preasure to maintain 13.5 psi.Would be nice to know the diameter of his gas out tube and the engine vaccum at idle of the buggy we could possibly determine how much gas he was actually using to idle the buggy.But did he have a modified throttle body allowing more or less engine vaccum?

I think i understand what Stan said. I ran my first engine on hho with help of the vacuum of the engine, but with pressure in the cell.
The engine sucks in, but i closed the outlet valve in such a way, that i always kept a minimum of 0,5bar in the cell.

Steve



Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 29, 2012, 17:53:14 pm
as far as i understand the engine vacuum only was used to draw air in...

stan used the pressure inside the cell as a mean to maintain stable production i mean enough gas to jump into the engine for accelerating, because the reaction on the cell was not instantaneous maybe at the time.
Title: Re: Error in Stans Gas production
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 30, 2012, 11:50:50 am
It eliminates the opposing magnetic field problem because on one layer the coils do not move move, just the secondary, then on the next layer the secondary stays still and the coils move, so you never have magnetic fields moving against each other - just the secondary moving relative to the coils, where the coils alternate between north south north south, so yes, it does do exactly as he says and eliminate a lot of problems with the conventional car alternator, and in particular it he designed it to be a "current limiting voltage source" with "power isolation" where a "pulsed input results in a pulsed output" and he even talks about it being used to control a car accelerator.

It's all right there, if you want to read it. This is a rotary vic.

HI Donaldwfc
Can you explain to my how to do coil alternator correctly to your words:
"It eliminates the opposing magnetic field problem because on one layer the coils do not move move, just the secondary, then on the next layer the secondary stays still and the coils move, so you never have magnetic fields moving against each other - just the secondary moving relative to the coils, where the coils alternate between north south north south"
I cant understand it . Thank for ansver.
andy