Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: timeshell on March 28, 2012, 23:30:07 pm

Title: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on March 28, 2012, 23:30:07 pm
I believe that Stanley Meyer referred to the water molecule itself as a capacitor?  Has anyone considered the resonant effect of the water molecule "capacitor" inline with the coils?  The circuit in effect becomes some freekish equation of LC((1/x*(1/C))/x*C)L (or something like that, I haven't spent enough time trying to figure out the implication of it this way) if you consider it this way.  What is the capacitance of these micro capacitors in parallel and series and what would be the resonant frequency of a LC (where C is the "micro capacitor" water molecule) if the chokes were directly in line with them?

When you think about it, now you have millions (billions?) of micro capacitors in series and parallel at the same time.  Ideally, the goal would be to charge a large number of them simultaneously in resonance.  The question is what is the most effective way to do this.

Anyone ever looked at it this way??  Or am I just way out in left field?

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on March 29, 2012, 10:21:07 am
we've discussed this extensively thru the threads...
you are not thinking wrong only the wrong proportion
Actually the sum of all this billions of picometer order size capacitors that determine the dielectric proprieties of water.

Br
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on March 29, 2012, 13:11:05 pm
Actually the sum of all this billions of picometer order size capacitors that determine the dielectric proprieties of water.

Br

Agreed.  I had considered that.  What I am considering is what if you could put a single molecule in this LCL circuit. We should be able to calculate a frequency for this.  Then we could, for example, put in a matrix of these micro capacitors in a simulator and observe how they resonate.  Which should in turn give a better understanding visually of what's going on in the water.

Anyone know what the capacitance of a single molecule would be?  How would you notate this for 2 electrons?


TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on March 30, 2012, 00:17:34 am
Building a little more on this "idea", I accidentally discovered a circuit modification using the iCircuit simulator on the iPad which gave a phenomenal result.  I don't know if it's a valid simulation (seeing as there is no component that can perfectly simulate a water cell) but I thought I would share this.

The attached image shows a 0.001 resistor directly inline with both sides of the "Excitor Array".  I built the "Excitor Array" to have a positive side capacitor, a negative side capacitor and a capacitor to represent a water molecule with the smallest capacitance I could make work (0.01pF).

The result is, within a second the voltage charge on the "water molecule" goes up to 30kV!!  Before 2.5 seconds it's in the GV range.  Before 3.5 seconds it's in the TV range!  This effect will NOT happen if the resistors are removed or if the resistance value is much higher or if the resistors leads are not in direct contact with the capacitor leads.

What I perceive is happening, is that the very small resistance is allowing the voltage to get into the "ER", but, once it's in, the "ER" doesn't want to let it out, again because of that small resistance.

I have not been able to replicate the result with the Falstad simulator (which iCircuit is based on).  The components seem to work a little differently there.  If anyone else has other circuit simulators, please try this configuration and let us know the result.

UPDATE:  I think I have managed to sort of duplicate the effect of climbing voltage in Falstad using 0.0001 resistors instead of 0.001.  Over 150kV in less than 4 seconds.  I have attached the configs for both the Falstad and iCircuit.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on March 30, 2012, 14:56:19 pm
I have updated my original post above with the actual configs of the circuits.  I've noticed that if the resistors are not right (if they are too high or too low value) depending on the specific circuit that the voltage is pretty much lost across the "water molecule".  I suspect this may be part of the reason for the variable inductor used by Meyers, but only part.  So far it seems that the resistor value on the side with the diode may be more important than the other one.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 03, 2012, 09:53:03 am
Hi Timeshell,
I am curious about grades of stainless steel used in cells. in googling " Stan Meyer Stainless Steel" , Ive seen 304 mentioned, and that apparrently SM said that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be used as oxides formed with all others.
Other people use 316 and 316L

So in considering water molecule capacitance which would be measured between 2 plates......Does the grade of S/S have an effect?

So has anyone conclusively worked out if, for example, 410 is better to use than 316L?
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 03, 2012, 17:21:53 pm
Here's my perspective.

Using a type of SS that oxidizes appropriately is important as the oxidization creates a secondary dielectric layer in the cell.  This in turn creates more resistance in the circuit.  316L does NOT oxidize very well at all.  This isn't to say that we want the cell to rust.  However, the oxidizing element (can't remember if it was the nickel or the chromium) will create a very thin white film on the outside of the cell.  I am pretty sure 304 will create this effect also, but SM may have discovered that 410 does it better.

Essentially, what this does is turn the water cell into an electrolytic capacitor.

I believe the answer to your first question is both yes and no, depending on the quality of the water and level of oxidization.
I believe the answer to your second question is 410 may be better to use but I have not actually tested this to be true.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 03, 2012, 23:29:05 pm
I have seen most of everything Stan had,and in his documents,when he said do this or use this,that is what he did or used.
He said to use 304 and thats what you use.It's more cost effective than 316.All of the different cells I seen of Stans,none of them had any signs of oxidation.This tells me that he was doing something different,other than regular electrolysis.
Don
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 04, 2012, 16:38:01 pm
To increase the capacitance, you can do what people call mysteriously "conditioning" your cell. This means operate your cell reversing periodically the dc supply, alternating between caustic and acidic baths. This is not for achieving oxide coating like they say... What will happen is that you will corrode the stainless steel to increase the surface area.

There is no oxide remain. Except the oxygen barrier from the passivation layer witch forms soon or later on stainless steel, derived from the chromium and nickel alloying proprieties.

the 400 series has iron in it.

think about...
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 04, 2012, 17:52:55 pm
The oxidized elements (nickel and chromium) create a dielectric layer on the cell.  This would accomplish 2 things.  First it increases capacitance of the cell allowing it to accept a higher voltage charge which is important for voltrolysis.  The second is that with an additional dielectric layer you have higher resistance.  Both of these would be desirable in replicating SM system (in theory).  We can only say otherwise either way when someone does manage to fully replicate the effect.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 04, 2012, 17:57:07 pm
Incidentally, as I am sure everyone aware, it's not the oxidization of iron (in other words what we know as rust) that I have been referring to.  Rust is obviously not desirable.  I'd very strongly suggest research into the properties of electrolytic capacitors including how they are made to understand why turning the water cell into an electrolytic capacitor would be desirable in this context.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 05, 2012, 17:41:29 pm
Here's something else I've been considering for a while and has recurred to me last night.   The water doesn't actually need to be in direct contact with the SS does it?  I mean, the whole point of this SM's design is to use high charges to pull apart the water molecule, like using magnetic forces.  With the water actually being a lossy dielectric, couldn't we just isolate the SS tubes from the water with some sort of sealant; urethane or epoxy or something?  This would allow a higher voltage charge on the cell, prevent electron transfer to the water, and create additional resistance in the circuit.

This would possibly produce the same effect as the oxide skin, except be more permanent.

Has anyone tried this?

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 06, 2012, 08:44:24 am
Here's something else I've been considering for a while and has recurred to me last night.   The water doesn't actually need to be in direct contact with the SS does it?  I mean, the whole point of this SM's design is to use high charges to pull apart the water molecule, like using magnetic forces.  With the water actually being a lossy dielectric, couldn't we just isolate the SS tubes from the water with some sort of sealant; urethane or epoxy or something?  This would allow a higher voltage charge on the cell, prevent electron transfer to the water, and create additional resistance in the circuit.

This would possibly produce the same effect as the oxide skin, except be more permanent.

Has anyone tried this?

TS


You mean fully insulated tubes with pvc?
Yes. Done that.

Steve
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 01:31:38 am
Here's something else I've been considering for a while and has recurred to me last night.   The water doesn't actually need to be in direct contact with the SS does it?  I mean, the whole point of this SM's design is to use high charges to pull apart the water molecule, like using magnetic forces.  With the water actually being a lossy dielectric, couldn't we just isolate the SS tubes from the water with some sort of sealant; urethane or epoxy or something?  This would allow a higher voltage charge on the cell, prevent electron transfer to the water, and create additional resistance in the circuit.

This would possibly produce the same effect as the oxide skin, except be more permanent.

Has anyone tried this?

TS

I do not post as often as I did in the past but here we go. I shared your thoughts a while back and searched for info regarding surface protection and metals with higher surface resistance to oxidation as my main focus was on voltage dissociation. But then I listened to the radio show with Stephen (that you can locate on Tony's page). Stephen mention that the electrodes are part of the efficiency, he even used the word over unity. What happens is that the process itself - energy charging the metal and oxidization - releases stored energy in the form of electrons. These electrons now become a part of the surplus energy within the dielectric and hence more energy now becomes available. We can also speculate about the vacuum energy found when the hydrogen atoms becomes ionic species, but that is another debate on its own. So, what Stephen is telling us is that the process use the energy found in the metal, so using protection or PVC on the metal surface limit the total efficiency.

This changes how we view the process as a hole. The iron oxides that we see is not from an acidic environment, but electron surging similar to standard Brute Force Electrolysis. We might even say that there are two process going on: 1'st is the High Voltage and Resonance (fundamental forces and molecular swing) and 2'nd we have the electron collision from Faraday's learning.
Voltage on its own is very hard to get started, so therefor we have the soft start ( charge build up aka, depletion layer) and we have the electron collision. 

It is a trick - yes, a trick, but non the less there. So instead of looking at it as a way of insulating the electrodes, look at it as that the electrodes are part of the system. Now of a sudden we need to change the system - just like Meyer and Stephen found. More free floating radicals (metal ion's) will pick up a charge and allow more electrons to flow, this is similar to straight DC run away effect. He add the steam reformer and filtration so he could keep the water clean and control the dielectric PH levels, temperature and insulation property (which needs to be high for amp restriction).

I hope this info helps you a bit.

Regards
Oneminde
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 14:33:15 pm
I have a problem with that explanation.  Once we start consuming power from the circuit in this fashion, we no longer have real over unity.  We end up with a power in equals power out situation.  You will never get more from the system if electron transfer in the system must originate from the VIC.  As i understand it, the SM system described doesn't require electron transfer.  It requires a voltage at a frequency that is able to exert an attraction force in such a way that the molecule is pulled apart.  Since voltage can be exerted without current consumption, this becomes an ability to exploit the properties of water with minimal power.

TS
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 16:53:27 pm
I have a problem with that explanation.  Once we start consuming power from the circuit in this fashion, we no longer have real over unity.  We end up with a power in equals power out situation.  You will never get more from the system if electron transfer in the system must originate from the VIC.  As i understand it, the SM system described doesn't require electron transfer.  It requires a voltage at a frequency that is able to exert an attraction force in such a way that the molecule is pulled apart.  Since voltage can be exerted without current consumption, this becomes an ability to exploit the properties of water with minimal power.

TS

Note; Yes, SM was right, but what Stephen is trying to say is that you create a situation where the lack of one component - electrons - is given back to the system via metal ionization and vacuum energy. The VIC is amp restriction yes as it should and with voltage and resonance alone you can make gas .. but in order to get a surplus, this energy must come from somewhere, besides the fact that Voltrolysis is a clever energy conversion system.

But I advice you to listen to the radio show.
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 18:34:37 pm
Stan worked in many different systems, maybe you are confusing a bit...

The energy come from the space time anyway according to our theory, in electromagnetic field form. As voltage potential is not "consumed" in an electronic circuit, while still realize work in terms of force. This work derives from the same energy source that accelerates a gauss gun for example.
 
To know what you can do with the space-time you need to learn its rules... faraday and tesla left one of the greatest indications of its nature on their experiments with induction...

A permanent magnet is not magnetic it self, IT INTERACTS with space and it lets the magnetic proprieties of space time to become evident and take place at that specific space... But is understood that this magnetism is not free to move anyway it is permanently bound to the fabric or structure of the space time. If you change the permanent magnet position than you are showing the magnetism of another portion of space-time...

In the gauss gun example, if you take the analogy to gravity force, you get energy in joules= mass * Gravity * Height than its clear that as the height changes energy is coming from somewhere to accelerate the mass, we call it gravity... but the energy is coming from where? I mean the force field is there but when it acts energy is coming to sustain the condition that it still attracting...

In the electromagnetic case the force increase squarely as the distance decrease linearly...


"Our" current systems, are limited to thermodynamics laws because they use movement as the only existent source of the energy and uses this electromagnetic proprieties only to mechanically move electrons in a wire... Thereto is clear that classical mechanics will explain your decrease in energy because of conservation of momentum and so on... but is not valid for all kind of machines that we are able to create if we mind the space time proprieties.

food for though

Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 19:08:08 pm
I agree with you seb. My point with the reply was just to explain parts of the system as explained by the Meyer's themselves - but is not the answer to everything regarding the energy.
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 08, 2012, 20:15:06 pm
I understand what you mean... i just wanted to explain the space time characteristics cause it is what you called vacuum... 
Title: Re: Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 10, 2012, 14:37:49 pm
KISS

TS