Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

Stanley Meyer => Stanley Meyer => Electron Extraction => Topic started by: Steve on February 21, 2009, 11:12:09 am

Title: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 11:12:09 am
Hi,

After some study of the proces of Stan by many of you and me, i think that the HV theory is practically not proven (yet).
There is however another interesting part of Stan Meyer that could work.
Its the Electron Extraction circuit.

The theory is:
You pulse voltage current into the waterbath. In other words: you put electronflow into the water to pull the watermolecule apart.
As Stan shows, there will be ELECTRONS liberated in the proces of electrolysis.
The liberated electrons will recombine with atoms who are looking for an electron
For every action is a reaction. Meaning, the more power you put into the water, the more antireactions you get.

So, what are my thoughts on this? Well, if you pulse a stream of electrons into the water, you get 2 things happening.
First, the water is taking a charge and secondly, you pull the watermolecule apart into oxygen and hydrogen and ELECTRONS.

What would happen if you take the most of the floating electrons of the water after the first puls?
First, the gas would stay (longer) ionized. = more powerfull gas
Secondly, less recombining of the hydrogen and oxygen would occure in the waterbath = more gas
Third, less building up antireactions = less heat, etc..
Fourth, we create electricity. Re-use of electricity into to pulsing system saves power = more efficient

I have experienced that my platecell can light a 230V 60watt light bulp, after taking the power of the cel......

What are your thoughts on this theory, dear members of Ionizationx?

br
Steve




Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 16:41:19 pm
The only thing I can think of that is negative is:

you know when you 1st power the cell, there is a delay to start gas production, so I think that by pulling discharging the cell, will cause it to delay again when charging it again.

Only testing will tell.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 17:45:12 pm
It works exactly as he says it does. I can explain the physics of the theory, but not yet the electronics of the theory.

Stan says "Switching off the covalent bond". For a while this never completely made sense, he even uses an example of turning off a switch to de-energize an electro magnet to drop a metal plate. That never really made sense when talking about the water molecule.


There is one single key fact that makes all of this work, and stan uses it in more than one way, in more than one of his technologies. You are really going to have to wrap your head around this single idea, and then a lot of things should become clear.

Electrons produce an electric/electromagnetic field dependent on the speed at which they move.

Now lets get into covalent bonds. In the water molecule there are two bonds, one bond between each hydrogen and the oxygen. One of these two bonds, (they are both the same), is connected only by the force of the e/em-field of one single electron.

So, we have the e/em-field of one electron holding these two atoms together.
The strength of this bond is directly proportional to the speed of that electron.

We want to weaken and break this bond.
We want to weaken and overpower the e/em-field.
We want to slow down the electrons in the water molecule.
We want to expose the water molecule to an external e-field. (voltage is an e-field)
We want to pull extremely hard on the water molecule and stretch it.
We want to change the "time share rate of the covalent electrons" = they slow down as they fight against the extremely strong external e-field during their rotation.
We want to slow down the electrons which reduces their e/em-field, while the atoms are under electrical stress in opposite directions.
The water molecule will just fall apart.

When stan says switch off the covalent bond, he means exactly that. Slam the water molecules with an external voltage that locks the atomic charges in place, slows/stops them and basically turns off the e/em-field they produce.

He says gas production varies in a geometrical rate as voltage increases. This describes perfectly what is going on above. Slam the water molecules with a higher external e-field and they will slow down more, and their e/em-field will be reduced to effectively nothing, "switched off"... and more bonds will break, and they will break faster.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 18:08:34 pm
If you want to know the theory behind using lasers, and light energy to aid the process, read this.


Quantum ionization

In quantum mechanics ionization can still happen classically where the electron has enough energy to make it over the potential barrier, but there is the additional possibility of tunnel ionization.

Tunnel ionization
Tunnel ionization is ionization due to quantum tunneling. In classical ionization an electron must have enough energy to make it over the potential barrier, but quantum tunneling allows the electron simply to go through the potential barrier instead of going all the way over it because of the wave nature of the electron. The probability of an electron tunneling through the barrier drops off exponentially with the width of the potential barrier. Therefore, an electron with a higher energy can make it further up the potential barrier, leaving a much thinner barrier to tunnel through and thus a greater chance to do so.

Non-sequential ionization
When the fact that the electric field of light is an alternating electric field is combined with tunnel ionization, the phenomenon of non-sequential ionization emerges. An electron that tunnels out from an atom or molecule may be sent right back in by the alternating field, at which point it can either recombine with the atom or molecule and release any excess energy, or it also has the chance to further ionize the atom or molecule through high energy collisions. This additional ionization is referred to as non-sequential ionization for two reasons: one, there is no order to how the second electron is removed, and two, an atom or molecule with a +2 charge can be created straight from an atom or molecule with a neutral charge, so the integer charges are not sequential. Non-sequential ionization is often studied at lower laser-field intensities, since most ionization events are sequential when the ionization rate is high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionize

and more

Tunnel ionization

Tunnel ionization is a process in which electrons in an atom (or a molecule) pass through the potential barrier and escape from the atom (or molecule). In an intense electric field, the potential barrier of an atom (molecule) is distorted drastically. Therefore, the length of the barrier that electrons have to pass decreases and electrons can escape from the atom (molecule) easily.

As an electric field of light is an alternating electric field, the direction of the electric field reverses after the half period of the field. Because electrons have a charge, electrons escaping by tunnel ionization come and go to the atom (molecule) in every half period. In this process, some electrons recombine with the nucleus (nuclei). Because the electrons have gained a large quantity of kinetic energy by acceleration from the electric field, surplus energy is released as light. The energy of this light is so high that this method is an effective way of generating ultraviolet light.

When the recombination does not occur, further ionization proceeds by collision between high-energy electrons and a parent atom (molecule). Consequently, a multivalent ion is created and this ion is collapsed by Coulomb repulsion. This is called Coulomb explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_ionization


Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 20:13:59 pm
remember what creates charge in a wire.. it is not the flow of electrons in the wire  thats current..

what makes a choke have a positve charge and a negative?   

under high voltage i think the positive choke removes outter single electron of copper in the positive choke..  kinda like the toroid is a electron extracion circuit it self..

by removing outter electron you make copper a positive  plus 1 charge per copper atom..  with 29 protons and 28 electrons..

so if your able to strip the positive choke of all the outter electrons it will create positive charge in choke.. 
i dont thinks that coil orientation exsist  in a fully charged choke. i think positve will be only positve and ground will allways remain neutral.. it is there just to match resistance/ impeadance. to slow down the oppourtunity of electrons racing across to positive side..  and if the coils are close to each other i think it might help?

so ithat would make since to say the more winds more voltage.. because you are adding inductance and the capacitance of positive charged copper ions.

i would say focus on that because we know there isnt curent involved.. current require the passing off of electrons threw the system.. the only ones in this system that have current is whats leaving the electrons being takeing out of positive choke.


just some food for thought
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 20:37:26 pm
I would think both chokes have electrons in them, they just get trapped by the magnetic field. Just look at this napkin, if you are going to explain your system on a napkin to someone, you are probably going to focus only on the key elements of the process.

For all the extra electrons to get pulled out of the positive choke, I imagine they would have to flow when there is no magnetic field, otherwise they are just trapped, and when they do flow, they produce a magnetic field.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 20:50:22 pm
Hi,

After some study of the proces of Stan by many of you and me, i think that the HV theory is practically not proven (yet).



Care to explain what this was?

Hi,

Well, there is always a first for everything.
And here are the first bubles of a working HV water fracturing setup.

feature=user

Br
Steve

ps
sorry for the noice....

So in theory, you could could hook up multiple cells and not draw more current off the primary of the step up transformer?

Mikemongo

yes, you are right with that conclusion.

br
steve
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 21:12:51 pm

I have experienced that my platecell can light a 230V 60watt light bulp, after taking the power of the cel......



The first thought that came flying to me was Stanleys "Switchover circuit"  

Must mean that he somehow switched between the cells...maybe there is a smart way to re-use the energy to another cell..


Best regards ;)





  
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 21:19:23 pm
Young Padawans , I am proud of you ;D

Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 21:30:27 pm

I have experienced that my platecell can light a 230V 60watt light bulp, after taking the power of the cel......



The first thought that came flying to me was Stanleys "Switchover circuit"  

Must mean that he somehow switched between the cells...maybe there is a smart way to re-use the energy to another cell..


Best regards ;)


Good thinking! Should be part of the experiments!

br
steve
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 21:31:21 pm
Hi,

After some study of the proces of Stan by many of you and me, i think that the HV theory is practically not proven (yet).



Care to explain what this was?

Hi,

Well, there is always a first for everything.
And here are the first bubles of a working HV water fracturing setup.

feature=user

Br
Steve

ps
sorry for the noice....

So in theory, you could could hook up multiple cells and not draw more current off the primary of the step up transformer?

Mikemongo

yes, you are right with that conclusion.

br
steve

You should ask Hydrocars/resonance king this question. He did that experiment.

br
Steve
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 22:54:16 pm
its a good thought.. but i think his switchover circuit was mainly for the steam resonator..  it allows both side to be positve then negative switching rapidly causing a pumping/ friction action to the water kinda like a microwave..  and his rotary cross circuit with the eatra inductors just allow to to hit a high neg with the positive.. without it you only get a unipolar pulse leaving only.   the neg side is more of a neutral.. i guess a equal pos and neg pulse at the same time would be called a dipolar pulse.. hmm that energy form sounds familiar.. oh yea water is a dipole.. ac curent is never both at the same time.  i have been trying to understand that middle inductor for a while.. what does CT mean?
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 21, 2009, 23:04:05 pm
its a good thought.. but i think his switchover circuit was mainly for the steam resonator..  it allows both side to be positve then negative switching rapidly causing a pumping/ friction action to the water kinda like a microwave..  and his rotary cross circuit with the eatra inductors just allow to to hit a high neg with the positive.. without it you only get a unipolar pulse leaving only.   the neg side is more of a neutral.. i guess a equal pos and neg pulse at the same time would be called a dipolar pulse.. hmm that energy form sounds familiar.. oh yea water is a dipole.. ac curent is never both at the same time.  i have been trying to understand that middle inductor for a while.. what does CT mean?

O yeah that switchover ?

WayTogo you are confused ... Thats bad for gas production
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 06:38:39 am
Could it be possible that Stan was just giving the water a positive charge to the water , ( +h20 and not neutral) causing the water to give up electrons. Coated plates and hv,  I 've been considering a different set up for  a positive hv setup, just to see if  could be that simple, got nothing to loose.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 16:42:40 pm
stan says himself in videos that water is a dielectric liquid meaning it will take on electrical charge.. a high positive only will not work... it is called the water polarization process because it uses the negative to align all hydrogen sides with neg.. all oxy sides with the positive. when amps/ flowing electrons are involved it will mot work because the water will not line up uniformily to take on charge.


outlawstc
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 17:43:38 pm
Here's something, diy 10kv dc generator, depending on the direction of the diodes it can do pos/ neg ions . So I thought why not build one of each and see what I can learn.    I http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/circ/hv/hvdcgen/hvdcgen.html
Title: this is why. read three times if you have to.
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 19:16:14 pm
Electrons can move rather easily from one atom to another in some materials. In
other substances, it is difficult to get electrons to move. But in any case, it is far easier
to move electrons than it is to move protons. Electricity almost always results, in some
way, from the motion of electrons in a material.

Electrons are much lighter than protons or neutrons. In fact, compared to the nucleus
of an atom, the electrons weigh practically nothing.

Generally, the number of electrons in an atom is the same as the number of protons.
The negative charges therefore exactly cancel out the positive ones, and the atom is
electrically neutral. But under some conditions, there can be an excess or shortage of
electrons. High levels of radiant energy, extreme heat, or the presence of an electric field
(discussed later) can “knock” or “throw” electrons loose from atoms, upsetting the balance

Ions
If an atom has more or less electrons than neutrons, that atom acquires an electrical
charge. A shortage of electrons results in positive charge; an excess of electrons gives a
negative charge. The element’s identity remains the same, no matter how great the excess
or shortage of electrons. In the extreme case, all the electrons might be removed

Conductors
In some materials, electrons move easily from atom to atom. In others, the electrons
move with difficulty. And in some materials, it is almost impossible to get them to move.
An electrical conductor is a substance in which the electrons are mobile.

An insulating material is sometimes called a dielectric. This term arises from the
fact that it keeps electrical charges apart, preventing the flow of electrons that would
equalize a charge difference between two places. Excellent insulating materials can be
used to advantage in certain electrical components such as capacitors, where it is important
that electrons not flow.

An EMF (electromotive force) of one volt, across a resistance of one ohm, will cause a current of one ampere
to flow. This is a classic relationship in electricity, and is stated generally as Ohm’s Law.
If the EMF is doubled, the current is doubled. If the resistance is doubled, the current
is cut in half.

It is possible to have an EMF without having any current. This is the case just
before a lightning bolt occurs, and before you touch that radiator after walking on the
carpet. It is also true between the two wires of an electric lamp when the switch is
turned off. It is true of a dry cell when there is nothing connected to it. There is no current,
but a current is possible given a conductive path between the two points. Voltage,
or EMF, is sometimes called potential or potential difference for this reason

i dont want to here any debates.. read lean understand..

***************notes***************

charges in a wire are caused by excess or shortage of electrons for copper atoms.

conductors allow more fluid transfer of electrons..
t
he stainless steel will create resistance less fluid like transfer

emf transformers put out higher current as frequency increases..

double the resistance current drops by half

10-20khz is a low frequency so lower current being forced by emf transformer primary to secondary
turns then take over for upping volts.. even more volts and resistance/ impeadance is added by chokes to restrict the low amp voltage.

positve choke gets super saturated with positve copper ions.. the capacitance of the choke means more volume for more positive copper ions to be stored.. they in return want electrons so bad there trying to steel waters electons.. it will go for waters before it will go for the negative excitor plate since the waters are closer.. any that try to jump in the form of current is choked of by resistance of neg choke.
when tuning negative choke to waters resistance you are mainly lowering its potential of neg to prevent it from being strong enough to cross.

hope this helps all


outlawstc

Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 20:36:22 pm

WayTogo you are confused ... Thats bad for gas production



Dankie are not confused, and have a huge gas production  ;D
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 21:35:15 pm
i hate false statements from people who dont read but instead guess all day putting there mind in a non realistic reality..  waytogo if you were to make it to page 201 water fuel cell memo 430 you would have read this......

"The Voltage Flexing Process to deflect the water molecule under both physical and electrical stress to emit thermal heat energy from the atom (s) of the water molecule under control state, is, now, to be presented by the utilization of the WFC Steam Resonator technology which
incorporates the use of the Voltage Intensifier (VIC) Switchover Circuit to cause "Particle Oscillation" as a "Energy Generator:"


outlawstc
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 22, 2009, 23:09:36 pm
the switch over circuit only moves the entire H2O molecule back and forth over and over creating nothing but kinetic energy which does what boys and girls......heats up the water.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPLIT WATER WITH STANLEYS SWITCH OVER CIRCUIT......the steam resonator was used to keep water from freezing in certain climates.....

READ THE F-ING TECH BRIEF.....way to go waytogo.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 00:10:34 am
Yeah yeah, you know it all dont you...

Why can Steve can light up a bulb with the cell after the power is disconnected?..

Last year i had three separate cells connected together in a spesial way...

You cant believe what i dicovered.. There was close to no amp!!! and all you care for is getting somebody down.

Steve got a big point here, and it is not impossibe and nobody are stupid for believe in this.

You guys really need to see things in a new way insted of reading cryptic patents and believe word for word.

You cant go a new way and invent new things when your mind is blocked.

All i say is work on this. I have. This is a hint.


Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 00:55:14 am
its not a hint its disimformative.. you ask why can steve light a bulb when off?  that would be because the positve inductor is still holding positive charge..
when you place a light bulb between positve choke and cell it is buring off the electrons. that are still crossing over the cell at a slow pace.. notice stans fuel cell drawing.. all his ground rods are conected.. the positives are seperate. that allowed him to change  how many cells that can be on. only for the positve...  they would be considered parelell not series.. since series requires current to pass charge from cell to cell using current... by only haveing control of the switching on and off of the positve what do you think will happen.. nothin special but a pulse dwell time aka frequency that our vic is already doing it self..

waytogo im not downing you at all. its just i knowlonger wounder how it works i can see it in my head.. its all about deflection of electrons. once one understand that charge in a wire is nothin more then the change of  the actual copper atoms charge ..
by delfection of electrons in our positve choke.  the vic is a low current electron extracion circuit since it uses small wire it can only create so much current.. so since it can only produce very little curent lets take advantage of potential more winds more voltage..   remember the secondary has no connection with any other circuit that is producing curent.. the only driver for the circuit is emf(electromotive force) what determines the current in secondary is frequency.. higher freq higher current is created in toroid / vic/ rotary vic. this is why 10-20khz is preferable for this circuit.. it is a low frequency,. meaning less current is being produced.  i sugest staying away from frequencys above 30khz i think it might cause our secondarys to burn up due to current.


outlawstc
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 01:19:06 am
Yeah yeah, you know it all dont you...

no you just are completely confused.

the switch over circuit works like a pingpong match......the ball is the water molecule.......

if you play ping pong. then you certainly understand that the ball never turns into 3 balls just by hitting it back and forth.

it has nothing to do with reading cryptic stanley meyer writings......THEY ARE NOT CRYPTIC...

the words i read are clearly READABLE.

but if you want to fancy with imagination then by all means you have the secret and a hint towards your new found glory.

i think you don't even know what your setup is doing and want to attach things you can't understand in an attempt to explain them.

you need to formulate before you fantasize.

read and understand concepts.

in this case i do know what i am talking about.

now i have considered alternating the tube cells when i first started.......but THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SWITCH OVER CIRCUITTTTTT......

PLEASE READ THE TECH BRIEF BEFORE I AM FORCED TO USE SCREENGRABS TO PROVE IT.
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 01:20:55 am
Well I believe Donald said something interresting , what if we we stopping that electron from moving , what of we then appiled high voltage while the molecule is in this weakened state
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 04:01:22 am

LOL

Love that voice effect .

Plz talk about this waveform in a new video
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 04:27:10 am
dankie the second image in the image is what naturally happens when you apply a difference of voltage potential to a capacitor (difference meaning pulsed voltage in comparison to ground)

think about lightning!

the negative comes down from the sky and the positive from the earth meets the negative and causes the strike you see and hear.....
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 05:27:03 am
keep it up donald we need this to reach the deff dumb and blind...   its funny when you tell someone what your working on and they start yapping conspiracy theorist blah blah blah.. or if you can do this  why dont we have it now.????. blah blah blah..   aaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

 we should start making alot more explaining the truth.. anyone know of a good computer screen recording program?? we can start a thread for posting usefull images to put on our videos with our explantion and let  our diversity of thought mix with visual and verbal intake..

 this will work awesome only and only if no one trys to force there ideas on each other and battle about whos right..  you gotta see the grey in the idea.. its not just black and white. 

you want a more vibrant picture of truth lets work on setting this up...

someone who knows a good  recording program can you post the site where we can download?


outlawstc


Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 05:50:57 am
this one works great and its free


http://www.download.com/CamStudio/3000-13633_4-10734470.html?tag=mncol
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 14:43:42 pm
Hi,

I lighted te bulp without any coils at all.....it was all charge from my platecell, which acted like a battery.
Waytogo, i only need a circuit that acts like the EEC. Meaning switching between power and lightbulp / extra cell....
At this moment, Electrojolt and me are working on that. Tonight i will build the new improved Dave L circuit, which we will re-name to the JOLT circuit... ;)
We will extend that circuit which extra components, so we switch the leads of the wfc from the power/coils to the bulp annex extra wfc.

br
Steve
Title: Re: New theory.....the real one?
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 23, 2009, 18:27:33 pm
Hi,

I lighted te bulp without any coils at all.....it was all charge from my platecell, which acted like a battery.
Waytogo, i only need a circuit that acts like the EEC. Meaning switching between power and lightbulp / extra cell....
At this moment, Electrojolt and me are working on that. Tonight i will build the new improved Dave L circuit, which we will re-name to the JOLT circuit... ;)
We will extend that circuit which extra components, so we switch the leads of the wfc from the power/coils to the bulp annex extra wfc.

br
Steve


That sounds awesome Steve!... Stanley Meyer called the tube cell for a capasitor in a circuit. It acts like a capasitor with help of electronics. It stores the energy like a battery like you said, and the amp is also dropping to an extreme low level.
The reason that i made a comment on your new theory is that it is very interesting to me, for it is related to what i have  been working on. It has to do with "switching over" and I have no name for it. If i should find a suitable name for this it could be "passive electrolysis"  You are powering just one cell and can connect other cells to it running for free... I have tested this with plate cells and low voltage, but now i am working on a high voltage system with tube cells.
I havent posted my work yet, but will gladly do so when its ready, and if some of you can be more kind it would help.


And at last : People who use the word impossible at an overtunity forum can`t be at the right place.

Happy working / testing :)