Author Topic: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.  (Read 17499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2010, 18:40:45 pm »


1 joule = 1 watt / second

no!
i don't know how often i read W/s now in this and other forums.


1 Watt = 1 Joule / second   or   1 joule = 1 Watt * second



If you charge the inductor with one watt in one second and than discharge this inductor in 1 nano second you are creating a 1 Giga joule discharge.
No.
You charge it with 1J = 1Ws and discharge it within 1ns then you'll have a 1GW discharge in that time, not 1 GJ. 






Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2010, 18:47:59 pm »
Is the same...

But you are right i didn't made myself very clear.


I meant the energy of the discharge.
 
It equivalent to


1watt second or = 1 joule      (watt/second) you know...


1 joule = 1 watt * second   because watt is power or work done, and joule (energy density) is 1 watt applied for one second if it has to be done in half of the time would be twice the energy of the discharge.
 

further


2 joules = 2 watts-second (two joules)


 if discharged in half second it would be a 4 watts discharge or 4 joules discharge...


2 joules = 1 watt * (for) 2 seconds

1joule = 10w discharge if the period is 0,1 second

power = power

I didn't meant that this is equivalent to generate energy but is the way all inventors found to create huge forces that make work if applied the right way..,



« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 05:47:41 am by sebosfato »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2010, 19:24:51 pm »
-> I meant the power of the discharge. There is no power per time unit which is used in electrical engineering. Of course you could derive power by time to calculate the usage in power plants or the cost, but it has nothing to do with energy really.I'd let it go but other people may read it and learn it wrong.

You're contradicting yourself here

1 watt/1 second is = 10w/0,1 second


1/1 = 1 but 10/0,1 = 100 and that cannot be the same obviously. however
1 Watt*second = 10Watt*0,1 second = 1 Joule
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 19:42:51 pm by haithar »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2010, 06:06:34 am »
Haitar
1 watt per second or 1 joule is = 10watts applied in 0,1 second  ok

now you say:
1/1 = 1 but 10/0,1 = 100 and that cannot be the same obviously. however
1 Watt*second = 10Watt*0,1 second = 1 Joule

And you are not wrong

as it is not the same because i'm talking about energy density not the total energy inside of the system. 

you need to understand that i'm talking about 0,1 second not 1 second anymore

1 joule witch is equal to 1 watt if discharged in one second... as much as is 10kw power applied in 1 second is = to 10kj and likely if this 10kj is applied in a shorter time the density of the energy is greater.

einstein proved this with the relativistic theory, and also plank

If you increase the frequency you increase the energy density, the energy bags become more dense... but overall energy is the same as on the rest of the second you will not apply more energy

you see the joules remain the same because watts * second but the density is watt/second

Thats what i mean

Now you just need to figure that this density will lead you to achieve effects on materials witch will lead them to generate electrical energy by movement or deflection of the charged particles due to the intensity of the field...




Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2010, 22:12:47 pm »
what are your opinions guys?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2010, 23:31:39 pm »
Maybe more bench time and less theorizing? The strange thing is that most replications are using multiple frequencies, that is what has always boggled me.

Tad

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2010, 23:36:28 pm »
Seb,

I think you may need Dave Lawton's circuit to prove this theory. He used 2 555 timers. One supplied a low freq pulse at an adjustable duty cycle while the other produced a high freq pulse also at an adjustable duty cycle.

If it works then Dave and Ravi may be right. At the moment I do not believe any of them.

I believe Low voltage and High current is more efficient.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Dan Danforth replication of Stan Meyer's work, after a meeting with Stan.
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2010, 00:16:00 am »
Well if My experiments, and Lawton, Ravi etc had been so good as they could be scaled up and made into a commercial product then we would already have cars running solely on water. So it's not as easy as it seems..... There are promising technologies, especially in Magnetolysis, etc, but none are of commercial value yet.


feature=related

Tad