The giant

[Login to see usernames]

Stans system works exactly the way he says it does.  There's my comment.

[Login to see usernames]

i´m trying to accomplish what he says... make the secondary let the diode opens up the ckt...
but i find that the parasitic capacitance of the coils interact too.. i´m trying to understand better this interaction.

[Login to see usernames]

Stan shows the chokes two different ways with his VIC transformer.  One method uses a few solenoid coil type layers, with quite a few turns.  The other is a series of tall narrow coil forms, each having only several turns in each layer.  The goal of the winding style is to output a separate pulse for each layer or coil form.  In order to do this with a solenoid layer choke it needs to be build as a pulse forming network.  The capacitive reactances between the layers must be kept separate.  (This inter layer capacitance is in series with a layer's inductance.)  This separation is accomplished by introducing an extra inductance between the ends of the consecutive layers.  And this is tied up in the winding technique.

After the first layer is laid down, you want to start the next layer at the same end as the first layer.  Otherwise, the outputs will maintain continuity, without breaking up into discrete pulses.  The far end of the wire is brought straight back to the starting side - usually between two strips of dielectric.  The trick is to bow the wire out at about 30 degrees, then put a sharp kink in the wire with your thumbnail, to aim it on back across.  Before the next layer starts, the kinking process is repeated a short distance from the starting end. 

This system adds a half turn inductance between the layers.

Stan specifies that the chokes are wound bi directionally, over and back.  He also said in an interview that he sometimes provided misinformation, to preserve secrecy from his competitors.  A Tesla fan showed me the uni directional winding back in '62, when that group was still close to the source.

Might be worth a try.


 

[Login to see usernames]

Electrotec, how about the magnetic fields of a coil over a coil setup?

[Login to see usernames]

Stans system works exactly the way he says it does.  There's my comment.

Agreed! He tells the truth but always tells us we must ask the right questions. That is why I went at things the hard way making use of the scientific method. It took me some time to get at the core science behind the technology but once I did all of the things Meyer talked about started to make a lot of sense. Even the things he didn't talk about started to make sense as the question asking never stops but one must always remember to answer the questions that were asked.

Learning to build it correctly took the use of the engineering method as so many questions that needed answering. The VIC is the hardest part of the technology to figure out but once you understand the science behind it it too opens up for questioning.

Oh, by the way nice post on the RWG site.

TGS

[Login to see usernames]

Stans system works exactly the way he says it does.  There's my comment.

Agreed! He tells the truth but always tells us we must ask the right questions. That is why I went at things the hard way making use of the scientific method. It took me some time to get at the core science behind the technology but once I did all of the things Meyer talked about started to make a lot of sense. Even the things he didn't talk about started to make sense as the question asking never stops but one must always remember to answer the questions that were asked.

Learning to build it correctly took the use of the engineering method as so many questions that needed answering. The VIC is the hardest part of the technology to figure out but once you understand the science behind it it too opens up for questioning.

Oh, by the way nice post on the RWG site.

TGS

The scientific method is certainly good.  I'm just not as organized on paper.   I organize everything though trial and error and store it in my head.  The things the stick in my mind most are the mistakes I learn from.  I remember what works.

Unfortunately, the entire system Stan created requires understanding in a number of concepts which it seems many people are not all exposed to at the same time.  So, those of us who want to understand it have to do a lot of research into a number of systems and not only understand why it works but also how it works, the physics of it.  You can't get this if you don't stick to the fundamental laws of physics.

Incidentally, which post were you referring to?  The Apollo one?

[Login to see usernames]

Stans system works exactly the way he says it does.  There's my comment.

Agreed! He tells the truth but always tells us we must ask the right questions. That is why I went at things the hard way making use of the scientific method. It took me some time to get at the core science behind the technology but once I did all of the things Meyer talked about started to make a lot of sense. Even the things he didn't talk about started to make sense as the question asking never stops but one must always remember to answer the questions that were asked.

Learning to build it correctly took the use of the engineering method as so many questions that needed answering. The VIC is the hardest part of the technology to figure out but once you understand the science behind it it too opens up for questioning.

Oh, by the way nice post on the RWG site.

TGS

The scientific method is certainly good.  I'm just not as organized on paper.   I organize everything though trial and error and store it in my head.  The things the stick in my mind most are the mistakes I learn from.  I remember what works.

Unfortunately, the entire system Stan created requires understanding in a number of concepts which it seems many people are not all exposed to at the same time.  So, those of us who want to understand it have to do a lot of research into a number of systems and not only understand why it works but also how it works, the physics of it.  You can't get this if you don't stick to the fundamental laws of physics.

Incidentally, which post were you referring to?  The Apollo one?

Yes, the Apollo one  . You learn just the same as I do which is why I chose to to use the scientific method as it forces you to fail quite a bit and like you I learn from my failures. You are correct in that this technology requires one to know a great deal about a great number of things. The science behind the technology is not all that hard to understand but it is new to the world of science as the way it breaks the bonds of the water molecules is by way of ionization. It is the atoms that are the targets not the water molecules themselves for once the atoms give up their electrons there is nothing left holding the water molecules together and it simply falls apart.

My college instructors taught me to look to nature for cues to how things are done and I found out that a plant breaks the water down in a similar way in that it takes the electrons away from the atoms and again the water molecules simply fall apart. Now that I know what to look for I have found all kinds of examples of molecules being broken down in this manor. The hardest part about Meyer's technology is learning how to build everything correctly as this trial and error cost big bucks and most are simply too broke to give this technology an honest go the right way. It's taken me almost ten years to get to where I am now with this technology. Wow, where has the time gone? Anyway, I think I am done with the water part of this technology once the newest prototype is completed I will know for sure, but the science checks out now on paper so now it's only a matter of time before I narrow it down on just how to build things correctly.

TGS

[Login to see usernames]

the theory i´m testing in the next week is quite different than what we all have thought about..

i already described is has nothing to do with ionization  but to turn off the covalent bound of water..

the other way to make the molecules repel each other is if the molecules are hit by a damn reversed pulse while keeping charged...

this may be possible because of oxygen having 8 protons so even a negative field would attract it too but polarizing it on the reverse way...

in a sense.. of course a positive field attracts more the oxygen than hydrogen... but in a negative field kind of shouldnt differ much in terms of polarization oxygen has 8 protons and 8 electrons of its own and it need to organize them according to external fields.. 

TGS if you ionize in the way that you mean the result will be high current that is impossible to carry.. 
in my simple view is way but not what meyer described..

he created a patent called electrical polarization process

electrical mean (using electricity)

polarization mean (messing around with orientation of molecules and atoms polarities and rotation)

process (step of sequences to achieve a desired end product)

he said that he switched off the covalent bound by letting the oxygen repell the hydrogen

if he would simply have used what you call ionization (positively stripping electrons off it) on the electrical polarization process he would use your description as its a very nice description woudnt he?

he could even call it electrical ionization process... hehhe

this is not a joke nor a insult brother... just a different opinion... nor i´m trying to make less of anyone or his theory or claims...

My idea is currently telling me that the oxygen instead will need to accept an electron to let the hydrogen go away... actually even 2 electrons.. becoming a negative ion superimposing impact upon the electron polarization process...

when you ionize a dielectric it stop doing its work so the electric field start walking into it and increasing in module like if its thicness were reducing...


my point is i´m trying to prove my theory of covalent switchoff.. how

well i will try to use the chokes to create this spike required.. . but i think that actually all would take would be some sort of infrared or nanopulse involved..

why would meyer provide an air core inductor formula?

in water the mean free path is very small compared to vaccuml... the greater is the charge of the ion the greater will be the energy it will be able to gain from the field before lose it between colisions. The mass only tell  you the speed and acceleration if i remember well.. i mean 1 Mev is a equivalent energy of an electron or a proton will gain if they travel 1MV differential. the proton will be much slower but the energy is the same of the electron... (in the case anyone dont know they go in oposite direction...