Author Topic: IonizationX Stall Point...  (Read 4586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2010, 10:14:32 am »
I used a Fluorescent light bar and connected it across my cell and it was bright on both ends, dark in the middle, changing brightness if you touch it. When you touch in the middle the whole bar lights up, the plus side and minus side also get very bright when you touch there. Like your movie.

I measured 12Volts input and 850Volts output (only when using biff chokes all on one core) on my scope with the probe close against the outside glass of the water cell!  :-\
Could not connect it directly due to a maximum on my scope and probe   :(
No gas production unless you connect a ground and current is measured.

Used both a tube cell and adjustable plate cell with no effect on gas production or voltage, +/- 1 Amp going into the vic, close to or no mAmps output behind the chokes going through the cell. (used a analog 0 - 500mA meter)

Currently still need to machine the delrin and a tube with rod as wfc to check if leakage has any effect on voltage and production.

I have a couple of movies made but currently don't have access to them.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 457
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2010, 13:18:25 pm »
Thanks Warp.
With your experience, did only the amplitude of the voltage matter or the frequency? Did you use square waves, rectified sine waves or alteranting current (sine-wave)?
I may connect my flyback-transformer to a single cell and see if i can get some voltage onto it, see what happens.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2010, 21:36:14 pm »
Like warp said,I have his set up.I'm going to be taking a break from this research,so if someone else would like to get warps stuff from me,let me know and I'll send it to you,if your in the states please.If warp wants it back,then I'll return it to him,but I believe he wants someone to test it more.I won't have the time to do anymore testing,so I'll pass it on to the next person.
Don

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2010, 23:02:02 pm »
On April 10th I will be done of university exams for the semester, and have all summer to work on the water fuel cell technology. I would be interested in trying Warps setup. I am in Canada however.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2388
  • Testing
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2010, 23:36:35 pm »
I used a Fluorescent light bar and connected it across my cell and it was bright on both ends, dark in the middle, changing brightness if you touch it. When you touch in the middle the whole bar lights up, the plus side and minus side also get very bright when you touch there. Like your movie.

I measured 12Volts input and 850Volts output (only when using biff chokes all on one core) on my scope with the probe close against the outside glass of the water cell!  :-\
Could not connect it directly due to a maximum on my scope and probe   :(
No gas production unless you connect a ground and current is measured.

Used both a tube cell and adjustable plate cell with no effect on gas production or voltage, +/- 1 Amp going into the vic, close to or no mAmps output behind the chokes going through the cell. (used a analog 0 - 500mA meter)

Currently still need to machine the delrin and a tube with rod as wfc to check if leakage has any effect on voltage and production.

I have a couple of movies made but currently don't have access to them.

You have gained (Voltage Potential) across the water molecule. ((("""I'm Proud of you"""))) Now make the bulb brighter, Then go study what the potential is doing to the water molecule.

Imagine, HH0.
            Voltage                Molecule                                   Voltage
------ (-) Force     <-------0---Bond---HH--------> Force    (+)++++++++
                                OPPOSITES ATTRACT
                                      Alike Repels

(((((((DOES THE ABOVE SEEM A BIT CONFISING)))))))))) Are you (Charging the molecule or Not?????????) Look at it until its no longer confusing.

Imagine the (Molecule) introduced to 2 voltage fields. Imagine the (Protons) going one way and the (electrons) the other. This is what stan means by (Plucking) off the electrons. When the electrons Get plucked off the Molecule becomes (Positively charged) due to the missing electrons, Now the molecule is out of balance.

When you apply a high potential across the molecule, it is possible to pluck off the electrons, (1 at a time.)

Then again, Looking from another angle. If you give the molecule a (Charge) of potential, would that molecule not have a greater bond? (Harder to pull apart.)

You have (voltage Potential) across your water molecule, (You don't see much action.) Stan isn't going to tell you everything, Go (Find) a way to understand what it is you are doing to the molecule, You know you have a form of voltage across the water because of your lamp, this is good. But, you should Not have to touch your lamp for it to light when in parallel. The lamp also pulls the voltage down,,, It is only to prove to you potential is there, When you (Believe) you have potential there, (Remove the bulb and get to work.)

You are taking voltage potential and tampering with a water molecule on the (Atomic Level.) You are just now realizing, There are things you do not understand. Go learn what you're doing and why you see no results. Troubleshoot your problem and find a solution.

(You think they didn't go threw this with the microwave oven?) And yes stan talks about microwave ovens on Dvds as well as tv screens and how the electrons react. I do not have all the needed information, But i know where to be looking.

You should NOT stop work on your potential across tap water, (You're on to something) Continue it and make it work. Spend more time researching what you might be doing to that molecule, Take it to the Atomic level and let knowledge grow on you.



Imagine, HH0.
            Voltage                           Molecule                                           Voltage
------ (-) Force     <-------Protons---Bond----Electrons--------> Force    (+)++++++++
                                            OPPOSITES ATTRACT
                                                 Alike Repels                           Trying To pull apart  (Angle 1) - (Pluck)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Imagine, HH0.
            Voltage                                  Molecule                                          Voltage
------ (-) Force     <-------ELECTRONS---Bond---PROTONS--------> Force    (+)++++++++
                                                 OPPOSITES ATTRACT
                                                       Alike Repels                                      (Charging) Angle 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, Are you charging, or pulling? This is why i say research it on the atomic level.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2010, 23:55:10 pm by Warp »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2010, 12:18:25 pm »
But, you should Not have to touch your lamp for it to light when in parallel.

...

You see, Are you charging, or pulling? This is why i say research it on the atomic level.

I also didn't need to touch the lamp, it was actually glowing without touching on both ends and dark in the middle, but the potential difference with your finger is prob larger to make it brighter.

Do you expect concentrated voltage fields isolated within delrin has any effect on this "charging or pulling"? 

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: IonizationX Stall Point...
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2010, 20:38:29 pm »
Quote
Then again, Looking from another angle. If you give the molecule a (Charge) of potential, would that molecule not have a greater bond? (Harder to pull apart.)

i think what stan means by charge isn't to change into a positive or negative potential... i think he means to change the velocity of the electrons.. when electrons move into further orbits they must be accelerated to reach that point of change in space relationship..

i think stans circuit could vary field potential from a net 0 to whatever potential chosen rapidly
..  when its pulsing u get negative and a positive pressure in the gap.. this will create the motion shown above in warps example..if that force were to remain constant  it wouldnt be of much help one would not think since it is not promoting oscillation to elongate..  to promote elongating electrons you must allow the electrons to travel back in the opposite direction..  warps example with 2 shows the ideal common sense perspective on  the atomic lever of action and reaction to voltage..

Imagine, HH0.
            Voltage                           Molecule                                           Voltage
------ (-) Force     <-------Protons---Bond----Electrons--------> Force    (+)++++++++
                                            OPPOSITES ATTRACT
                                                 Alike Repels                           Trying To pull apart (Angle 1) - (Pluck)

the emf that was used to generate this motion created a change in velocity and direction of the charged particles in the cavity.. then we have the off time.. i think during off time the back emf is makeing lets say 1kv fall back toward 0v the back emf if used in the cell will assist in the fall to 0.. if you have -1kv of voltage deflecting electrons what happens if that -1kv were to drop? the electrons would move back towards the voltage zone since the force of deflection is being removed..
and the atoms naturally want to balance back out....  .. if the back emf were to swing past 0 that would mean that the negative excitor would go into a positive potential which yet again seems logical and accepted to help swing electron back in the opposite direction to promote oscillation.
i do not think stan was tuning into waters frequency of orbital electrons i think he was tuning into the dielectric break down point and performing some sorts of energy oscillation

i think one of the most miss conceived views of stans claims is the tuning into water.. when stan or anyone claims such ,people think that there is a magical frequency that they are matching to create the resonance of water.. 
the way i see it is when someone claims that they are tuning into waters resonance this simply means that your tuning to the peak production. with the potential being provided.. it doesnt mean a frequency of the water.. ok so there must be some varable we are tuning into?  that would be the resistance one water which changed the dielectric break down reactance of water..

for example if a tube cell were to have ocean water in it your break down point would be much quicker then natural rain water because of the conductivity differecne... ocean water  would require a higher frequency to prevent dielectric break down from occuring... so if this is true then when stan say in order to variate to higher output of fuel u must turn up voltage..   does that mean when voltage rises you pulsing frequency rises as well?..  this is a acceptable reason for it to be hard to duplicate we are playing with logics that are not locking into resonance.

example.. if your tube cell is reaching break down in 1 second with a 100volts input then at 200 volts it would be a half second to reach breakdown that means the frequency doubled.. could stan of used some sort of doubling circuit that could tune into the resonant freq at lets say 100volts and was capable of doubling frequency as voltage doubles? could this be the sequencng he refers to?