Author Topic: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water  (Read 58927 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
    • Global Kast : Water Fuel Cell Research
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #96 on: July 31, 2011, 19:48:02 pm »
The speed of sound through water is 1482 m/s and with a gap of 0.095" = 614173.23 Hz.  Based on Don's measurements this is what I drew up in autocad and it give a distance between the inner and outer electrode as 0.095" 

(http://www.globalkast.com/images/stanmeyer/Resonant_Cavity_Tube_Measurements.png)

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #97 on: July 31, 2011, 20:25:42 pm »

I changed the speed to match water, but that reply did not make it through, so an empty reply - I also did this one; To match one of Puharich Harmonic Oscillation Wave Function of 15.95kHz - we need an electrode distance of 0.0938" - this is one of the matches we get with sound through water, so frequensy would be 15959.4883Hz. 61.41KHz is not a match to 63.68kHz that you quoted earlier - the 2,27kHz differance, is that somehow changed in the frequency generator... so as long as the gap is closely matched, we can tune in?
This is quite interesting. We also know one other important thing, Meyer used flowing water in his cell - in regards to electrode distance and frequency, I think this should be considered. Flowing water will surly not be the same as still water in regards to speed of sound.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #98 on: August 01, 2011, 16:31:48 pm »
Okay, here is a question. Stanley used a solid rod as a cathode, and so far, we've narrowed it down that that the harmonic frequency are related to the chokes and also the electrode gap - a match in the electrode gap and chokes = resonance as long as you start of with the correct input. Now, during all these years that I've been working on this, sometimes someone pops up and say - hey, you need the tubes to ring at the resonance frequency and you need to tune them.. hmm, well, yes, for the old system yes. It should be quite clear by now that what Stanley did was TUNING in his old system, that is why he built them. I recon he had a fairly good understanding of what he needed (if we look at the system from the start till the end) and all he did was tune and adjust, and that is the reason for all the versions.


So, now we are @ the last 3" cell (well, its actually 2,5") and remarks about the 0.095" gap was made. Which got me thinking, so back to the cathode.


We have voltage that perform work and we want to isolate this area, so we insulate the capacitor. We then have resonance that stretch the molecule, you create a Rydberg Molecule (partial ionization) and this is happening with sound waves within the medium. All of this is doable. First of all - the charge is on the electrode surface and in the medium, essentially making the material good for two things 1) Transport the current to the surface. 2) Transport the harmonic oscillation frequency's to the charging medium. It seams like its not used - anymore - as the oscillator itself (the electrodes). Now, correct me if I am wrong or you have another theory, that is why we are all here. So, as I said, all of this got me thinking.


The electrodes now got a dedicated job, and stainless is used to prevent oxidation. But why do we need a solid metal rod as the cathode? We know that we do not want or need water there, but could we not simply go for a solution where the cathode also is a tube and close it off, lets say with a Delrin or Teflon rod? Or is a solid metal rod needed in the sense that it actually is part of the harmonic frequency creation ??

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #99 on: August 01, 2011, 17:26:59 pm »
Okay, here is a question. Stanley used a solid rod as a cathode, and so far, we've narrowed it down that that the harmonic frequency are related to the chokes and also the electrode gap - a match in the electrode gap and chokes = resonance as long as you start of with the correct input. Now, during all these years that I've been working on this, sometimes someone pops up and say - hey, you need the tubes to ring at the resonance frequency and you need to tune them.. hmm, well, yes, for the old system yes. It should be quite clear by now that what Stanley did was TUNING in his old system, that is why he built them. I recon he had a fairly good understanding of what he needed (if we look at the system from the start till the end) and all he did was tune and adjust, and that is the reason for all the versions.


So, now we are @ the last 3" cell (well, its actually 2,5") and remarks about the 0.095" gap was made. Which got me thinking, so back to the cathode.


We have voltage that perform work and we want to isolate this area, so we insulate the capacitor. We then have resonance that stretch the molecule, you create a Rydberg Molecule (partial ionization) and this is happening with sound waves within the medium. All of this is doable. First of all - the charge is on the electrode surface and in the medium, essentially making the material good for two things 1) Transport the current to the surface. 2) Transport the harmonic oscillation frequency's to the charging medium. It seams like its not used - anymore - as the oscillator itself (the electrodes). Now, correct me if I am wrong or you have another theory, that is why we are all here. So, as I said, all of this got me thinking.


The electrodes now got a dedicated job, and stainless is used to prevent oxidation. But why do we need a solid metal rod as the cathode? We know that we do not want or need water there, but could we not simply go for a solution where the cathode also is a tube and close it off, lets say with a Delrin or Teflon rod? Or is a solid metal rod needed in the sense that it actually is part of the harmonic frequency creation ??
What I think: the Rod is a KISS approach, mechanical solution for fixing it in a Delrin cavity.

Quote
Tony:"The speed of sound through water is 1482 m/s and with a gap of 0.095" = 614173.23 Hz."

Iontruster:"Frequency response is 3610.5263Hz (3,61kHz) at that distance"
Still I have not a clue, how you came up with the gap frequency for 0.0950" in the kHz range?

Br,
Webmug

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
    • Global Kast : Water Fuel Cell Research
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #100 on: August 02, 2011, 08:26:57 am »
According to this wavelength calculator for Audio Sound Frequency, the wavelength for a gap of 0.095" through water (1482 m/s) is 614173.2283 Hz (approx. 614kHz).  http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-wavelength.htm

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Jr. member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #101 on: August 02, 2011, 08:56:54 am »
Isn't that the wavelength of just one fundamental tone? See this website http://media.paisley.ac.uk/~davison/labpage/tube/tube.html for more information on sound resonance in a open tube. Based on your fundamental wavelength you can calculate the overtone wavelengths based on the tube length. You will get audio resonance at a lot of different frequencies.
Regards,
Sharky

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4540
    • water structure and science
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #102 on: August 02, 2011, 10:06:32 am »
Okay, here is a question. Stanley used a solid rod as a cathode, and so far, we've narrowed it down that that the harmonic frequency are related to the chokes and also the electrode gap - a match in the electrode gap and chokes = resonance as long as you start of with the correct input. Now, during all these years that I've been working on this, sometimes someone pops up and say - hey, you need the tubes to ring at the resonance frequency and you need to tune them.. hmm, well, yes, for the old system yes. It should be quite clear by now that what Stanley did was TUNING in his old system, that is why he built them. I recon he had a fairly good understanding of what he needed (if we look at the system from the start till the end) and all he did was tune and adjust, and that is the reason for all the versions.


So, now we are @ the last 3" cell (well, its actually 2,5") and remarks about the 0.095" gap was made. Which got me thinking, so back to the cathode.


We have voltage that perform work and we want to isolate this area, so we insulate the capacitor. We then have resonance that stretch the molecule, you create a Rydberg Molecule (partial ionization) and this is happening with sound waves within the medium. All of this is doable. First of all - the charge is on the electrode surface and in the medium, essentially making the material good for two things 1) Transport the current to the surface. 2) Transport the harmonic oscillation frequency's to the charging medium. It seams like its not used - anymore - as the oscillator itself (the electrodes). Now, correct me if I am wrong or you have another theory, that is why we are all here. So, as I said, all of this got me thinking.


The electrodes now got a dedicated job, and stainless is used to prevent oxidation. But why do we need a solid metal rod as the cathode? We know that we do not want or need water there, but could we not simply go for a solution where the cathode also is a tube and close it off, lets say with a Delrin or Teflon rod? Or is a solid metal rod needed in the sense that it actually is part of the harmonic frequency creation ??

My 2 cents are also that the choice for a solid rod is a mechanical one and has nothing to do with anything else.
The gap stays the same between the 2 electrodes.
Surface square mm stay the same.
And no water inside the inner one. No electron leakage so to speak.
So, resonance at the end must be an electrical one. No sounds waves in my opinion....

Steve





Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: My Thoughts on how Meyer split water
« Reply #103 on: August 03, 2011, 20:29:47 pm »
There is a solution to "power and torque." This was worked out (maybe for the first time in the public) in 2009 and early 2010. I've mentioned it before here and also on other open groups. Not everyone agree, and is not required, but if you missed the PDF I did and posted, here is a new chance. What one must remember or understand, is that pooling away electrons and creation of ionic states also require that you add the same quantity back when you want molecular and atomic formation. There is no magic, only science. The interaction of scalar-waves and energy from the vacuum within Meyers cell is not proven scientifically - yet.


http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,1251.msg20659.html#msg20659