Two of the more significant replications consider acoustic resonance to be important. Dave Lawton and Scott Cramton. See attached
Dave attached brackets at the nodal point. Cramton tuned like wind.chimes
If may be that the sympathetic vibrations help to release the gas bubbles more quicky leading to a more constant release of bubbles and greater stability of the dialectric characteristics of the cell.. In the
variable plate video ( where the plates are fixed and do not vibrate)in the Stanley Meyer Estate material the oscillation of bubble release is seen, whereas in the Cluster Tube Array cell the gas release is more constant. A variation in the amount a water between the plates causes by a periodic release of bubbles would likely cause a variation in the capacitance of the cell .
A more rapid release of gas bubbles may result in a greater effective plate surface area exposed to water and increased gas yeilds. However, "an ease of construction" cannot be discounted in Stanley Meyer's contsruction but it is felt that the coefficent of friction between the nylon cross pieces and the inside of the outer stainless tube would remain the same whether or not the nylon is sliding across the first ,mid section or end of the inner stainless electrode. In otherwords the force needed to slide the nylon accross the stainles steel tube remeains regardless of the position of the nylon peg
The electrical resonance,however, is entirely a different matter
I'm going to discuss this aspect with my EE but for now I must say the first paragraph of the Lawton paper makes little sense in light of the actual pictures of Stan's 9 tube cell.
Lawton says,
"This cross-sectional view may be slightly misleading as it suggests that each of the outer pipes has its own separate bracket and this is probably not the case as they are connected together electrically through the steel ring-shaped disc and should vibrate as a single unit."
This is not true a one can see from the Estate photo (attached) that the outer tubes do have their own connections and it is the inner tubes which have the ring-base connector. He actually seems to be describing it backwards.
"It is tempting to use separate brackets as that would allow the assembly to be taken apart quite easily, but the electrical contacts of such a system would be inferior and so it is not to be recommended."
But that is exactly what Stan did. He has one wire to the center tube ring connection and another single switched wire to each outer tube connection.
I believe he did this so he so he could demonstrate the different amount of power needed versus gas production when from 1 to 9 tubes were activated.
Also as to the bracket connection at some "node" percentage of the tube, this too appears to not be the case from looking at the photos of Stan's cell. One can see that the positioning of the spot welded brackets is inconsistent as to their position which would not be expected if each tube is almost identical. The brackets hardly look like they are at a 22% position as well.
Also attached is the original photo of Ted Zittergren's cell. Ted was literally the first person to post in the sci.energy.hydrogen newsgroup in 1998 his success at replicating Meyer's basic process.
Ted knew Mathias Johanson, Meyer's expert witness.
As you can see he has a 19 tube cell and it would appear that there is no consideration for this acoustic tuning of his tubes.
Also in my email correspondence with him about his results he never makes any mention of such tuning of the tubes.
Here is that original post.
Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zettergren@swipnet.se>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100
John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn$1@client2.news.psi.net>...
>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
>equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
>legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
>and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
>"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
>to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.
>
>Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
>and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
>egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
>know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
>'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
>he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
>THE CONSPIRACY).
>
>After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
>to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
>spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
>It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
>device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
>under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
>unjust guilty verdict.
>
>As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
>court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
>passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
>off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
>minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
>stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
>records of the trial.
>
>Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
>City, county, etc., date(s)
Possibly an official case name?
>
>Thanks.
>
VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen
Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.
The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.
The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.
By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.
AT FIRST:
You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.
In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.
In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.
Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.
HOW TO?
As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.
If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.
The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.
The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.
Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC.
Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.
For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.
Have a nice trip to Ohio!
Ted
(End post)
Anyways, to me this doesn't appear that Stan went to the trouble described by Cramton.
Although Stan never mentioned anything about this aspect to me in our discussions that doesn't mean it wasn't something he had done.
Until someone does actual gas production testing with "balanced" and unbalanced tubes I suppose it will remain unresolved.
Cheers,
JP
