Author Topic: My new approach  (Read 62547 times)

Login to see usernames, Login to see usernames and 38 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
    • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7oJf9m5gRPBi5PFhtsK_w
Re: My new approach
« Reply #416 on: May 04, 2024, 05:01:00 am »
The secret cannot be solved using the logic of physical processes alone.
We need the logic of physical and mathematical calculations.
1. How much energy is needed to split one molecule.
2. How to convert this energy into Voltage and Current taking into account impedance.
3. How to correctly apply these voltages and current to the cell
3. How to correctly apply voltage and current to the VIC so that it supplies the correct voltage to the cell

Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach
« Reply #417 on: May 04, 2024, 08:53:23 am »
The energy needed is 13,6 ev or so

Meyer found a way to give this potential energy to the molecules instead of hitting it with such an energy

If we give this kind of polarization to water from inside as I explained it fall apart

Why would not happen to copper? Think about!

This is done applying a magnetic field that is resonant with the cavity frequency itself

It’s plain physics no magic, just faraday law of induction for a generator

The cell need the internal geometry as I described and shows the helical separator without it the water would not have a vertical up down force

When it’s in resonance the particles speed create a back emf that impede further energy to be absorbed that why you need an ever increasing charge pump Vic


The only part that defy physics is where we split the molecule by force imputing it under a field that it cannot coexist within

My guess is that on a water cell the voltage could goe to a max of 300vmaybe more

That because Stan diode high capacitance type by the way was only 600v the resonant voltage can be way higher than this but the diode and cell will never see this across it only reference to ground

This tells that the cell won’t be able to reach more than this to do what is intended to do




 

« Last Edit: May 05, 2024, 14:27:12 pm by sebosfato »

Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach reading the underlines
« Reply #418 on: May 04, 2024, 10:52:51 am »
youtu.be/ZtUkt8Q4EJE?si=WaPvFWS2X-Mm82d4

Regarding the attachment

Which is the only situation where does a voltage applied cause a lateral or angular  movement  of water in concentric geometry?

Always ask the right question!
« Last Edit: May 05, 2024, 14:25:29 pm by sebosfato »

Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach
« Reply #419 on: May 05, 2024, 19:23:38 pm »
I found that adding a 100nf + 120ohm in series in parallel with the small secondary seems the best way to make the wave clean…

Moreover adding it in parallel with the diode that goes on the clamping coil (the other primary) you get the perfect round wave like I show on the video deawing…

Finally behaving as a pulse transformer with a predictable output

This filter consume only few mili amps

The wave shaper some more

Big deal!

The important is like I said in the video be able to have a clear wave output so we can measure what comes back from it

By clear I mean it don’t have ringings it finish and stop on the gate also it don’t ring at pulse start switching


Luckily I got a bunch of different resistors to test

Lab view is f incredible tool !!!!

I’m going to make a video showing the thing working for you stop thinking I’m crazy only talking

As I explain in the video the Vic has a function in the system that is only provide the high voltage to the coils that will resonate

However initially I believe the bifilar coil will be kind of necessary to get the kind of precision we need to find or be able to measure the restriction effect

The secret for the waver forms I just revealed

Some people trust what Stan said very much and so I think this is sometimes a problem

I give you an example

If only one or few of the meyer patents were real and the other only ideas or even made to mislead anyone reading it to another direction

When doing a patent you can keep a few percentage of the knowledge out for secrecy

But what I mean is that if only one patent were true for example you should not mix all the concepts he used in other patents

That because for example the eueropeanbpayent about resonant cavity he mention intentionally electromagnetic waves

However on other patents he cited a pll used from a ultrasonic feedback system

Than he clearly repeat to everyone who wants to hear that he is using audio range and that is preferable

Well that tell me that we cannot mixup things

You see my point?

Neither you should think the patents or his books were complete!

He indeed shoved in the face of the people some info but only with as much knowledge as I was luck to have acquired during this years I was capable of come to this conclusions








Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach
« Reply #420 on: May 06, 2024, 15:47:51 pm »
Last night i did some tests with an old car speaker that fit well on the opening of my old acrylic water bath… it resonates around 250hz but i could not see any difference in power input…

now next plan is to add a second graph to labview to show the secondary voltage current and impedance…. hoping the sample rate is enough to get good info too! 

the second will be add a small speaker inside the tube and try to see if it can get a signal output

the 3rd step will be to make it self tune with the pll as an example that it is working!

i found some instabilities with my gate (you can hear from the noise) when using the frequency dividers.. so i need to address it before i get full power during tests…

so far the snubbing worked perfectly, im monitoring the peak on the igbt and it seem to be very safe from burning…

the 20uf cap that is charged by the clamp coil provide a small over voltage to the supply giving to the output waveform a little exponential decay on top of the square…

i hope later i will make another video explaining the tests.

yesterday talking to a friend i told him the only reason i end up doing all this research is because when i see stanley meyer videos i could clearly see that he was onto something and that he was not la scam.  He was sincere talking and i think it was for real starting from this!
« Last Edit: May 06, 2024, 16:07:08 pm by sebosfato »

Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach cavity resonators simulation results
« Reply #421 on: May 06, 2024, 20:00:57 pm »

seems to be relevant
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_23.html

/models.rf.cavity_resonators.pdf


Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach
« Reply #422 on: May 07, 2024, 02:38:57 am »
I came to the conclusion today that the variable resistor Stan show in his patents were needed to help match the impedance of the cell to the characteristic impedance of the bifilar coil

That way there’s no reflections right

So it’s just a powerful variable resistor so is possible to match impedance for cleaning up the signal so we can read what water is doing

A nice way of doing it could be using epoxy but not the hardener with some powered of carbon or iron or soething

This allow it to be variable and if you want make it harder after

Epoxy is dense and may be good keep the particles in suspension for a while


Online Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4181
Re: My new approach
« Reply #423 on: May 07, 2024, 04:54:40 am »
As you see the result I’m getting is not going to be a coincidence nor guess work.

At the end all makes sense if you know what you are looking into…

The pll patent is about

The Vic

The feedback

The pll

Or what?

Once you understand that there was already other patents for pll you guess why he did put a pll there ?

If was not actually a method to detect the phase signal ?

If that is so you start looking at it as an electronic signal that need to be clean than you understand how a bifilar is useful and when

I already thought of all this before but was only after perfectioning the feedback circuit where I ended up studying about ecg amplifier that I came to the conclusion the bifilar stuf has only one function

That the resistance in the circuit also has some simple  functions

Once you take the magic out and look at it as it is

It become simple

And yet there are other things to come of course

Now I’m doing a bifilar coil it has some 24 turns per layer and I plan to end it with at least 20 layers…

This will be ideal to check the cell amp restriction…

With all I just described is now possible with labview to get graphs of the impedance hopefully if sample rate allow me

If I had money I would definitely buy a new version of it with higher sample rates