Author Topic: Stanley Meyer demystified  (Read 6701 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2023, 06:29:10 am »
Spotted a mistake on the FWB rectifier and SCR connection polarity...working on the fix now

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2023, 07:41:17 am »
Yeah, lol stayed up late drawing it, sorry...machined the assembly, and then actually wired the components correctly that day, reversed the SCR and Q1 and Q2 NPNs polarity to the FWB rectifier and C1 capacitor as if PNPs when drawing it up tired last night 🤦‍♂️
Verbal correction while I fix it - (PNPs won't work as SCR conducts in the same manner as a NPN)...FWB positive goes directly to C1 capacitor positive terminal (not ground), SCR Cathode connects directly to FWB negative, SCR anode connects to Q1 NPN emitter, Q1 collector connects C1 capacitor negative terminal. Then, Q2 emitter connects directly to C1 capacitor negative terminal, Q2 collector connects to primary negative, Primary positive then connects directly to C1 positive terminal.....🥴🥱 like I said days ago...switching on the negative....🤦‍♂️ sorry, the rest is correct.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2023, 11:31:56 am »
Fixed it, gonna post it here and edit the original post and include it, but my handwritten notes have some good info, so gonna leave the original....sorry all this one is polished though  ;)

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4705
    • water structure and science
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2023, 18:24:49 pm »
Thats a very nice drawing! 
I can follow what your are thinking there..


Online Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
    • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7oJf9m5gRPBi5PFhtsK_w
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2023, 09:32:47 am »
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2023, 14:10:56 pm »
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell

I mean, burden of proof is on whoever wants the world to buy their product. I don't want you buy a thing from me. My efforts, now, and in the past speak for themselves.
Just like the truth, it's self-evident...and it's easy enough to explore for yourself.

I experimentally verified this circuit 14yrs ago...with a dpdt relay and a 555...I saw it underlying in many OU patents I've studied since I started this quest with David Wenbrent's water4fuel Skype channel in 2007... I have replicated many anomalous circuits on my quest to understand, and out of them all, this is the one that stuck in my mind. As I realized that a version of this is in all the significant patents, from Gray's tube, Puriarch's nickel coated water plugs, the three terminal excitation source in the fueless noble gas engine....I would put my money on this is the "truth" of electricity and magnetism Edward Leedskalin was alluding to, that he used to build the Coral Castle.

If you didn't see the experimental proof/demo I had on youtube, looking for a better host atm, but it's very easy to replicate, and that original schematic with the 555, ignition coil and dpdt relay will get you looking the phenomenon in the face, just swap the 35v DC with bridge rectified wall current to see it real nice and significant....you can do it with like $20 on Amazon parts (9$ ignition coil, a dpdt relay/switch and a few bucks for a bridge rectifier and a handful of 1n4007diodes).

It should be glaringly obvious that if the discharge energy increases, as I have shown, with a few extra diodes added in the right place, despite their resistive losses and voltage drops then it's output must be more efficient, regardless...if not, then I can't help you, and your opinion is yours. But why try and disparage?...just move on. If you got a hv ammeter and a hv probe, please take a definitive reading...

Odd how this "give use calculations, and hook it up, or quite down" shade throwing, comes after elucidating how the anomaly of the observation can be explained and how the "unexpected behavior" of a reverse-biased diode conducting by spurious spikes of self/mutually induced counter-currents, often referred to as "reverse recovery" or "reverse conduction" can be exploited to our benefit by using it to regauge the opposing forces of self/mutual induction.

Odd that while it was a demo circuit just showing the concept, with an experimental proof, and words (text)...it was no comment, or "interesting" at best. But the moment I share how I see it, or more accurately, it's abstraction, in some of Stan's circuits...then put together how the abstraction (or possibly the alteration) could be made to work with this observation I took the time to share, in a circuit (that I took the time to fix a mistake on), you want equations, and volumes 🤣

Take it or leave it, I don't really care either way. The word "demystified" is exactly the perfect decibel level to explain "Voltage can do work" as Stan claimed, then say "I believe certain claims and language were disingenuous and misleading....look at this circuit/effect, it's essence is in these schematics, and this schematic has the exact waveform made by digital/semiconductor means that this manually discharged capacitor in my experiment has...weird, this circuit just needs to have the common ground changed to a common +, and this alternate pulse needs to be delivered a little differently based off of my observations of the way this thing triggers/arcs"

Odd and dismissive response for someone on "ionization"x.com

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2023, 14:17:02 pm »
Thats a very nice drawing! 
I can follow what your are thinking there..

Glad to hear it Steve, and thanks, thought it deserved a proper mock-up👌

Online Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
    • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp7oJf9m5gRPBi5PFhtsK_w
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #47 on: August 31, 2023, 14:29:58 pm »
These are just words, they are not confirmed by calculations, and calculations are not confirmed by experiments.
Having a successful experiment without calculations does not guarantee that the process went exactly as you describe in words.
There is no way to verify your words if you have not provided calculations.Moreover, there is no way to test the experiment if you do not provide calculations.
By what figures can you prove that you had the Meyer process and not the Faraday electrolysis?
I am skeptical of your words.
I think you got a Faraday pulsed electrolysis.