Author Topic: Stanley Meyer demystified  (Read 6700 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2023, 02:54:08 am »
First video in years....I need to find my real camera...phones is too slow 😪. Although, you clearly see plasma  from the top electrode when I first remove the diode string....the video doesn't do the phenomena justice.
Anyway, take a look at what I'm trying to share...

The anomalous event is so fast, the camera never once caught it...just the sound and the "after flash". Yet the previous "normal sparks" were caught, but they had plenty of error.
[/youtube]

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2023, 07:22:07 am »
Now, on to the secondary....and those pesky "chokes" (think of that word....choke....) we want to do the opposite of what was just demonstrated. Instead of neutralizing self, and or mutual-induction opposition forces, we want to amplify these time-delaying forces.

The claim that the chokes flux should nullify each other, is misinformation. The very term "choke" describes thier action....to restrict and prevent flow,...to "choke". Having the two coil's flux cancel, by not reversing the polarity of negative side choke (same direction coil, opposite direction flow) would also cancel their opposing induced flows....there would literally be no reason to wind the chokes at all...the diode isn't blocking anything then, as the WFC would only see positive spikes, with very little inductive ripple.

That would do nothing constructive to restrict amperage and it would, in fact, sabotage the next primary forward current flow (the energy we have to pay for) after the flyback that just pulsed the secondary. Because it would cause an opposite voltage (direction) mutual-induction in the primary....the chokes would be doing nothing, and the amplified current flow in the secondary we just so cleverly maximized/amplified have to fight the re-routed flow induced from primary current, and simutaneously create a high opposition reverse flow that would destroy our forward pulse.....horrible idea!!!!

Instead, the chokes have additive flux, restricting current flow severely, additive self/mutual-inductance...that, because of only one "pumping diode" on the positive side, is allowed to reverse flow from the negative side into our positive feedback loop. This would have two very significant results....

A. Accelerating the primary current, and increasing the primary current time-compression even more (compounding even more harmony), and....

B. Forcefully removing/sucking the opposing self/mutual-induced currents from the chokes, into the positive feedback loop, removing the opposing voltage from the pumping diode,  accelerating the flyback collapse of the chokes, accelerating the secondary flow into (and simutaneously out of) the WFC (and into the positive feedback loop), all while the primary flyback collapse starts....

The result is....two harmonious, mutually accelerating, helical, caduceus S-flows....one in the primary flow getting sucked into the feedback loop, and a mirrored one with the secondary flow getting sucked into the feedback loop...each, accelerating each other towards infinity (limited by imperfect components....but very HUGE amplification).......Lastly, it all would be there in the positive feedback loop, existing both outside the secondary, but inside the secondary the moment the primary flyback occurs and shuts down the feedback loop's diode(s).....only to start all over again...I present to you....Stan's crypticly understated "double pulse" two mirrored S-flows,...aka, the infinity loop, aka the "flux capacitor".......But....wait, there's more.....something would have to give...failure of water dielectric, blown diodes, arc'd out burnt windings....something would give...so, this event....happening with every resonant pulse, HAS to be modulated...aka "gated"....aka turned off periodically before components fail....and that compliment gating, off-signal, immediately turns on a completely separate circuit, to extract electrons using that huge stored charge.... Funniest part, if you don't know whats going on, and test it at any part of the system...it just looks like plain old electrolysis.....

That's it, demystified (more on Gas processor and atomic hydrogen later)...it doesn't outright violate any laws...buuuuut, it does require "outside energy" to explain the amplification....that, I argue is a quantum Aether, I argue these opposing self/mutual-inductance forces are polarized eddy-like currents of sticky Aether dragging against our currents as we force them through the aether, aka the "heavy-side flow", polarized and in opposition to our currents, causing drag "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"....whatever we push against, or pull against, pushes or pulls back against us.

In an attempt to balance our "unnatural" imbalance (the entire Universe interacts on the basis of reaching equilibrium/balance)...it manifests a measurable opposition, and we can reroute it, and severely imbalance the Aether and rhen use the influx of balancing Aetheric energy to amplify our energy.....Furthermore, the flyback time-compression is caused also by the Aether....we pay energy to perform work (push the Aether away with a magnetic field)....like blowing up a balloon under the ocean....when we stop, the atmospheric pressure of the Aether collapses it so hard and fast that it spikes past ground-state equilibrium....towards infinity...and in a fraction of the time....🤓😎

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2023, 07:51:03 am »
Almost forgot....we also need to bleed off the energy with the Electron Extraction Circuit to discharge the water capacitor. Because even though DC can't technically flow through/past a capacitor....much like an inductor, an empty capacitor will allow an influx of voltage, that pulls in, aka "condensces" (capacitors used to be called condensers), or, otherwise fills the capacacitor with current. So to keep getting choking action out of the chokes, we have to periodically drain the Water Capacitor. We drain it, in such a way that electrons leave the water capacitor to neutralize and nucleate the temporarily dissacociated ions into neutral molecular gasses....and again, on the surface, it looks like regular electrolysis to the meters and scopes.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2023, 08:14:08 am »
Ok....that's why there's a huge Mohm resistor on Stan's negative, instead of true insulating coating....voltage travels from - to +, and current travels from + to -...it's a resistor in series, not a bleed-off resistor...it allows voltage to pass instantly and therefore pull current from the +, but when the current gets to the negative it can't flow much at all....but we still get that influx flow into the water capacitor to power the choke effects...and everything on the negative side choke, assymetrically gets pulled into the feedback loop durring choke influx....it would rarifiy the negative leg of the secondary, causing a rise in negative voltage....those mirrored, in-phase AC-like pulses in Stan's patents.....wow, it just dawned on me...OK, no insulation, just some custom high resistance load resistors on each negative, all wired in series...👍
« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 12:47:24 pm by Radiant_1 »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2023, 08:39:08 am »
It would also lock electrons "in motion" as they try to bleed off through resistor instead of snapping back through ion relaxation (that would also encourage solvated electrons, that would respond to an orthagonal magnetic field 🤔)...then we supply a much lower resistive path to ground with the Electron Exctraction Circuit...OK, gonna go make the gating half of my dual CD4047B pulse generator Finished the main resonant frequency, compliment-gating mode CD4047B...now I just have to make another free-running one to gate it...I could just use the 1/2 frequency Q or Q not output, but, one of them is slightly out of phase, and not sure if 50% duty cycle of resonant frequency is going to be right...I can adjust it uncoupled to resonant frequency with a second one...gonna pull down the gate signal with a resistor just enough to still be a high-state input, but simutaneously trigger a H11G2 optodarlington, to trigger a NTE5569 1400v 80 amp SCR.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2023, 05:26:06 am »
Well, CD4047BE worked like a charm....
Just mocked up, waiting on some components to arrive to really finish it....but, it works like a charm. Gating pulse generator is compliment-gating the resonant pulse generator, and simultaneously driving a dummy LED (will be swapped for an opto-darlington). Super exciting....
A few key points to CD4047BE; Timing capacitor needs to be non-polar. The input on the main compliment-gating CD4047 has a 10Kohm pull-down resistor to ground, preventing a floating input. For the chip to act as it should, you shouldn't use less than 10Kohm timing resistor, and shouldn't be more 1Mohm. The timing capacitor should not be less than 100pf...super simple. When the rest of my components get here, I will decide/finalize the opto section....Need to decide if I am going to wire the darlington's gate to emitter to make it an opto-diode...less gain, but should operate cleanly up to around 300Mhz.

Attached are pics of the waveform, and the test circuit with dummy LED lit up....

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2023, 12:37:27 pm »
Woke up early for this....these babies came earlier than expected. About to bust out the drill press while I wait on some other components, Gas processor+EEC 🤔

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Re: Stanley Meyer demystified
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2023, 20:12:33 pm »
Took me longer than expected, tooling stainless is a pain in the butt....several heat cycles have gotten the micro-welded outter tube as paramagnetic as I can get it...barely holds a neo-magnet now, the weld (seen in the top of the attached pic) is still a little more ferromagnetic, that's why I lined the optical port with the weld (to remove the strongest ferromagnetic portion). I really need to get a mini-kiln to hold the temp at 1100deg for an extended period to get it fully paramagnetic. The inner seamless tube won't even hold a neo-magnet.