A green and clean environment is a human right!

Projects by members => Projects by members => Dynodon => Topic started by: Dynodon on November 02, 2009, 03:06:33 am

Title: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 02, 2009, 03:06:33 am
In this post I will go into what I believe Stan was doing.These ideas are mine based on what I've read in Stans Tech Briefs and Patents.I will post sections of his papers and break them down line by line and explain them so all will understand.

These post I make will be edited heavily,so please don't post anything that takes my work off topic.I won't let any bickering go on,or any conversations between anyone else here.All questions or replies must be to my post only.All others will be deleated.This section will be for my thoughts and work only.Please use your own section for your own ideas.

These rules will be used for all subject sections in my projects page.So please follow my rules,so I won't have to delete them.

I will start by explaining how Stan was using voltage over current to PULL apart the water molecule.

Once you see how he was doing it,then you are on your way to making it happen.

I will start posting my thoughts as soon as I get my files in order.I had a hard drive failure,and I am getting all my files reloaded.
So stay tuned.

Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 04, 2009, 00:41:34 am
In this post the information I provide is for the resonant cavity cell.This information doesn't apply to the demo cells.Those types of cells didn't work in resonance.So keep that in mind when reading this info.

Now most of you that read this post should already know that Stan was using voltage potential to seperate the water molecule.He was using electrical attraction/repelling forces.
At the end of this post there will be a pdf file with the sentence underline to refer to for this post.

The most important sentence on that whole page sums up what Stan was doing.He states that "Applied electrical attraction force(TT) and (UU) always being of equal voltage intensity but opposite in electrical polarity as voltage amplitude(65) is attenuated.

Lets break that down a little.First he states that the applied electrical force needs to be of equal voltage intensity.What does that mean?He means that you will need the same voltage on both plates at the same time. ie: 1000 volts on the positive and the negative at the same time.BUT it needs to be of Opposite Polarity!That means you need +1000 volts on the positive plate and -1000 volts on the negitive plate.

Now why does it need to be that way?Think about it.If you are to pull the water molecule apart,you need to apply the pulling force to both sides of the molecule at the same time and of the same force.If you have a voltage differential of 1000 volts,where as you would read with a volt meter,you have a +1000 volts on the positive plate and 0 volts on the ground.Now what's going to happen? You'll just pull the molecule toward the positive plate.Because you don't have an opposite force pulling back toward the negitve plate.The pulling force need to work from both sides at the same time of the same force.

So what is the voltage across the water? If we have a +1000 volts and a -1000 volts on the voltage zones, we will have 0 volts,because they balance each other out.The voltage isn't being used on the water,it's being used on the plates to create the electrical fields to pull on the positve and negitve polarities of the water molecule.The more voltage there is,the greater the Attraction/Repelling forces become.So all were doing is pulling on the water molecule with voltage,not appling it to the water.

So how do we read the voltage at the cell?If we can't read it across the cell, then how?
You read it just like all of Stans drawing show.On one side of the cell.All his drawings show the unipolar pulses with the step charging between the cell and the top choke.You will need a ocilliscope to see this voltage.A volt meter won't read this voltage because there isn't any current there to make the meter work properly.I believe Warp pointed that out.And I have seen this first hand.The scope lead ground clip needs to be attached to your power supply ground.Then you will see the voltage.

Do you now see what it is Stan says he was doing? It took me a long time to grasp what he had put in our face the whole time.I must have read his papers a dozen times or more,and I never put it all together,until about a month ago.

Thats it for this post.I will put more in later.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 07, 2009, 02:07:08 am
My last post was only meant to give everyone the basic concept of how Stan was using voltage potential to PULL the water molecule apart.Most people don't fully understand what it was he was doing.Basic attraction/repelling forces of voltage.

I will delete previous post that I feel don't follow my path of documenting my thoughts and work.So don't be affended when your post are removed.I will leave them for a while before deleting them.

Now I will go into the basic resonance cell design needed that Stan used.
This type of cell I did get to see.The file at the end of this post shows where Stan states all of this.

The resonance cell is only one set of tubes.3/4 inch ouside with a 1/2 inch inside tube, 3 inches long.Spacing was .090 inches.Stainless of course.

Now for the big surprise. The  tube set must be encased in delrin. Just the outside tube is covered. But the inside tube will be also isolated from the water bath because the whole set will be in a base that holds both tubes.I will attach a photo also to this post of my tube set,so you will get the idea.

This is in Stans tech brief that is at the bottom of this post.I have not seen anyone do this to their cell.

Now the cell I seen of Stans had 11 tube sets in it.They were all controlled be seperate VIC circuits.Each one was independent of the others.That is whats inside the white cell pictured at the beginning of the gas injector brief.

Again,this is only a disciption,and not meant to go into details of how it works.Those thoughts will follow in other post.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 09, 2009, 00:05:35 am
My cell is pretty basic.All I did was drill three counter sunk holes down into the base material.The center hole is 1/2 in dia. and is drilled the deepest.Then the 3/4 inch hole is next,but it's not as deep as the 1/2 inch.Then the last whole is an inch just deep enough to hold the outer tube case that you see.Then I drilled a hole from the outside so it will cut into the base where the 3/4 inch tube ends.That's the pipe plug you see in the picture.If you open the picture file,you'll be able to see the whole that is drilled down through the top beside the tube case,this cuts into the hole that was drilled through to the tube set.That is how the water gets into the tubes from the bottom.If you hook this cell up to straight DC power,you can see the water circulating.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 09, 2009, 21:37:29 pm
I just wanted to point this out to show people clearly what you are trying to explain to them:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/ActualVoltageWaveform.png)

The bottom choke provides a mirror image of the voltage waveform of the top choke, and applies the equal and opposite voltage to the plates at the same time.

Or even better yet, look at this

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture3-3.png)
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 10, 2009, 09:27:27 am
Don,

As far as i know my electronics, is this setup still a basic potential difference as all other setups. If you have 1000V positive and 1000 volt negative, you will read 2Kv.
Correct me if i am wrong here.. ;)

Just like a LM7812 and a LM 7912 hooked up to one transformer, which give you a positive and a negative 12V output. Measure across it and you see 24V.

Steve
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 10, 2009, 22:08:22 pm
Steve,yes you would have a total differance of 2000 volts,but if you were to try and read it with a multi meter,you would see zero.They would cancel each other out.as far as the meter is concerned.

Also,thanks Donaldwfc for the drawings,that should help out alot for others who don't quite get the basic idea on how it all works.

Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 11, 2009, 01:04:55 am
Imagine this guys, instead of +1000 volts and -1000 volts, say you have +996 volts, and -992 volts

This is how you can read it:

1. Ground to Positive Plate = +996 volts
2. Ground to Negative Plate = -992 volts
3. Positive Plate to Negative Plate = +4 volts
4. Absolute Voltage (I believe this is un-measurable by any direct connection method, i may be wrong) = 996 + 992 = 1988 volts

Now because we have 4 volts when we measure the 3rd way, this is where we use the tunable bottom choke, to tune the voltage exactly equal and opposite
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 11, 2009, 22:16:09 pm
Donald,there wasn't any cells there with the leds.Those would have been nice to see though.

Steve,the demo cell where he says that 5 volts,is what he's putting to the stator.What's coming out of the alternator could be something even higher.

That's like my cell,I'm putting in 12 volts at170 milli amps,but I'm hitting 2k volts across the water gap.But my voltage is swinging from positive to negetive,for a total of 4k volts.So its not doing the pulling work yet.I'll go more into my set up later,in another topic.
Don

PS:most of the previous post will be deleted because their going off topic.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 15, 2009, 11:51:29 am
Don,

I have worked with pwm's and bifcoils, like Stan showed.
I have seen the amp inhibiting effect.
However...
When i had around 100V across my tube with some milli amps, i could only make 1 conclusion and that was that the production of gas was equal to 5V at some milli amps.
The question is:
If volts works accoording to Stans setup with that variac, PWM and bifcoil, How high in voltage should we go then?
Stan used a 110V variac, followed by a pwm and a bifcoil and his variable platecell.
Lets say, he ran that on 10khz. (i have made that pwm board of him too)
He tuned his bifcoil, or he tuned his pwm on the best amp inhibiting frequency...how high would his voltage have been?

I propably make a mistake here in my reasoning..... ;)

Steve






Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 15, 2009, 16:22:47 pm
Steve,alot of the things I say are how I understand them to work based on how Stan expains them.And from my own testing.

We still need to remember that this cell is not a resonant cell.There is only one resonant cell.

The plate cell was the next step in trying to get even higher voltage to the PLATES!! Not to the water.It's voltage on the plates that are pulling on the water molecule.

The controller for this set up was meant to reproduce the effects from the alternator set up.This set up is the electronic version.As for the variable plates themselves,the were meant to find the best spacing for gas production.

As for how much voltage we should use,I believe that will depend on the type of water we use.This system still pulls amps.But with the choke coils,we are limited to their amp restricting abilities.

When I saw this unit in use,it would pull more amps as the voltage was raised.But you were able to see more voltage than amps than if using straight DC voltage.

The vari-ac used was only rated for 5 amps,so that was the limit for this unit.

Now when this unit was run with distilled water it was able to make more gas than with straight DC. Straight Dc wouldn't even start to make gas.

So my oppinion is that this unit is better than srtaight DC,but thats about it.Again you will never get resonance with this unit.But you can get more voltage with this set up.

Now if your wondering how much voltage we need for the resonance cell,I would say @ 2kv.
Stan states that @ 1kv the water molecule starts to elongate.And in a couple of places he mentions 2kv was needed.

The demo tube cell was first,then the plate cell,them he stumbled across the resonant action while working with varying frequencies.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 15, 2009, 18:35:31 pm
Steve,alot of the things I say are how I understand them to work based on how Stan expains them.And from my own testing.

We still need to remember that this cell is not a resonant cell.There is only one resonant cell.

The plate cell was the next step in trying to get even higher voltage to the PLATES!! Not to the water.It's voltage on the plates that are pulling on the water molecule.

The controller for this set up was meant to reproduce the effects from the alternator set up.This set up is the electronic version.As for the variable plates themselves,the were meant to find the best spacing for gas production.

As for how much voltage we should use,I believe that will depend on the type of water we use.This system still pulls amps.But with the choke coils,we are limited to their amp restricting abilities.

When I saw this unit in use,it would pull more amps as the voltage was raised.But you were able to see more voltage than amps than if using straight DC voltage.

The vari-ac used was only rated for 5 amps,so that was the limit for this unit.

Now when this unit was run with distilled water it was able to make more gas than with straight DC. Straight Dc wouldn't even start to make gas.

So my oppinion is that this unit is better than srtaight DC,but thats about it.Again you will never get resonance with this unit.But you can get more voltage with this set up.

Now if your wondering how much voltage we need for the resonance cell,I would say @ 2kv.
Stan states that @ 1kv the water molecule starts to elongate.And in a couple of places he mentions 2kv was needed.

The demo tube cell was first,then the plate cell,them he stumbled across the resonant action while working with varying frequencies.
Don

Thanks Don.
Clear explanation.

So, in your opinion, the resonance cell is the only way to go, for now?

Steve
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 16, 2009, 21:37:45 pm
Here is my take on the variable spacing plate cell:

He has some information on this cell in at least one of his earlier patents too.

It was a demonstration cell
It was demonstrating the "Electrical Polarization Process"
And It was showing the opposite of electrolysis, in the following ways:

By adjusting spacing: you change the electric field strength which is measured in volts/meter, so by reducing the distance, you increase the electric field strength, which shows it is actually voltage doing the work. If you were to change the plate spacing in an electrolysis cell it would do anything at all, because it is amp dependent, not voltage dependent.

This proves it is working like a capacitor, with the voltage fields.

You have to realize that this is an extremely important thing to prove and demonstrate! When everyone around him thinks ... oh he's just doing electrolysis, and then you can vary the gas production by adjusting the spacing alone, it proves it's not electrolysis!

This also varies the capacitance, so I might wonder if you had a variable frequency, and fixed inductance, you might be able to find resonance with this cell by adjusting the capacitance, but maybe you could not maintain electrical resonance to any useful degree? you might just be able to bump into it as you adjust the spacing or frequency. Don says it wasn't a resonant cell, but I still wonder if this was able to resonate just a little bit, which maybe helped him along in his path to the real resonant cell with the phase lock loop.

I have read somewhere, that I can't quite remember where, that this cell was supposedly creating thousands of volts, but after learning about the chokes, with only 50-some turns I dono... you would have to hit resonance to get volts like that. In the same article that said this, it said then he turned on the tubular array which produced even more gas.

I think this cell and setup would be extremely useful for demonstration purposes, which is what he used it for. But it wont produce enough gas to save the world, it might not even give more hydrogen per watt than normal electrolysis, BUT it proves it's different science!

Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 18, 2009, 16:17:27 pm
Don, have you seen any of these cells?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Resonantcavity3.jpg)

I have been trying to think how these work, these must be the resonant cells like you mentioned?

Do you know any physical details about the components and function?
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on November 18, 2009, 22:02:09 pm
Donaldwfc,There wasn't any of those cells there to see.Theses cells are for ionizing the gasses that come out of the wfc.These units are to take the gasses to a higher energy level.Not used for water,only gasses.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 07, 2010, 19:02:27 pm
Imagine this guys, instead of +1000 volts and -1000 volts, say you have +996 volts, and -992 volts

This is how you can read it:

1. Ground to Positive Plate = +996 volts
2. Ground to Negative Plate = -992 volts
3. Positive Plate to Negative Plate = +4 volts
4. Absolute Voltage (I believe this is un-measurable by any direct connection method, i may be wrong) = 996 + 992 = 1988 volts

Now because we have 4 volts when we measure the 3rd way, this is where we use the tunable bottom choke, to tune the voltage exactly equal and opposite
I'm sorry if this does not fit in your line of thoughts anymore, just needed to make it clear.

If you have ground potential, and +1000V on one plate, -1000V on the other plate. When you connect a voltmeter to the +1000V plate and to ground it will show +1000V obviously. If you connect it to to the positive plate and to the negative plate, it won't show 0V but 2000V. There is no +- potential alone. Only when you measure it against something. The -1000V will become ground/0V and the difference between 1000V and -1000V is 1000V-(-1000V)=2000V Having ground on one site and 2000V on the other is the same as 1000V and -1000V.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 07, 2010, 22:27:11 pm
I don't know exactly how the voltmeters measure it.

But if you dig a hole 1000 feet deep, and then put a 1000 foot ladder in it from the bottom up, the ladder will be zero feet above the ground.

By using -1000 as your REFERENCE, and then adding 1000 to it, you will come up with zero.

If the voltmeter calculates the absolute difference, then good for it. I don't know what the voltmeter will measure.

The point is, the water fuel cell needs -voltage and +voltage that are pulsed equally, and if you do this, then you do it right.

If you try zero and +voltage then you do it wrong

It doesn't really matter how you measure it, this is all about understanding the operation so you can build it with the correct goal.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 07, 2010, 22:50:42 pm
Hi Donald,

I like your usage of a hole 1000 feet but you didn't complete it.  Add another ladder above that 1000 feet then you have a complete picture.  Anyway you look at it with reference to ground up the ladder is plus 1000 feet and down the ladder is minus 1000 feet.  Plus and minus voltage that I've seen referenced to are with respect to ac electric systems where voltage oscillates back and forth like an inverter circuit one switch opens then closes then another switch opens back and forth.  It has to do with excess electrons on one side and depletion of electrons on the other side with respect to ground which is neutral i.e. atoms with neutral charge and/or equal numbers more or less of ions and free electrons.  If plates or tubes are switching plus and minus back and forth that's like the steam resonator.  If there's an excess of electrons on one plate or tube and a depletion of electrons on another with respect to ground (in this case water) then I think that's it.  That's my understanding anyway.  Don is right I think you gotta pull the electrons out of the water.  For as long as the switch to positive is closed, switch to ground (with respect to the circuit) many times.  I think that's what Stan was doing.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 08, 2010, 11:09:29 am
I don't know exactly how the voltmeters measure it.

But if you dig a hole 1000 feet deep, and then put a 1000 foot ladder in it from the bottom up, the ladder will be zero feet above the ground.

By using -1000 as your REFERENCE, and then adding 1000 to it, you will come up with zero.

If the voltmeter calculates the absolute difference, then good for it. I don't know what the voltmeter will measure.

The point is, the water fuel cell needs -voltage and +voltage that are pulsed equally, and if you do this, then you do it right.

If you try zero and +voltage then you do it wrong

It doesn't really matter how you measure it, this is all about understanding the operation so you can build it with the correct goal.
Voltmeters only have two connections. One part is the reference (which is always 0V) the other connection is measuring the difference to the reference value. The -1000V is not a fixed value, only when you measure it against ground.
To use your analogy, if you have a 1000 feet deep hole, then the multimeter on the bottom of the whole would not know how deep it is, it would assume this place as the zero mark. Add the first (-1000feet) and you are at ground level (0 feet for us), add the 1000 feet ladder and you have 2000feet height for the multimeter. The ladder would not be in the hole of course.

You can use a meter with three connections where one is ground to see +1000V/-1000V but it makes no difference. The forces will be the same in magnitude. One side is positive (ground for example), the other side is negative (-2000V).

Dynodon, feel free to remove this posts or move them to another topic if they disturb the thread.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 08, 2010, 15:45:52 pm
I have been wondering about the readings from a volt meter myself.I have a 12 volt center tap transformer that I have tested.If you read either leg in refference to the center tap,it will indeed read the positive or negative value like everyone knows, at half the voltage,6 volts.But if you read across both legs only and not through the center tap, you get 12 volts.Now this is do to the fact that the secondary when read across the two legs acts just like a transformer without a center tap.This is do to the secondary being just one continuous wire with a point in the middle that has a connection for the center tap.So it's not reading a negative value because the normal negative leg is no longer negative.
My thoughts are that maybe some how if we could use the center tap as a refference and use both the positive and negative, it may help with our oppisite voltage zones.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 09, 2010, 18:35:33 pm
My cell is pretty basic.All I did was drill three counter sunk holes down into the base material.The center hole is 1/2 in dia. and is drilled the deepest.Then the 3/4 inch hole is next,but it's not as deep as the 1/2 inch.Then the last whole is an inch just deep enough to hold the outer tube case that you see.Then I drilled a hole from the outside so it will cut into the base where the 3/4 inch tube ends.That's the pipe plug you see in the picture.If you open the picture file,you'll be able to see the whole that is drilled down through the top beside the tube case,this cuts into the hole that was drilled through to the tube set.That is how the water gets into the tubes from the bottom.If you hook this cell up to straight DC power,you can see the water circulating.
Don
Don, I m trying to visualize the resonant cavity design. Are the positive rod and the cylinder fixed in the base where water is going into to cavity? The base is fixed with a cap on top? Cap see picture...

br,
webmug
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 10, 2010, 00:17:05 am
Webmug here's a drawing to get the idea across.There was a cap that slid down over the top of both tubes.The inside tube is longer just like Stans drawing and mine beside it.Just picture the outside tube over the inside just like they are aliagned as drawn.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on January 17, 2010, 16:28:28 pm
My last post was only meant to give everyone the basic concept of how Stan was using voltage potential to PULL the water molecule apart.Most people don't fully understand what it was he was doing.Basic attraction/repelling forces of voltage.

I will delete previous post that I feel don't follow my path of documenting my thoughts and work.So don't be affended when your post are removed.I will leave them for a while before deleting them.

Now I will go into the basic resonance cell design needed that Stan used.
This type of cell I did get to see.The file at the end of this post shows where Stan states all of this.

The resonance cell is only one set of tubes.3/4 inch ouside with a 1/2 inch inside tube, 3 inches long.Spacing was .090 inches.Stainless of course.

Now for the big surprise. The  tube set must be encased in delrin. Just the outside tube is covered. But the inside tube will be also isolated from the water bath because the whole set will be in a base that holds both tubes.I will attach a photo also to this post of my tube set,so you will get the idea.

This is in Stans tech brief that is at the bottom of this post.I have not seen anyone do this to their cell.

Now the cell I seen of Stans had 11 tube sets in it.They were all controlled be seperate VIC circuits.Each one was independent of the others.That is whats inside the white cell pictured at the beginning of the gas injector brief.

Again,this is only a disciption,and not meant to go into details of how it works.Those thoughts will follow in other post.
Well, the cavity construction is clever, because when the cavity is in resonance with the water molecules it generates high velocity gas stream through the small gap on top of the cavity due wave guide method.
(water molecules are smashed between voltage zones and water molecules, till they are pulled apart, that's how high velocities are reached)
If we want to control the gas burn rate, Stan adjusted the gas output port gap size and gas production rate by means of voltage amplitude/pulsing/gating frequency...

br,
webmug
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 06, 2011, 15:56:07 pm
hey Don,
sorry this post is so late i've just read through the topic.
any way this has to do with your secound or third post.
 
 "Now why does it need to be that way? Think about it.If you are to pull the water molecule apart,you need to apply the pulling force to both sides of the molecule at the same time and of the same force.If you have a voltage differential of 1000 volts,where as you would read with a volt meter,you have a +1000 volts on the positive plate and 0 volts on the ground.Now what's going to happen? You'll just pull the molecule toward the positive plate.Because you don't have an opposite force pulling back toward the negitve plate.The pulling force need to work from both sides at the same time of the same force"
 
If we only had voltage on the possitive side and 0 volts on the negative. the atoms would not be simply atrracted to one side, it would attract all the electrons and replel the protons which would be everything else, so it seems to me that it would do the same thing as having voltage on both sides. Not that this is what Stan did but its just my thoughts on the subject.
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 06, 2011, 21:54:28 pm
Dave,you need to re-read my second post here.That's exactly what I said.
Don
Title: Re: My thoughts on the Meyers effect
Post by: Login to see usernames on April 06, 2011, 22:06:15 pm
sorry i must be mistaken. Didn't you say if their was only a high possitve voltage field that the molecule would be simple pulled towards the possitive?
 
It seems to me that a high possitive field would have an equal replelling force on the nucleuse of both atoms.  This would mean that having two high voltage fields of opposite polarity really isn't nessesary. I think i read on this forum somewhere that stans negative tubes in the resonance cell had ground wires attached to them, because of this I don't see how they're could be high negative voltage.
 
I dont mean to be disrespectful, i'm just trying to get a better understanding