Voltage does Work!!! And Here is why!!

[Login to see usernames]

Micro capacitors Charged!!!

[Login to see usernames]

All this make me be very certain that the variable inductor or resistor is to control the voltage field on the negative electrode. As if you apply a negative electric field in the negative electrode you will repel electrons coming from the current so it restrict the amps by repelling the electrons!!!

[Login to see usernames]

I don't know where it is you get you ideas from,but there not from Stan.Most of your post are so far off from what Stan is trying to say.You need to re-read all of his work and try to get a better understang of what he is saying,and stop reading something else into it.You are making this whole thing way to complicated.Everything you are trying to say,you would probably never be able to prove.You need to spend more time experimenting than typing.
 
Everything I have learned while working on this project has come from experimenting.The more I test,the more it comes out just as Stan states.It's that simple.I am getting down to the last of my studies on this cell.I have a little more to do on my new circuit before I can get back to testing my last few things.I have figured out what Stan claims to have done.If I can't get it to work after this,than It probably will never work.If Stan put everything he knew into his writings,than I know how he did it.If I can't get it to work as he says it does,than it either doesn't work or he left some part out.And as far as I can tell,it's all in there.You just need to put all the pieces together,and I'm down to the last few pieces.
As for this topic,I am through trying to correct your miss thoughts,and will leave that up to someone else.
Remember  K.I.S.S. !!!!!!
Don

[Login to see usernames]

I'm finishing the prototype to prove what i'm saying it will only have one pair of tubes inside that acrylic container with aluminum paper around it, it now have a connection that i soldered on a copper foil strip. 


Very soon i will be able to be certain of what i'm saying just need to focus a bit.


I'm only saying what he wrote in the patents, water bath ... I think that anyone tried this this way before.


Thats why i'm saying that maybe fast freddy did it.


If the thing work i will show in a video.


Thanks Don for effort correcting me, my hope is to help enlightening your ideas. Please don't stop. Ask your self all the possibilities.

[Login to see usernames]

I would like to answer all your questions.. but if there aren't much... Guys i would really like to hear from you all your impressions!

[Login to see usernames]

This is why his EPG worked. He created a too ingenious way to ionize the gases by using their dielectric proprieties. Is so clear now.


What keep puzzling me is how the electrons get consumed. I'm thinking of some possibility, like an electron emission by heating element having around it a copper tube grounded. Or if they will get already out during the hot arc. What worry me is the word consume. 


I really guess that the electron deflection and entrapment plays the major role here. He in my imagination accelerated than this freed electrons (emission) to collide with oxygen in the air to free up even more electrons to than consume them by maybe stoping them in the coil while it is charged, letting the field to collapse and connect to the ground to discharge excess electrons.. -hum I don't really know, only experimenting i will be able to determine this.



Message to the Guests:
If you don't login you can't see the pictures!

[Login to see usernames]

Well the amp restriction is about to add a negative field in the positive electrode, cause being it negatively charged it will repel the electrons so they will not flow thru the water so the charge can be applied aways to the water. This is very clearly described in the patent http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Stan_Meyer/Patents/20_Voltage_Control_Circuit/index.html


However must be a floating ground relation...

[Login to see usernames]

Hi Fabio,

I understand what you try to do and what you are saying. I do appriciate this out of the box thinking of you.
Dynodon is right in his advise to try to keep it simple.
However, all simple things are tried and tested.
Don, what is your latest test? Would you like to share that?


My 2 cents on this:
I know of charging watercells. I know people done it. Even when the powersupply was off, the charge was there.
Or the tubes where charged or the water. Not sure on that detail.

I also know that  Stan has a third wire on the tubecell sign in some drawings. Some suggested that was going into the waterbath.

If you charge water, then its not electrons that are passsing thru the charge, but ions, like Bubz stated.
Electrons could be set free in that water when the watermolecule is separated.
However, electrons are NEVER consumed. The can travel, but cannot be consumed. Please keep that in mind.

Stan also said that his proces is the opposite of the electrolysis proces.
In my opinion that means pulling charge out of the water, instead of adding charges.
Or in other words. moving electrons out of the waterbath...
Like you use a voltagefield, like a magnet does, on one electrode and one on the other electrode.
Pulling....

Well, there stops my theory, because i do not know how to make the water instable in a way that the bonds are broken and electrons are free moving towards the electrodes.
Possible because 1 coil and 1 electrode can have a voltage potential and the other electrode with coil as well?
It might be not needed to have a voltage potential across the electrodes?
Just 2 voltage fields outside the tubes and not crossover it? Like magnets?

Feel free to drill down my 2 cents here.....