AMA analysis of Cramton and Replication

[Login to see usernames]

under construct ion Area, Mass,Acoustics
last edit 24 1 2011 adopted "inverted 7" bracket terminolo gy
added some Dr Scott Cramton links

This is the place where I'm putting theoretic al calculati ons of
mass, area, and acoustics of two Cramton style HHO cells.
 
The purpose is to look at the various ratios of relative areas,mass, and acoustic propertie s and to compare them to the
ratios that are obtained from the Meyer Demonstra tion Unit.
 
One of the basic differenc es between the Cramton style cell and the Meyer Demonstra tion Unit is which of the tubes has the most
freedom to vibrate. In the Cramton units the inner tube is supported by a "Z" spring and can vibrate in and lateral and veritical direction, while the Meyer style has an outer tube which
can vibrate in a mostly lateral direction with a more limited ability
to vibrate in a vertical direction limited by an "inverted 7" bracket.
 
So by looking at the relative masses of the various tube sets, the
relative areas of overlap of the tube sets and the calculate d frequency of vibation of the tube sets, some informati on may
be obtained. By looking at the ratios of mass,overlap and
acoustic propertie s and assessing the amount of material removed by the notches and the effect on the area, mass, and acoustics it is hoped that a compariso n of these ratios with those
obtained form the Meyer Demonstra tion unit may give insight to
some of the physical processes  occuring in succesess ful replicati ons.  While obviously the PWM's and other electroni cs are
a critical part of the process of HHO generatio n, an investiga tion of the physical construct ion of the various replicati ons may provide insight into the processes occuring and methods by which HHO productio n may be increased .
 
Start of AMA analysis of Scott Cramton Cell
 
The basic sources of informati on for the Cramton analysis
are:
1 Patrick Kelly Free Energy Chapter 10
2 Scott Cramton's You Tube Channel
3 WC autism site
http://www.autismpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=WFC

4.Photos of Scott Cramton's Cell

5 courtiest own parts lists
 http://www.courtiestown.co.uk/
 
 
Scott Cramton Cell

This type of cell has the inner tube supported by a "Z" spring
with allows the inner tube some ability to oscillate in a vertical
direction . This is in contrast to the Meyer cell whose outer tube is
supported by an "inverted 7" bracket which may limit vertical oscillati on

The abilty of the inner tube of the Cramton cell to be vibrated is limited by the use of non conductiv e bolts which function as spacer to prevent the inner tube from touching the inner wall of the outer tube and causing an electrica l short across the capacitor . The tube is allowed to vibrate freely and  the amount of lateral vibration can be adjusted by turning the non conductiv e
bolts to allow more free space between the inner tube and end of the nonconduc tive bolt.
 
In the Meyer cell the spacing is maintaine d by a relativel y stiff
"inverted 7" bracket which allows for no spacers to be required  (spacer bars were used actually)but does
not allow for as much freedom of vertical oscillati on as in the
Cramton configura tion.

Cramton used 316L Stainless in his construct ion
 
Dimensions of Outside Tube

Length:              Average Fininshed Length  455 mm
Diameter:           0.75 inches
Wall thickness      0.065 16SWG is the gauge courtiest own is selling     
Slot Dimension s: 19mm by 13mm

Dimensions of Innertube
 
Length               18 inches
Diameter             0.50
Wall thickness      0.065 16SWG is the gauge being sold by courtiest own
hhoisepar ator cell
 
Dimensions of outer tube
 
Length of outer tube- TBD
wall thickness not given but 0.65 looks right based on source
 
Dimension of inner tube
Length
wall thickness 0.65
tube gap 3/32  "Various people have noted that with the Stan Meyer WFC the inner tubes are all of the same length, the outer tubes vary slightly in length, as does the depth of the slots.

The reasons are I believe as follows.  Given only a less than 4% differenc e in the capacitiv e surface areas, the inner tubes are all cut to the same length, the outer tubes are then cut to a length slightly greater than that which is required.  Thus the frequency of the outer tube will be less than resonance, but its surface area will be slightly greater.  From here on a certain amount of juggling of slot depth and tube length is required, so as to bring the tube simultane ously to resonant frequency and the same surface area
" from a posting on the old wouter site

Notches approxima tely 1 inch by 2 inches
 

[Login to see usernames]

Sadly enough, nobody ever could replicate anything of Dr Cramton.
I even heard that he self came back on all statements of producing OU on HHO production.
So, not even higher then faraday law.

Steve

[Login to see usernames]

Sadly enough, nobody ever could replicate anything of Dr Cramton.
I even heard that he self came back on all statements of producing OU on HHO production.
So, not even higher then faraday law.

Steve

I find your lack of information very distressing, and further, that information you are posting is completely incorrect.
First, several people have replicated my cell and have moved on to more efficient versions producing up to 3000 liters an hour that are currently being researched. Next if you would do a little searching you will find the National Hydrogen Foundation with full pictures and videos of my original cell in operation and information on current research, Including the first large bore engines in the world to use this technology and reduce HFO fuel consumption by 71%

Respectfully, if you are unable to follow simple instructions and take the time and effort to construct a OU device you should really choose another line of work

[Login to see usernames]

Hello Dr crampton

In internet we read things here and there and many are false or wrong, please don't blame steve, i'm sure wasn't his intention to post wrong info about you.

i also build pll oscillator by my own, and with no results... well the only thing i got was almost 100% efficiency discarding dissipation in the coil and capacitors... (parallel resonance with cells in series in isolated buckets)

what kind of simple instruction you have?

I would like to know, how many liter per hour you get per watt? 

have you  developed a theory to explain and justify, what you are doing?

What voltage is required?

Sorry for so many questions, i'm a physics graduate student from Brazil.

Thanks

[Login to see usernames]

Sadly enough, nobody ever could replicate anything of Dr Cramton.
I even heard that he self came back on all statements of producing OU on HHO production.
So, not even higher then faraday law.

Steve

I find your lack of information very distressing, and further, that information you are posting is completely incorrect.
First, several people have replicated my cell and have moved on to more efficient versions producing up to 3000 liters an hour that are currently being researched. Next if you would do a little searching you will find the National Hydrogen Foundation with full pictures and videos of my original cell in operation and information on current research, Including the first large bore engines in the world to use this technology and reduce HFO fuel consumption by 71%

Respectfully, if you are unable to follow simple instructions and take the time and effort to construct a OU device you should really choose another line of work

Do you have any published documentation of your experimental apparatus and test results you can refer me to directly?

[Login to see usernames]

Dear Sir

I understand the problems of false or limited information on the Internet, it was one of the issues that my lab spent years separating fact from fiction. The first thing I would like to say is that researchers like Bob Boyce, George Wiseman, Stan Meyers and many others should be respected by these on-line communities for sharing any information what so ever on the net. In many cases these people make their living from this technology and what they do share should be considered a stepping stone to get you started.
This was definitely the situation in my case, when asked by my friend Patrick Kelly to share what I could with the general public. understand that many of us in real world labs are under very strict security requirements and contracts, so in many cases what we are able to give you, is something to get you started, but is also something you must complete on your own.

The directions I gave Patrick in his Free Energy Guide is just that , a simple system that anyone can build
And begin researching. All of you that are looking to achieve the magical over unity device will very possibly be looking for the rest of your life, you must broaden your thinking if you are to achieve success in creating a device that will be of benefit to our world.

Do not loose heart, systems that produce H2 efficiently do work and are being applied around the world, but in a controlled and secure manner

[Login to see usernames]

Please goto http://www.nationalhydrogenfoundation.org
Read every page, all of the test results that can be published are there

Hint. Look at photo in center of first page

[Login to see usernames]

I have Read:
http://www.nationalhydrogenfoundation.org/ER_Water_Torch.pdf
http://www.nationalhydrogenfoundation.org/ER_water_Torch_test_3.pdf
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/D14.pdf

Looked at your pictures here:
http://s701.photobucket.com/albums/ww13/Dr_Scott_2009/

I find that in the first two documents linked above, you have no introduction, theory, procedure, discussion, or conclusion, as is standard in a report of experiments. Forgive me for saying, however this is not what I would expect from someone with a science degree.

In the third document, while offers more insight, the reliability is questionable because it is second hand information from someone who has not originally done the research. Is this really your story that you want to offer? would you offer some first hand clarification?

I'm happy to take a read of anything else you recommend.

Please note, I am being slightly more critical of the quality of the information because it appears you are trying to sound slightly more credible than the 'usual' on the internet.