Dankie

----------------------------------------------- conversation over -------------------------------------------------------


So now its clear that the crux_wfc connection is WRONG .

There should be no more debate on this , ever

Now I know some people didnt mean to be so stubborn . Its not a question about being right or wrong , its a question of truth .

Only truth matters .

Answer of this person:

es exactly...we only have to pay to put the charge onto the plates
not to cram in electrons to disrupt the water molecule structure
(electrolysis).
It is in essence a reversed electrolysis...electrons leaving the water
instead of cramming in creating the heat and wasted energy (why
electrolysis is inefficient).
 
I believe a coating is needed to keep the charge from bleeding off the
plates. This is because through experiments of mine I haven't been
able to get too high a charge, this changed when I added a carbon
coating...carbon conducts but not as well. So it was a "poor"
insulator. None the less I saw more voltage across the water gap.
 
I believe the coating should be on the + plate. That will allow the
water to touch the - plate and then become - charged. As the water
flows out, it still has that charge. It passes the EEC electrode that
turns on a path to +....the -charge conducts and presto...ionic gas is
released.

 

 

My question to this person:


Lol I think I get tnow , that thyristor is getting pulsed @ the right time . In my confused mind I was like "opposites" attract duuuuuuhhh oink oink ,I tought this meant a battery + voltage , now that I look @ the EEC its clear that you are right .

So this is like an "virtual charge" , we didnt actually put electrons in the "capacitor" yet we can discharge it ?

So a coating is necessary you say Coating on what electrode again ?

Answer of this person:

Yes Dankie that is the flux in which I speak.
Ideally you would read zero...but I doubt that it could be that
perfect. Let me clarify something...the amperage is not being consumed
at all. The fluxes are traveling in opposite directions, with opposite
spins. See, any time current (amperage) flows on a wire it creates
these "Eddy" currents we call flux. The current flow is directly
related to the flux intensity. If you lower the amperage the flux will
also fall in a linear fashion....So, inversely...if we stop the flux
flow we also stop the current flow....the current is essentially
"choked" out...hence the name choke coil
 

As for the "Bleeding Off"....this is key you get this.
 
+ and - are equal and opposite....If we get a true capacitor action in
the WFC...when we charge it up we will have + and - standing voltage
even after the power is turned off. In ALL capacitors...the insulator
is charged as well as the plates!
So in a water capacitor....the water itself will take on a charge and
elongate accordingly.
The only thing holding water together are 2 shared electrons between
the H and O...so it should be obvious that we are interested in
manipulating the -electrons.
 
The EEC works like this...
 
Voltage is applied and the water capacitor is charged to maximum. The
input circuit (being isolated) is disconnected, then a separate path
is opened up. In Meyer's pics you can clearly see it's a + electrode
supplied in the water...NOT PART OF THE TUBES/CAPACITOR
So, the on pulses charge the capacitor up...the charge circuit is
disconnected....The WFC should hold a HV charge.....A separate path is
opened ACROSS THE CAPACITOR to bleed off the voltage (like shorting it
out)...in this path is an "Electron consuming device"...or light
bulb....or LEDs.
 
Look here....Bearden gave it to us...w/o telling it was the WFC
          http://spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/feb2_bearden.htm


Furthermore, any ferrous(iron based) core is what they call a "flux
path"....this means that all of the flux is concentrated into the
iron. An air core has an even distribution of flux all around it...a
"flux envelope" if you will.
 
 
Let us imagine the flow through the "choke"...
Since the B-flow flows in one direction...when it interacts in the
choke, it flowing in one direction on the + side...and in the opposite
direction on the - side. The B-Flow is quite simplified in that
drawing, it actually corkscrews around the wire while spinning. These
two spinning corkscrews of flux meet in the bifilar coil on the iron
core...this concentrates both fluxes into the core and essentially
cancels the B-Flow...which then resists the flow of amperage.
The voltage potentials are still there pulling on them.
 
I need to find u a document on the flow...I will email it when I find it
 
 

My question again to this person:


By flux , do you mean this kind of flux ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electromagnetism.svg

Lets be very specific here , this stuff can get really really confusing .

So lets say I replaced by cell with an amp-meter , would I get absolute zero if the bifilars were perfect ? This is my understanding ...

Plz explain to me carefully what you mean by "bleeds off" , open switch to ground is it ? , I was under the impression that there was a pulse coming from there , a + force and that -electrons were attracted by this + force .

Answer of this person :

No I do not agree....the chokes cancel flux...but, trust me there will
be high voltage. Meyer's notes up to 20Kv...as for the EEC, it doesn't
supply any voltage of it's own. It actually bleeds off the voltage of
the VIC across the water gap.
 
If you look into the literature (Meyer's patents) the EEC is just a
path to +...so the HV - potential from the Water gap is re-routed
through a load, temporarily shifting electrons

During the crash , I talked to a very trusted source , a very intelligent person with great vision .  This confirms our doubts .

My question to this person : , everything I said will be presented exactly how I sent the message , with images included



Heres an idea of mine , its kinda like the EEC schematic with the VIC ,but the pulse from the EEC circuit is much higher voltage , I dont know if it will be necessary but maybe for ripping out those electrons even more ?

So we know the cancelling bifilar connection of the all-in-1 VIC never creates a HV gradient across the water gap since its cancelling itself , one is +X voltage other is -X voltage , heres an example , little arros is the direction .

----(+100volts)---->>water gap<<----(-100 volts)----

Do you agree with this ?

So lets say I can possibly also brg the EEC part of the circuit in resonance also , perhaps the phase or "timing" of our pulse will matter , maybe the molecule is weak @ a certain time due to this canceliing force , perhaps "out of time" or some quantum thing ...

Maybe when we get our maximum efficiency our lightbulb is the brightest , perhaps another indicator of resonance apart from the feedback coil ?

All this is good to ponder upon ...

So there was no coating in radiant's video .

Bathing your tubes in citric acid and drying them in air will make this chromium layer thicker .

Read this on a forum .

Radiant , did you do any special treatment on your tubes tho ?

So when we install super corona dope .

What becomes the dielectric ? Super corona dope or water ? Does water become an extension of the cathode and is simple polarized by this force ?

The water is never really a dielectric is it ?  There is never any good definite resonance behavior or step charging .

Outer tube is + , and inner tube is -

Lets say I am using Radiants way of charging a capacitor , with counter rotating b flux from the bifilar

lets say using this technique  , we could use an ordinary coating (purple) , then put a small sheet of ss on top of it.

Would we still have our ''polarization of the molecule.

But when this 'virtual charge' discharges , I want it to extract the electrons from the 'weakened'  ?  water 'with' this charge it and pass it throught the eec circuit .

I need the positive tube to be conductive one way for the electrons to get out for good .

Does all this make sense  

you ever wounder why stan says you need more heneries then capacitance?..  answer anyone?

Dude , go put ur ideas to work  .

Jolt ,

nevermind the comments of radiant_1 , he is young and emotional .

We will see if there is something to Meyers and then I will move on to better things .

Stevie , you  havent read anything , you cant understand the patents or the language of the subtilities of such a science , and you just dont know enough about electronics or physics enough , in fact , you have went from one panacea copy to another ( we know how those end) .

Your assumptions are based on your results , wich are lacking for the reasons above .

Who ever said breaking multi-trilion dollar techologies would be easy .

I agree , Naudin dont give a crap about hiding anything from you .

He already replicated multiple OU technologies .

Now stop being so negative . This skeptical stuff is getting on my nerves .

thx outlaw

what would happen to the lower transitor ?

Blow up ?

so anybody find this ?

I would put a bunch of light in series and see how much can be done with this .

How a regular load/home appliance reacts to this is another story as well , I think the power has to be re-transfered into our regular current power .

Ok , this seems pretty easy , I might just replicate this thing .

This looks like OU to me .

That will have to be determined.

The closest "replication" of a hairpin circuit for producing hydroxy is Dave Lawton's "cold electricity" wfc replication.  If you follow the flow it's similar to Karl Palsness' Tesla stout copper rod or hairpin circuit.  The missing element according to Karl is mass.  That's my take on it.  Not what Karl said as regards to hydroxy generation but what I think.  Watch the videos, re-read Tesla and experiment.

Regards,
Andy

Did Dave Lawtons really replicate Meyers ?

I believe so , that man is certainly one of most educated people on earth and has military connections , but did we get the right info from him ?

I believe not... LOL