Dave

Anyone really still working on Stan Meyer Stuff? I've taken a long break and want to get back into it. I've interest in exploring the sec circuit, has anyone been working on this at all?

Does anyone have a clearer copy of this picture? It's from one of Stan's videos.

So Tony W. is selling the VIC at globalkast, irondmax is at Stan meyers dream site and hydrogewaterfuel from Texas has one.  TheHydrogenShop sells the microstar.  So will somebody please post if they have got the VIC working, or haven't I looked enough.  What about the seasoning process on the electrodes?  Is that key?  I want to cut the use of an electrolyzer and amperage on my conventional HHO kit under the hood.  I want to make a high voltage type unit that fits under the hood of a modern vehicle, a tall task.  I don't care if it is operating exactly at resonance or at max HHO production, just need a few lpm for combustion enhancement.  plate designs fit well, cant get anything bigger than 3.5" anywhere.  My first attempt is going to be using a lawton circuit, bought on at courtiestown.com.uk for about 75.  Sucks how much retuning is needed on motor, big job, $$ too.

No one has gotten everything to work properly, and if they say they have they haven't proven it with data. What I mean is, there is no evidence that any hho has been produced in a different way other that that from electrolysis. The only reason to go in this direction is if you want to experiment with it and try to make it work. If your looking for something off the shelf that will give you results, using the vic and board is not for you. I'm just saying this so you understand the situation, don't let me stop you 

worried about inefficiency of your cell throwing off  your calculated vs real world values off? Don't be, this calculation only considers current and inefficiency comes from over potential.

The hole in thermodynamics


First I would like to say, sorry for my lengthy absence. School is difficult and boring


I've been pondering electric fields ever since first starting this topic and a few days ago I came across something fascinating.
In my opinion, its ignored by physics because it proves simple laws incorrect and needs a lot of complex math to be proven other wise. That being said, I normally don't ever disagree with math but when it comes to the electric field and work, I just can't help it.

her is a clip from a website. I don't have the image, just imagine a closed loop with a static electric field

Let us now consider the special case where point  A is identical with point  B. In other words, the case in which we move the charge around a closed loop in the electric field. How much work must we perform in order to achieve this? It is, in fact, possible to prove, using rather high-powered mathematics, that the net work performed when a charge is moved around a closed loop in an electric field generated by fixed charges is zero. However, we do not need to be mathematical geniuses to appreciate that this is a sensible result. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the net work performed when we take a charge around some closed loop in an electric field is non-zero. In other words, we lose energy every time we take the charge around the loop in one direction, but gain energy every time we take the charge around the loop in the opposite direction. This follows from Eq. (77), because when we switch the direction of circulation around the loop the electric field   on the  th path segment is unaffected, but, since the charge is moving along the segment in the opposite direction,  , and, hence,  . Let us choose to move the charge around the loop in the direction in which we gain energy. So, we move the charge once around the loop, and we gain a certain amount of energy in the process. Where does this energy come from? Let us consider the possibilities. Maybe the electric field of the movable charge does negative work on the fixed charges, so that the latter charges lose energy in order to compensate for the energy which we gain? But, the fixed charges cannot move, and so it is impossible to do work on them. Maybe the electric field loses energy in order to compensate for the energy which we gain? (Recall, from the previous section, that there is an energy associated with an electric field which fills space). But, all of the charges (i.e., the fixed charges and the movable charge) are in the same position before and after we take the movable charge around the loop, and so the electric field is the same before and after (since, by Coulomb's law, the electric field only depends on the positions and magnitudes of the charges), and, hence, the energy of the field must be the same before and after. Thus, we have a situation in which we take a charge around a closed loop in an electric field, and gain energy in the process, but nothing loses energy. In other words, the energy appears out of ``thin air,'' which clearly violates the first law of thermodynamics. The only way in which we can avoid this absurd conclusion is if we adopt the following rule:
The work done in taking a charge around a closed loop in an electric field generated by fixed charges is zero.


Hopefully that wasn't to long of a read. anyway, a static field can force and charged particle around a loop continually without performing work or using energy. Net work is zero because it would violate thermodynamics otherwise. Obviously, something is happening for nothing which isn't supposed to happen. According to thermodynamics no work is being done so if you were to harness this movement and create electricity, thermodynamics would not recognize it. Thats my opinion, and its really something cool to think about.

I have another thought about the water stream experiment. I looked up an illustration of the field lines. If you imagine the the charged object is positive(on the left) and the water is one the right (negative dipole being attracted). It seems to me that the water is moving along the field line for a short time.  Since the field lines are the force, the water is traveling parallel along them. So once again I think the work equation holds and cosine is not zero. The water is moving towards the rod along the field lines. The water would stop if it wasn't for gravity.

Nice theory.
But if an atom transmittes energy, then that will not go on forever, or am i wrong here?

Well it depends what is being transmitted. If I run a current through a gas I will produce a plasma that will emit photons until I remove the power supply. This is because the photons are being emitted when the electrons are moving to a lower energy level. That is what I think your talking about?

Now the awesome part. If i have a charged rod. A rod with a surplus of electrons. The rod cannot discharge without coming in contact with something conductive or at least something it can discharge through. So, if there is air or some other insulator between the charged object and ground or a discharged point it cannot discharge. But, it still has an effect on this objects its near. The photons I talked about are a force carrier, not a transfer of energy.
The photon is the force carrier for the electric force. It is in the upper right corner of the table bellow.

A charged rod will effect on electroscope by polarizing it. The rod is not discharging but for example if the rod was negative it would repel negative charges around it. Electrons in a conductor close bye would move as far away from the rod as possible. This would produce a polarized object. The charges in the influenced conductor will move until they get to a point of electrostatic equilibrium. But nothing is stopping me from applying the same fore to something else without recharging the rod.The rod will eventually discharge but it is not related to the objects it effects as long as it doesn't discharge into it by coming into contact with it. So, i can effect as many objects as I want without effecting the charge of the rod.

The force of the electric field is calculated by E=Kq'/(R squared) and the electric force is calculated between to charged objects  by F=Kqq'/(R squared) Everything is in absolute value.

I'm sure you guys have seen these equations before but if anyone needs more info I can explain them further.

Sometimes its hard for me to understand what others are talking about so I understand if I need to explain my points of view better. Just let me know.

A few weeks ago I finished up quantum mechanics (intro) and started electrostatics and now I'm just about to finish electromagnetism. This is only physics II so I've only scratched the surface of all these things. 

For the first time in quantum mechanics and electrostatics I was introduced to an event when energy is created (they think). Its very simple and related to what we're working on.

A charged object has an effect on its surroundings. We all know this from seeing and doing experiments with static electricity and a stream of water. The charged object bends the stream of water but does not lose its charge. How could this be? The electric field is the answer. A static electric field emits photons without discharging and these photons influence the things around it. Work is done for free 

Photons are the force carrier.

Hmm funny thing happened today, I came to some conclusens after testing my electron extraction circuit. I was googling stuff about the electron extraction and here I am. I came to the same conclusion as the guy Steve quoted to start this topic. To be honest, after reading the patent which includes Stan's electron extraction last night, I lost a lot of faith. He kept mentioning amp consuming devices. This doesn't happen across a resister, you get a voltage drop, not an amp drop. The only possible way I can see it working is if the bulb functioned as an electron emitter. Also, if we remove electrons from the exciter, would theory not say we would have to also add one back in at the same time?

I tried taking the output of a MOT and rectifying it and then connecting one lead to ground and the positive to the grid, nothing happened. No amp flow. After doing it, I realized it just doesn't make sense electrically speaking. I think this guy was right.

I'm not sure the electron emitter is the answer either. If no current flows, the bulb will not get hot and will not emit electrons creating the void to be filled.

wow, I haven't read that since I had any idea what I was doing. Or I never read it at all.

I don't know to much about nuclear forces. Hopefully I will revisit this paper further down the road in my education.

What is this universal energy path he is talking about? 

This paper differs from much of his other writings. He described a lot more happening to the nuclei.

great stuff guys!

Has anyone ever looked into tunnel ionization? it seems that its not restricted by classical physics.

Today in chem lab something happened that blew my mind. After all this time experimenting with water and reading forums I have never come across something like this.
In lab we were identifying substances by the wavelength they give off when electrons are pushed to a higher energy state and then return to ground state. For practice, we used excited water vapor! It looked just like a neon light. The power supply was only 5kv ac. I don't know if this thread will go anywhere but i thought it was cool!

it certainly can bend a stream of water. here is a video of it happening.

.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as normal electricity? A static field is a static field, just generated in different ways.
And that brings me to my next question, are you guys talking about using natural static electricity from rubbing stuff together or generating a static electric field like in the video above?

I agree, with both Steve and Sebs. Steve, you are right in pointing this out. This is why we are bound by thermodynamics. You can't just get something from nothing and that's clasicsl phisics. As far a quantum mechanics, what's Sebs is taking about. The unknown! Thngs we don't understand. Tunnel ionization for example. It's different, classical physics doesn't ecnologe it.

Anyway, In Stan's patents, he never claimed a free energy device, just an affordable and economic way. Is it possible that he solve the problem of using tap water with applying more voltage and controlling it through impedance. It's not efficient but it gets the job done. Once you have hho you no longer have to break bonds but only make ions. I've stumped my friends and proffesors with this one. Apparently there isn't a lot of research on ion ignition. As you can see from the latest video, Stans hydrogen cell was not the only thing involved : ) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eoyoZwwsLQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is a link for an update video that I made. Almost testing time : )

here is a picture of what it looks like so far. The bottom section houses the quartz tube with both electrodes inside of it. also the photon source is in the bottom section where it will shine through the quartz tube and through the slit cut in the outer electrode. The top part is where the electron extraction grid is. I will show everything apart once I finish the electrodes. The gauge on top is for a car with a forced induction. It shows both pressure and vacuum. I wont be putting it under pressure but I have a compressor I took of a fridge to create a vacuum.

ps. thanks everyone for the helpful ideas   

Thanks Ali, I read something along those lines on another forum. I haven't been able to find any study's on it but I'm sort of banking on it.

I've got pretty much everything together except the out tube which needs a slit cut in it. I'm pretty happy with how it's coming together. I'll post some stuff as soon as I'm happy with it. I've also just started on my simplified electron electron circuit. Hopfully it works : )

 Russ and I have been working together since we started this stuff about teo years ago : )
He's a good guy!

Nothing really to show at the moment. School just ended for me so I'll be traveling home on Sunday. I think I have most of what I need to jump in on building the first prototype. I'll be testing a few different designs and circuits. I'll try to make videos

Hi Steve,

whenever you feel the need to play the bad guy, go ahead and do it 
I'm here to learn and get advice. And of course help with what I can.
Your a very knowledgeable guy and i value your input!
 
The vacuum seems to have more than one benefit.
1) better ionization!
2) less chance of explosion!
3) Hho going from pressure to vacuum increases kinetic energy!

So, this is getting more complex haha, I'll put it under vacuum using an old compressor from something

I just picked up xenon and another uv light for testing