electrotek

The way this was explained at the chemistrystack forum is that the dissonant frequency can be above or below the resonant frequency.  In the case of the Opera singer's wine glass, the wavering of her voice applies the difference in frequency which shatters the glass.  Kind of like a ripple wave.

We have two ways to generate an electrical potential.  One way is inductive, in which a magnetic field expands through a conductor.  (Or contracts).
The other way uses a motional field, in which a wire and a magnetic field move relative to each other, with flux cutting through the wire, or visa versa.

So does the Right Hand Rule apply in both situations?

It is, of course, possible my answer will interest other readers. 

Define the word 'oppose':

Oppose is an acronym which stands for:

Other Power Projected Onto Starting Energy.

The Starting Energy is some usual kind, such as magnetic, static, kinetic, optical, etc.

Okay guys, what is your deal here? Now I'm getting violant! Lol j/k foreal, why are there no participates here on the questions I've ask?

I was going to answer your question, until you flipped out, throwing insults like the troll at ou.  That's not the way to inspire participation in your discussion.

Good point about the engine, Steve.  But I'm wondering how safe it would be to discharge heavy water vapor into the atmosphere.  Can we use radiolysis at a lower, non fusion voltage?

I recently picked up a professional Geiger counter.  I may get back to my C/O fusion tests.  This might also produce radiolysis, and perhaps thermal dissociation.  Hopefully, no deuterium.  (Even if that has more energy than H).

Photosynthesis is a process which includes the transformation of light into another form of energy, the end result being that molecular bonds are rearranged with the formation of subsequent molecules which a plant needs.  Light with the proper spectral content is absorbed by certain complex, photo receptive molecules within the plant.  The energy in a photon can raise the band gap of an electron such that the electron becomes delocalized across several spatially separated molecules.  This condition has weaker covalent bonds and is meta stable.  If the condition was allowed to decay, that reaction would be exothermic, giving up energy.  Instead, the plant uses the meta stable energy (which is actually non local energy) to split some CO2, done through ionization.  So when light is converted into non local energy, it can break a covalent bond and produce ionization, along with the subsequent dissociation of the fuel gas, when an alternative molecular potentiality is presented by the presence of an additional, electron receiving molecule.  The electron's heightened band gap allows it to jump from one chemical to another, still forming chemical.

Someone has a theory that this is the same basic process which manifests in Stan Meyer's energy system.  The photo receptors are simple H2O molecules, with the electron receivers being some type of ionized gas mixed with, or ions contained by, the water.  (Some gasses, including chlorine, carbon tetrachloride, and freon are "electron grabbers" which wouldn't even need to be pre ionized.  One chlorine can grab up to four electrons.)  The important correlation of this theory is that the water molecules, or "mini capacitors" (as Meyer puts it), become "charged", prior to dissociation, with a type of energy which is not associated with placing extra electrons on the molecules.  Electrical potential can be directly converted into non local energy without any electron current because potential is an electromagnetic field.

And, speaking of charging a capacitor, radiant energy can place a heightened potential on one plate of a capacitor without changing the number of electrons on the other plate.

Amps are needed to produce the magnetic field which powers the transformer.  Minimal current at the cell doesn't mean there is no draw at the input to the circuit.  The key is to get rid of the amps in the output.  A resonant choke will only pass current at its resonant frequency.  With even a little detuning, the amps will quickly fall off and diminish.  A choke which completely blocks the current will still pass a high voltage longitudinal pulse.  (According to Farnsworth.)  What we should be looking at is what kind of energy is being applied to the cell?

To get high voltage (if there is any used) it requires power (Pin=Pout) -  no magic.

Then that's your answer.

The simple fact is, amps are going to jerk the water molecules back and forth.  Is this what Stan was doing?  If he used a rotating electric field, as a particle accelerator, then amps would play a role.  The moving water molecules would dissociate on impact with an electrode or other molecule.  But if the molecules are to remain stationary, so that they can be stretched apart with potential pulses only, then amps would have to be minimized.  Was he doing one thing and saying something else?

theres also the possibility he had a pretty good  science understanding , deliberately gave misleading information and had a quest for secrecy

its easier for a smart man to play stupid , than a stupid man to play smart

I do not see SM as being stupid at any point   ,    "KISS" s . meyer

I agree.  And by "KISS" I presume you mean "Keep It Short and Simple"?  I've been known to use this principle myself.

What rotating electric field? There isn't any.

He does describe a rotating electric field in his Hydrogen Generator patent.  But it depends on what stage of his development we look at, as well as the waveform, the electrical connection points, and even a slight protrusion of the outer grid's connection bolt (with a corresponding slot in the inner grid - to prevent shorts).  Rotation is produced by a quadrature signal (the TGS waveform, rather than the opposing 180 degree fields of the 8xA circuit), in conjunction with a 90 degree offset between the connection points.

Keep in mind that this is not the Resonant Cavity patent.  In that patent he states that the resonance frequency matches the time of travel of a water molecule between electrode impacts.  And it would seem that this time of travel should also depend on the voltage, as shown by Farnsworth.  BUT the resonance supposedly remains the same, in spite of ever increasing velocity.  And this part is unscientific.

As I said, his technology evolved.  He later claimed the molecules remained stationary and were stretched apart.  This would be similar to multi photon thermolytic decomposition.

There's no question that Stan Meyer had something. But what he was doing evolved with time.  He produced Hydrogen by chopping the output from an automotive alternator.  He also showed the process as being workable at 48 Volts, what he called "an extremely low voltage".  Then he said it needed to be "500 to 2,000 Volts", and later, at least a thousand Volts.  So it's doubtful that there's a magic threshold at which an extra ten or fifteen Volts will suddenly make it all happen.  Also, according to Wikipedia, electrical polarization can be produced at a very small potential.  And there's the issue of electrode design, to produce his "rotating electric field".

He said that he deliberately gave wrong or misleading information at times, even covered up some details, to "maintain secrecy".  Furthermore, he wasn't an expert scientist.  His statement that the Oxygen is completely converted to energy during the cold fusion process just isn't right.  (If this was the basis for his claim that one gallon of water contains as much energy as 200 barrels of oil, then that isn't correct.)  He also presented the cold fusion as being caused by replacing orbital electrons with pi muons.  At the time, muon catalysis was a scientific conjecture, but getting these particles isn't easy.  So LENR is a more accurate description of the process.

With his lack of scientific understanding, his quest for secrecy, and his always improving technology, it's little wonder that replication is difficult.  But I think the electrolysis part of his technology can be duplicated.  The cold fusion part of it (the OU) will require more information, perhaps from someone who has made a related, 'accidental' discovery.

What if the added capacitor is in series with the secondary?

Collective action of multiple electrons sounds like Dr. Ken Shoulders' work with charge clusters.  Smoke ring shaped groups of electrons have been shown repeatedly to produce transmutations of impact surfaces.  Now it seems a charge cluster can transform a hydrogen nucleus into a neutron, which would be immediately captured by a nearby heavy water molecule, to form the unstable isotope tritium.

This sure sounds like it could be related to Herman's system.

both air and water content of lower part of a cloud have electrons stripped , both air and water molecules are ionized , the lightning strike is a flow of current AFTER ionization process is over and done . theres no supply of electrons BEFORE ionization

So you're saying lightning is the RESULT of ionization, rather than the cause?  Actually, if lightning were splitting water, it's color would be violet, rather than blue or yellow.  Hydrogen, ionized and split from water, adds red to the discharge spectrum.  I've actually seen a skinny purple lightning bolt, but these are rare, close to the ground.

Ball lightning, being a Plasmoid, provides a different story.  There are many reports of tremendous explosions when ball lightning enters a body of water.  Plasmoid has ionizing radiation, and the BL does in fact split water.

the chemical explosion theory is a valid one , lightning is followed by thunder , an oddity which sounds not too dissimilar to a bomb going off but no ones supposed to ask or take a guess at what is actually exploding

When a lightning channel is suddenly filled with mega Joules of energy, the air in that channel moves outwards, at a super sonic speed.  This is something we hear as a loud bang.  After the discharge, the air pressure returns to normal, but there's nothing to push the air other than atmospheric pressure.  This does not produce a bang.  The atmosphere's elastic rebound is sub sonic.  How much Hydrogen recombination adds to thunder depends on how moist the air was, and how long the ionizing potential takes to decay.

There's more than one way to wind a bifilar coil.  An example which often comes to mind is Tesla's pancake coil.  He wound a flat coil, with two side by side wires spiraling outwards from the center.  When finished, the inner end of the second wire was brought out and connected to the outer end of the first wire.  Then the outer end of the second wire, together with the inner end of the first wire formed the coil's two leads.

This same system can be applied to a solenoid coil having two layers.  The end of the inner layer is brought back to the starting end, for the beginning of the second layer.  So the starting end of the inner layer, together with the far end of the outer layer comprise the two leads.

(http://s20.postimg.org/whalr0mlp/Tesla_Solenoid_Choke.jpg)

It can be seen that this is equivalent to using speaker wire to wrap Tesla's pancake coil, with the two layers stacked.  Doubling up on the two layer coils can provide a choke, depending on how the twin, two layer solenoid coils are connected to each other.

How did Meyer's Injector achieve focus fusion without Mega Amps in the spark, to produce a magnetic Z-pinch?

Yup. I agree here with yr explanation.
Its called a potential difference, is it.
One pole with more or less electrons then the other.

Potential takes the form of an rf field.  The field causes electrons and other charged particles to move.  The potential field itself doesn't have any electrons.  It's just a signal.  A difference of electrons built up on the two plates is the static charge.  Meyer shows two forces, the static charges and the pulsating potential - even when one plate is grounded.

When referring to mini caps being charged, he certainly wasn't talking about adding electrons to the Oxygen.  That would be only electrolysis.  The charge is the potential that the valence electrons have to fall back to lower levels.  There is no change in the number of electrons his water molecule has.  So this charging isn't static.

Natural water - not distilled or de ionized - contains a variety of ions.  There's even some amount of H2O2, or peroxide ions.  However, these ions don't have a 'vapor pressure' in the sence that removing them causes more to appear, maintaining some kind of balance.  The pressence of these ions is statistical; a certain amount of ions will be present after a certain, long enough, period of time.  Formation of spontaneous ions is not the key to Meyer's system.  He claimed that incrementally moving the electrons away from the valance band regions requires less energy than a normal process.  And I tend to agree with him.  This is the basis of his system's heightened efficiency, at the water spliting stage.  I read about one test using pulses at 1.1 MHz which resulted in 96 percent less energy requirement.

"you have than monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen that subsequently forms diatomic molecules liberating heat and coming out as a bubble... " "the point is how to charge the water molecules? till the point where this happens?"

Stan said that the water molecules act as "micro capacitors" in the circuit.  As the surrounding plates are charged, this places a charge on the micro capacitors.  This is a non electron charge, which is related to pure potential.  Pure potential is produced by radiant energy coming from a pulsating static charge.  Or by a complex field which equates to static energy.  A positive potential is an absence of electrons.

I already told you I quoted the wrong video.  Why are you ignoring what I said?  And why are you calling me a liar, instead of the person who made the video?  Besides, YOU were the one who brought up the subject of standing waves.  Why don't YOU tell us the effect of a standing wave on the coils which are positioned along it? 

I think you claim the waveform is impossible just because YOU can't make it.  Speaking of which, where have YOU shown a standing wave, with all your 'hands on' experience?

And I also told you someone doesn't have to build the same hardware he shows to infringe on his patents.  Are you using 'deliberate amnesia' to justify continued defamatory statements?  I am still copying what you say.  Ignoring that as well?