haithar

-> I meant the power of the discharge. There is no power per time unit which is used in electrical engineering. Of course you could derive power by time to calculate the usage in power plants or the cost, but it has nothing to do with energy really.I'd let it go but other people may read it and learn it wrong.

You're contradicting yourself here

1 watt/1 second is = 10w/0,1 second


1/1 = 1 but 10/0,1 = 100 and that cannot be the same obviously. however
1 Watt*second = 10Watt*0,1 second = 1 Joule

1 joule = 1 watt / second

no!
i don't know how often i read W/s now in this and other forums.


1 Watt = 1 Joule / second   or   1 joule = 1 Watt * second

If you charge the inductor with one watt in one second and than discharge this inductor in 1 nano second you are creating a 1 Giga joule discharge.

No.
You charge it with 1J = 1Ws and discharge it within 1ns then you'll have a 1GW discharge in that time, not 1 GJ. 

I have not yet had the opportunity to duplicate this portion of the experiment but, in time I vill. 

I'll wait for that

yes, Volume of HHO-Gas Converted ~ 1800 * Volume of Water

Just look at his website and cv and notice obvious things which disqualify him. He failed to complete his degree in engineering, got stuck in the alternative medicine scene and his Dr. which he's probably proud of because he mentions it before his name around one million times is from this respectable "college" where you can get your doctor, master, diploma or whatever you want if you only stay there for a few months (and "donate" some money i guess..). it's all fake but he's making a living of it so he has to answer, even if it's obviously very vague answers.

someone bring us a good laugh and ask him to upload his dissertation.

i'm out of this thread

whats this "*"? is it a wordfiltered word?`what is it?

isn't "Jesus Christ is Lord" a phrase that all these religious people are using?

They probably measured the input to the motor, divided it by 9 for each tube and then measured the gas output.
If i remember correct the alternator circuit didn't even have a vic, only the pulsing waveform for the motor?

Okay yesterday i had a discussion with electrojolt with the result that we both believed stan's demo tubecell was not only not overunity, but very inefficient.
I have given it a thought over the night and day and since i had come to that conclusion yesterday only based on vague memories of electrolysis efficiency i got my calculator out and tried some things.

Here are the assertions needed:
-  pressure meter measures in PSI not in Atmospheres
-  the voltage and current values were not going into the circuit at all but directly into the tubes, no power loss at other components
-  there is no electrical polarization process and it's normal electrolysis
-  1 liter [volume] = 10³ cm³ = 10³ cc = 1000 cc
-  the faraday constant is 96485C/mol, it’s the charge on which 1 mole of a substance is created
-  stan created 470ml / minute at 40 Amps (12,5V) – NOT 7l/min
-  the decomposition voltage of 100% efficient electrolysis of water is 1,23V
-  1As create 0,19cc of gas (*http://www.chemieonline.de/forum/showpost.php? p=263191&postcount=14)

With 40A of current, 60s of time, 1,23V of minimum voltage, regular electrolysis at 100% should create 40A * 60s * 0,19cc = 456cc gas. This requires 1,23V * 40A * 60s = 2,95kJ of energy.

The 4cc for an hour at this current like stated in the test is ridiculous and wrong.

Stan created 470cc in 60 seconds using the same current, that is roughly 100% the faraday efficiency. The assumption was that it is normal electrolysis, so not 12.5V * 40A create gas, only 49,2W of the 500W do this, the rest is dissipated as heat. This is of course very inefficient, although the current/charge use in general is very good. The numbers of the only published test result and of course the nature of the invention speak against him.

Although there are factors which speak for him: Several people, including a tv documentary, noticed NO heat creation when 450W of heat should have been dissipated, there are several people who claim to have replicated the invention (in parts), the circuit (if used) is well known as a voltage multiplier which wouldn’t allow for a current that high.
My conclusion is that if the test data is real the EPP exists, although the efficiency of that process is not known and may be under unity. It is very unlikely to have a common electrolysis process with that gas creation for the charge put in.
It is also likely that the 500Watts were going into the circuit total (for the motor which drives the alternator for example) and were not used wholly for gas creation purposes as asserted.

can we stay ontopic here?

No,your not looking at this right.When you pressurize the 1 litre cavity above the water in the test cell to 14.7 psi,then release it into another 1 litre bottle,both bottles will be at zero pressure.If you have any pressure left,it will balance out between the two.Then that means you have more than 1 litre in each bottle.
When you start out with the air cavity space above the water,it is at 1 atmosphere.When you pressurize that cavity to 14.7 psi,now your at two atmospheres.Then when you release that pressure into another 1 litre cavity,you end up with 1 atmosphere in each bottle.
0 psi on a pressure gauge is equal to 1 atmosphere.
If you make 1 litre a minute, than that is equal to 1 atmosphere of pressure or 14.7 psi,in a 1 litre cavity.
Hope this helps
Don

yes indeed, thanks.

My friend and I did a test.We pressurized a one litre cavity to 15 psi,knowing that atmoshere pressure is 14.7.Then the pressurized one litre cavity was released into an inverted bottle water test.
It only filled the bottle once exactly.
So to make one litre a minute with a cavity of one litre volume,you will need to pressurize it to 14.5 psi.
So what does this mean?
Stan's demo cell was only producing @ 500 cc per minute!!!

I don't exactly know what you are saying.
You know that 14.7 psi is 1 atmosphere, if there was air in the cavity or something other than vacuum it had this 1 atm of pressure, so you pressurized it to 15 psi, a difference of roughly 0.3psi? This 0.3psi difference gave you 500cm³ with a bottle test?
so how do you know that stan's cell did produce 500cm³ / minute from that? also the bottle test equally distributes pressure between your bottle and the cavity and is not a very accurate way of measuring the volume of gas.
as you know from the gas equation p1*v1 = p2*v2. so if you have greater volume available (cavity + bottle) the pressure will sink, but how do you want to know how much gas you produced from this method?

or did you pressure it from 1 atm to 2 atm (14.7psi+15psi)?

Try this one...
 
12v at 100amps/hour
in serie with
2V  at 100amp / second
 
=
14V at 100amp/sec ??
 
 
Steve

there is no unit of current per time.
12V with a charge of 100Ah and 2V with 100As would be 14V at 100A for 1s. After that 12-14V with <100Ah or even less, because the 2V battery will be charged probably.

4389981.pdf shows an engine running on HHO with ambient air as regulator. This i have done. It works.
5293857.pdf  adds the ambient air processor and exhaust gasses. I have added on my running engine on HHO my own
                     airprocessor and i seen the positive results of it. I must admitte that adding exhaust gasses didnt do anything at
                     all in my setup, but i am researching on that.

is there a thread which contains more information about this?
i've realized that 1. the gas created by a Ravi type cell may not be H2 / O2 only and 2. fuel cells are horribly expensive (2000€ for 25W  )

Can you explain more? I did not read this thread except for this last page with the supposed 0 power factor video.


A bifilar coil can either restrict current (in my tests a quadruplication of inductance if connected in a way that the current is aligned) or nullify inductance nearly completely (if connected in a way that the current is opposed) and if pulsed right double the number of pulses (did it with my own setup). What else is expected?

He says that he's getting 15W or so out while putting 187V*1.45A in, power factor close to zero, but not really zero (see it in the oscilloscope).
so lets calculate the power factor for this conversion cos phi = 15W/(187*1.45VA) = 0.055.
That may be what the oscilloscope showed so nothing abnormal here, i guess?  

outlaw, thanks for the diagram.
however i have some questions.
what is the red circle on the electron extraction? where is the copper bifilar going to?
it's also confusing that you speak on electrons and holes (positive charge i guess?) in a circuit diagram. are you referring to the technical or the physical current? that is important because of the diodes and in which direction they have to be set.

why should you believe me? i didn't invent a theory for anyone to believe, also i'm only a college student.
of course i will revoke all my criticism if any physicist with credit understands the paper or actually accept parts of it, or i'll see tom bearden flying around space in his unlimited energy ufo.
anways, i just wanted to point out that the tone of the article is not what i would consider neutral or reliable, supported by things like incomplete research on persons. but it seems as if these things don't count here, i'll be glad if anyone informs me if he has a working zero-point energy device, as long as that is not the case i'm out.

regards

much not physics related stuff

what has being in the army to do with developing theories for our universe? that doesn't give him any credibility nor takes it. i dont care if anyone has a title or not as long as he is doing good research.

and who would say that (space-)time is the same as energy? maybe someone can explain this.

If a voltage spike can perform work, as Stan said, then what part would it tickle? It doesnt reach into the free floating waterclusters without current.

stevie, if you do not believe that voltage under some circumstances can perform work, which is understandable, why do you put further effort into researching the meyer technology? or did you stop with that after you became aware of this thought?