haithar

- relatively small frequency range
- why would anyone need 10Amps?
- is the duty cycle stable or varies with frequency like dave lawtons?
- huge box, we are not in the 80s, there are computers nowadays
- 100$?

After dynodons plate cell video i'm not even sure if stanley meyer found something interesting at all. Hundreds of watts do not sound like anything extra ordinary or overunity.

THANKS Dankie, I'm learning about H-bridge circuits as I sit here, maybe Haithar has something workable to share

Are we all to bow to Meyer around here or suffer the condescention?  sheezzzz

No sorry, it didn't work. Maybe the setup wasn't as perfect as it should have been, but the water wasn't changing. I was working with pure voltage only, no current except for the displacement currents and losses. You can read it on my member subforum.
My setup didn't have anything to do with a H bridge though and i can't think of a possible setup to make use of a H bridge. 

Thanks Warp.
With your experience, did only the amplitude of the voltage matter or the frequency? Did you use square waves, rectified sine waves or alteranting current (sine-wave)?
I may connect my flyback-transformer to a single cell and see if i can get some voltage onto it, see what happens.

Thanks for the reply Warp. Although i do understand the essence of the first part of your text i'm having difficulties with the second part. You suggest a rapid voltage change in direction (alternating voltage) to rip the water molecule apart, is that right? Isn't that against Meyers documents? And if you call Meyer a joke, why bother to investigate further if the impulse in doing research was his work?

Being half-way through my ee bachelor and reading some of Meyer's documents it comes to my mind that it probably isn't any more than an ordinary capacitor with polarisation (as he essentially says and calls it 'electrical polarization process').
There's electron-polarisation happening which moves the nucleus around in the electrical field. Note that in a pure electrical alternating field no thermal energy is 'created'. There's also displacement-polarisation in water, because the dipoles will align in an electrostatic field. Now either of this things [or others] COULD happen:
1. dielectric breakdown of water, the electrical charge on the capacitor walls (stainless steel) is nullified as current through the water, ordinary electrolysis. however the displacement currents would have to be smaller than the freed breakdown-current if it was overunity.
2. no dielectric breakdown must occur. the rapid changing state of molecules (polarised -> alignment; no voltage -> back to statistical equillibrium) in the electrical field without electrons going through the water (amp inhibiting) leads to a force which exceed the nuclear forces. while i think this is very unlikely it's the theory according to Stan Meyer.
However this all is only interesting under the assumption that he indeed got it to work as many documents and media coverage suggest.
While on the other hand numerous experiments from people on this and other forums suggest the opposite.

Nothing to achieve really. Even people who devote their life to this don't progress (waterforfuel.com etc.) and people who may have something (warp?) don't publish in the way necessary to replicate it.
The only important thing is the overunity electrolysis, the other parts may require much work but aren't the problem.
I have lost the belief that stanley meyer's electrolysis is either real or overunity.

and that was the last thing ever heard about stanley meyer's equipment.

He's probably talking about Zener-Diodes, judging by the symbol of them.
They conduct at a specific voltage in both directions.

i'd use oil as the insulator, that way you won't have gaps in insulation like air or other "leaky" spots

why don't you just use 3 phase wall plugs? 

it's interesting but not overunity. since he's in the megahertz range i'm sure there is energy transfer which enables electrolysis.

haithar, universal gas law only applies if a hydrogen and oxygen and air gas mixture is considered an ideal gas


is it an ideal gas? i never ventured to determine if it was or not, yet...


some experiments could be done to compare it to steam, or air, and we have all the values from the steam tables and air tables, in the back of any thermodynamics textbook, they may be close but so far i think they will be slightly different

the results are more or less accurate nevertheless and i'd think better than "A rough figure I know"

20°C, 1atm pressure:
2024 cm³/g = 2024liters gas per kilogram/liter water.

molar mass water: 18.05 g/mol
=> 55.4 mol/kg

1 mol water -> 1.5 mol H2 + O2
universal gas law: 1.5 * 55.4 * 8.314 * 293 / 105 m3 = 2.024 m3 = 2024 l

How much power do you need for that?