Steve

Quote

Every oxygen atom is surrounded by 4 hydrogen atoms. If you build that into like a 3Dcluster, you see that it is practically impossible to get some kind of polarization in it.

Since oxygen has a higher electronegativity than hydrogen, water is a polar molecule. The oxygen has a slight negative charge while the hydrogens have a slight positive charge giving the article a strong effective dipole moment. The interactions between the different dipoles of each molecule cause a net attraction force associated with water's high amount of surface tension.

Electrons are not always shared equally between two bonding atoms: one atom might exert more of a force on the electron cloud than the other. This "pull" is termed electronegativity and measures the attraction for electrons a particular atom has. The unequal sharing of electrons within a bond leads to the formation of an electric dipole: a separation of positive and negative electric charge.

water is a polar compound making it a dipole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_molecule#Polar_molecules

now when h2o is sitting next to it self it may hold a neutral cohesion between its neighboring compounds(h20) wheres it has the brick patter effect off consistancy like you say.. but because theres 4 next to the oxy they are not all bonded to the oxy.. only 2 per oxy..  stan said all you have to do to turn water to gas is get the water polarized and let the voltage take over and do work by voltage tickling and plucking electrons.  when the water dipoles line up in polarization its like you just formed a capacitor.!! a capacitor material inside is solid dipole material. why do you think some caps have one direction flow for cu.. its because the dipole materials inside are polarly aligned for capacitance


outlawstc

The force of the H sitting on 1 oxygenatom towards the Oxygenatom from his neighbours is almost as big as the bonding to his own Oxy.
Thats why water has such a strenght. Its because of the all attractions inside it.
Please try to think in 3D.

Please read my research:
http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,602.0.html

Just a small part of it:
Each oxygen atom is typically surrounded by four hydrogens--two close ones from its own molecule, and two further away on nearby molecules
The oxygen has a negative charge, and the hydrogens a bit more positive--a charge separation called a dipole.
In water, the dipoles are already partially aligned. This without any applied voltage field
Clusters of nearby molecules act as a single, larger dipole, enhancing the field more than they would on their own
Each oxygen pulls the hydrogens further from the oxygen in neighboring molecules, which increases the charge separation within each molecule and therefore the strength of each molecule's individual dipole.

I think we are not so far from eachother on this..

Best regards
Steve

Quote from: haithar on March 24, 2009, 23:01:35 pm

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.

actually he does.

listen to the tom talks tesla interview from 9:39 on.....he names people that he works with in his group and what they have invented.

your judging a person you don't know a thing about.

im not sure what's more flawed...his quantum equation or your assumptions.

Kinesisfilms,

I found that document of Bearden very interesting to read. However. There is not much of body in it that proves something.
I know the record of Mr Bearden and he deserves lots of respect. But if a person like Bearden is publishing such a doc, then i think its very thin.
Then please show testresults. A real sciencetist proves statements with decent testresults. Mr. Bearden was such a scientist. Not sure if he has lost it somehow. Any professor at my old university will laugh on such a paper. Even my daughter must publish here testresults as prove of here statements in scienceclass.

br
Steve

Quote from: kinesisfilms on March 24, 2009, 18:29:35 pm

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.

Quote from: stevie1001 on March 24, 2009, 19:25:30 pm

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?

Good question. I wonder this my self many times.....
My answer is that i keep an open mind on things that are unknown. Like, that it is strange that somebody is making statements, like Stan Meyer, in patents. Statements like vapourizing 5 gallons of water in a minute. He was granded a Patent on it. So he must have showed it. Of course it seems impossible to get that much of results with such a very small tubeset, btw. (I ran my tests. No matter how much power you put in that tube, you never get 5 gallons vapourized)

But i gamble on 3 developments.
I have improved electrolysis with a system that doesnt need chemicals. I run engines on that system.
I do research on electrolysis with use of NOAH or KOH for comparison reasons.
And the unknown technology's, like Meyer, Puharich and many many many others and of course some stuff that i do myself.

I am curious from nature. If there is more outthere, i wanna know it.

Oh, and before i forget:
This forum helps me and the members to get idea's. To share idea's. Sometimes we have fights here. But thats ok. We are all the same. We are researchers. Each on our own levels. There is only 1 stupid question here. The question that is never asked.....

So Haithar, please stay. Stay critical.

Best regards
Steve

stan says current creates chaos in the cell. it doesnt allow the water to polarize. the polarization process happens because of no current and its between the 2 different vectors. one vector is giving clockwise the other counter. one is bombarded with electrons the other holes.. a storm has a high and a storm has a low.. a tornado is no different then a lighting strike in a sence in comparison its transfers of potential are happening realtivly slow and in massive current?


outlawstc

Hi Outlawstc,

I like your theory's very much. 
But i have some questions for a long time on my mind, like have you ever asked yourself how the watermolecule looks like when polarized?
Every oxygen atom is surrounded by 4 hydrogen atoms. If you build that into like a 3Dcluster, you see that it is practically impossible to get some kind of polarization in it. The other thing is that water is not 1 substance. Not 1 cluster, as to speak. It hold multiple clusters.
Current is aligning the clusters. Make is into strings. A string can be resonated. A non string cannot. Glas can be resonated. Wool not.
If there is something to be resonated on atomic level, then where do we need to look for? The nucleus? The electrons?
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.

Well, i am not totally honest here. I have made in the past a transmitter which had a 7.8hz modulation on it. That aparatus enterd the human bodycells.
And it had a great effect on the health of people. So, a RF signal, like FM in my case, can penetrate water very good as well.
So, we have actually 2 options: current or RF to reach the watermols.

br
Steve
BINGO, 1000 posts

Quote from: haithar on March 24, 2009, 14:38:24 pm

the fact alone that he attests John Kanzius a Dr. title makes the whole pdf dubious and untrustworthy.

lol

and for anyone who is questioning tom bearden's authenticity.....

He was a nuclear engineer, wargames analyst, and military tactician, Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Tom bearden has over 26 years experience in air defense systems, tactics and operations; technical intelligence, antiradiation missile countermeasures; nuclear weapons employment, computerized wargames; and military systems requirements.

Tom Bearden obtained a Master of Science degree in nuclear engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from Northeast Louisiana University.  He is also a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College and several U.S. Army artillery and missile schools.

This is the foreword of a research book and is written by John T. Ratzlaff.


so even if bearden gave a person the title Dr........he himself is far more credible then your one superimposed statement.

lol.

Looks like a perfect CV for a counter intelligence agent? 

br
Steve

Wow, just 1 post away from the 1000 posts. What will i give myself as present?

First: The pdf of Bearden is nice.
Second: What does he mean with it all?
Its in the Stan Meyer bla bla bla category, if you ask my opinion.
All the stuff makes sence on the first view, but at the end its all crap.

I say this from a practical point of view.
I tried to hit the water with HV spikes. I tried to hit the water with LV spikes. NO difference at all.
Have you ever shot a gun into water? If not, then watch the Mythbusters on TV. They performed that once.
As you can see, the bullet from a 0.50, which is very powerfull, didnot come futher then 1 meter and thats that.
So, water has a structure that consumes energy's.
It's a perfect filter for all kind of materials. Look into your cup of thee when sugar is dissapearing.
So, what about voltage spikes? Well, to make them "punch a hole", you need current flowing.
If you hit it with NO current, then the spike will go NO where.
So, you need current. Well, Stan and I agree on that part. Lucky for him...
I think Bearden will agree on that as well. Mr. Kanzius used also lots of power for his tests.

Not sure where i go with this post, but anyway. The only option left is the golden middle.
Try like 0.5 amps on your cell and pulse on top of that some spikes and see what comes out of that.
In phase or 180 degrees out of phase...I do not care at this moment.
At the end you have a voltage potential with electrons flowing = current.
If you do not use a steady limited currentflow, the water will always return into equilibrium.
SO, all the trouble of pulling the molecules apart will be for nothing.

There is one exception. It seems to be possible to gain the freed electrons with an EEC circuit.
There are some options open.


br
Steve

Some notes i made on the patent 4936961

Water molecule have opposite electrical fields.
A voltage puls causes initially randomly orientated molecules in the liquid to SPIN
and orient themselves with reference to positive and negative poles of the voltage field applied.

Even a slight potential difference applied causes the orientated molecules to align themselves between the plates.

The result of using pulses is that the energy level of the ATOMS increases and the MOLECULES elongate.
Electrically charged nuclei and electrons are atrackted towards opposite electrically electrodes
, disrupting the mass and charge equilibrium of the water molecule.


As voltage rises, because of the charging of the watercapacitor, the atracktion force grows in strength.
As a result, the co-valent bonding between atoms which forms the molecule is weakend and ultimataly terminated.

Xc must be smaller than Xl, so it's an impedance mismatch between chokes and wfc, agree? But this is also frequency dependent.
Bt why are they matched early on in the brief?
RF occurs as spikes during the edges (puharich).

And still, reflection (RF spikes reflected back from wfc to chokes) keeps entering my mind. 
Voltage is seen then, but no power is absorbed by wfc.
 
something like that, forgot it a bit because of the twisted stuff lately.

Alan is right, Dankie.

Do you know what happens if you use a pulsing circuit on a WFC in the water?

Steve

Stevie , I think sometimes you are just running around in circles , did you even make that GEET working ?

There is no magic magic way to connect a randomly made choke and the "BEMF" super spikes do the work . There is a whole tuning aspect here , and these inductive spikes are just a part of it .

Dankie, if you wanna know how my geet project is going, then go to my geet project.

About my question: did you understand the question?

Steve

Note from another site:

In an electrochemical reaction (electrolysis of water for example), a back emf is produced when the reaction components (like hydrogen and oxygen) try to recombine and produce a voltage which opposes the forward emf which is causing the electrolysis.

continue:

True-RMS meters can handle non-sin waveforms but the errors can be large,
particularly if the waveform isn't symetrical about the zero axis. Your
circuit has a single FET and single voltage rail so I suspect the waveform
isn't symetrical about zero (more like half the supply voltage).

There are lots of ways to improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process
but no way to exceed 100%. Wikipedia reports 80% and a prediction that 94%
might be achievable.

continue:

The first question to be answered is how are you measuring the current
and voltage and what is the accuracy with the given frequency and
waveform?

Peak to peak voltage is meaningless without other information.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Jim, I am using a Fluke RMS current meter. It is not fooled by high
frequency pulses
However at 16 KHz a typical current shunt will not be effected that much at
all.
As fas as the shunt is concerned it's seing DC. Your right. Voltage is
suppose to be meaningless with electrolysis. It's the current. The supply
is regulated to 30 volts. The point is current went down and gas production
went up and the voltage drop across the resistor confirms I am pulling less
current.. The supply will not put out more the 30 volts so the 80 volt PP
has to be back EMF from the coil. Remember I am current limited. Even with
max current 4.3 amps it's still less gas then with the pulse and choke. So
even if I was really drawing 4.3 with the choke and pulse curcut it can't
pull more then 4.3 amps through the resistor. I should note that the choke
is in series with the cell. It appears there is some interaction with the
cell as part of circut and is indeed acting like capacitor. I am not your
typical youtube idiot. I am 100% confedent in my observations. I don't
however claim to know what it means. All this happens real time.
If I dial the frequency to far one way or other the gas production goes down
and tracks current. Another reason I am confedent with my measurments.

I have a theory that the pulses and back EMF is simply rasing the volatge
potential between the cell plates some how? It takes current to do that but
in this case less current.

Hi,

I just read the following.
Its interesting enough to publish:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-04/msg02346.html

I ran some experiments today using pulsed frequency with a tube electrolyze
similar to the Stan Meyer's. I believe he was a fraud and still do but some
interesting things were observed in a controlled experiment using tap water.

Note that I have current limited the supply with a resistor. The max draw
is 4.3 amps possible.

With the cell connected directly I was pulling 4.3 amps.
Gas production is 60 CC.

I devised a simple mosfet pulsed circuit using a signal generator
The cell produced peak flow
at 40 CC with a draw of 2.85 amps /30 volts at about 16 KHZ. That seems to
be the best range. The scope reads about 45 volts peak to peak.

Now something interesting occurs when I add a large iron core copper choke.
The current draw goes down to 2.51 amps and it produces a steady 68 CC
of gas. The scope climbs to 78 volt's PP. This would suggest that back EFM
is playing some role in the dissociation. Conventional theory suggest that
only current can play a role. This would seem to debunk that. I am very
confedent with my numbers but I have
no clue what they mean. The less current drawn and the more gas output the
more the mosfet heats up and I would expect that.

I think Meyers was on to something but far from running your car on water
of course. This expierment did open my eye's on how stan could have fooled
people. There is a visual increase of gas output that looks like an order of
magnatude. Note that I said Looks like. ;o)

yea i dono too much about it, do you? i'm trying to learn what they are all about because i see some similarities

Well, the balun is for matching impedance differences.
Its used in HF techniques for matching antenna's. That way you get an optimum in power transfer between transmitter and antenna.
If you do not match the 2 components, no power will be transmitted into the air and yr powertransistor will heat up, because it cannot deliver his power.

The resonance charging chokes are mostly for powersupplys. With a resonance charging choke, you can use a smaller transformer.
The chargin choke and diode, are setup in a way that it will deliver max twice the voltage as the powersupply can deliver.
Have a look at the this website.
Richie is very clear in his explanation. But there are others on the web also explaning the same fenomenon.

Br
Steve

Hi,

I found some more info on resonant charging chokes.

br
Steve

The term: bleed off the electrons would be a better choice then?



Steve

Sometime some people on other forums also come up with interesting theory's.
Here is one that shook me up.
Its about one of Stan Meyers theory:

Electrons are not consumed by a lamp or a bulb, or a resistor. Electrons are vibrating or moving. When the electrons go into a lightbulb filament they just pass through it, they do not get "burnt" or "convert into heat". They simply slow down their speed.

This is the biggest issue I have with stan meyer. He claimed to be an electronics expert and he doesn't even know that electrons are not consumed in a circuit. At least, in his patents he misleads people into thinking that electrons can be consumed in a light bulb.

Crackpots and quacks on the forums are now going around thinking the electron extraction circuit is all about "consuming electrons" in the light bulb. No such thing occurs in a light bulb. I guess these people think that electrons get consumed and burnt off (like some kind of wood in a fire).

Even if it were the case that electrons were "burnt off", this would be very dangerous and would reduce the mass of our world very very quickly. The earth might become some kind of atomic bomb waiting to explode.

So if stan was not a fraud, then someone better come up with an explanation how electrons are "Extracted", because they sure aren't "burnt off" in a light bulb. Anyone with basic electronics experience should know that electrons are not "burnt off" just because a light is shining bright.

So, what you think on this?

I heard one specific description of Meyers tube cells, twice, by two close Meyer relatief personage.
1 was Steve Meyer other one was the parent of Meyer.
Both man said independent of eachother that the tubecell produced sparks between the inner and outer tube.

So what does that mean?
High voltage discharge! Electron avalanche.
You see my point here?
Pulses DC with current, followed by high voltage pulses!
Pulsetrains...
Just like Anderson did, btw...etc etc..

The thing is that is should be easy to get a 3.5 inch sphere and a pwm....

No fancy items.
adjustment of the pulse width is a must, as you crank up voltage and because you want to limit current somewhere in the proces....
During tinkering we should see some sweet points...

So, thats on my agenda now...
And if we have figured out how this works, we can move one.....