Stanley Meyer demystified
Started by unknown · · 55 posts · last reply 1 September 2023
-
#26 ·
Yes gpt is every day worse.. few months ago was incredible … today it’s a lot dumber and lazy -
#27 · date not recorded
Just need to wind 200 turn bifilar chokes on the other half of the toroid now. I first wrapped the MgZn ferrite toroid with 600v polyvinyl electrical tape. Then wrapped the secondary with 6 layers at fifty turns each of 20awg wire(300 turns total), and wrapped each layer with the same 600v electrical tape (1st attached pic).
Then I wrapped 4 layers at 37 turns each of 14awg wire(148 turns total), also wrapping each layer with electrical tape (2nd attached pic)
I didn't follow Stan's specs, but I followed Tesla's trick of equal weight of windings. I wrapped the primary on top of the secondary to maximize mutual induction, and both windings are wrapped in the same direction (again to maximize mutual induction forces).
The bifiliar chokes will also be wrapped in the same direction (you guessed it, to maximize mutual induction forces).attachment_16928 attachment_16930 20230715_074222.jpg 20230715_095554.jpg
-
#28 ·
Taking a break from hand-winding the torroid (hands are sore from straightening that 14awg as I wound)...
Anyway, I was messing with the ignition coil circuit again and did some more rigorous tests (video soon)...I was more right 12 years ago 🤦♂️😅
It's not a postive feedback loop....threw me for a loop because it is operating in flyback polarity 100%...it's so much simpler...kinda bummed it doesn't reroute the self/mutual inductions....it just omits them all together. But it's definitely not ionizing the airgap with the forward induced pulse and dumping the cap across the air-gap....
It's still free power amplification, but not as eloquent as I imagined.
Anyway...remember a standard ignition coil is an autotransformer, just like a variac...but the wiper arm isn't movable (its a center-tap), and the coil is assymetrical (way higher impedance on the secondary portion).
So, there's two ways to run a variac...step-down (usual mode), and step-up (not common).
In step-down mode, the source is applied across the entire coil, and the load/output is on the bottom of the coil and the wiper arm. For ease of calculations, let's say source is 240v across the entire coil, and there are 240 turns....that means 1v/turn. So whatever turn you set the wiper arm to is the voltage output 240-0v...so setting it to midway, 120 turns, outputs 120v.
Now, step-up mode....reverse source and load....source is on the bottom of the coil, and the wiper arm. Load is across entire coil....so, coil is still 240 turns, but source is now 120v....it's still 1v/turn, so if we set source to 120 turns, it's 120v at midway, plus another 120 turns up to load...@1v/turn it's 120v+120v...load sees 240v
So, back to the ignition coil....it's a variac in step-up mode (just induction optimized and wayyyyy more turns, and thinner windings higher up the series coil)...if we remember back to the behavior of a capacitor across an inductor...voltage transfers instantly across the inductor, before current (therefore before opposite induction voltage)....so, instantaneously before any induced pulse, there is a huge current-less step-up voltage in phase with applied primary voltage at HV lead....making it HV+....
The current hasn't left the capacitor yet, but the diodes are turned on to conduct, and the LV+ is many orders of magnitude below the HV+, so it conducts the LV+ away from the primary inductor, the HV+ only losses a tiny voltage potential because it's impedance/turns is/are so much higher, then the remaining HV+ pulls the current up from the LV-, amplifying the total wattage for free....
In the video, I'm going to make, I will show the 3-contact spark-gap I remembered. The infamous "split the positive" setup I did all the years ago, and it's waaaaay more reliable and obvious (this ties into so many OU devices)...I'm gonna try and get it on super-slowmo too...I put some UV glasses on and you can actually see the spark from the HV+ and the current coming up from the LV-. The neon is pushed so far over-rating the orange neon is blue-white, and the negative is sputtering metal onto the glass (super high-velocity electrons/ions)....I need to get ahold of ionizing smoke detector and see if it's pushing x-rays....but one more video first lol
I figured it out through a couple of observations (like the more energetic arc can't jump as long of a gap as the normal inductive flyback arc...so must be lower voltage), but most notably when messing with the tri-spark-gap configuration (split-positive)....I made the gap to the negative too far, and the HV lead Arc'd to the diodes (LV+), and not to the LV- at all....it fried the diode chain, and I realized the HV+ arc'd to LV+ as LV- bias and over-voltaged the 6k reverse voltage of the chain...
Here's where I verified what I thought I remembered...lol
https://eepower.com/technical-articles/constructing-and-operating-an-autotransformer/
Anyway, gonna make the video now...takes forever to upload these days...will post a follow up with it soon.
P.S. I think this may relate to Stan's negative choke (wiper arm)....especially looking at something said to P85 years ago by a person who knew his shit on Stan's setup...yes P85, I be lurking lol....the guy who told you how to wire Lawton PLL...
[EDIT]...
As the HV+ pulls the current from the LV-, there must be "Chain-Linked" reverse current flow out of the primary (same as flyback collapse) which would increase the HV+ charge....so there is some positive feedback....it's just not the "prime-mover" like I thought. -
#29 ·
One thing I was thinking
Meyer patent gives turns ratios and the voltage input 100 volts
This could give insight about the core he used on the patent
I use the common formula for pulsed transformer
Where turns equals =
Volts / bmax / area m2 / frequency / 2
If it was bidirectional pulse or square wave the last factor is 4 and for sine 4,4
Bmax is usually 0,3 Tesla for ferrite and 1,2 for lamination
-
#30 · date not recorded
Youtube will not publish my video...it's failed twice -
#31 · date not recorded
One thing I was thinking
Meyer patent gives turns ratios and the voltage input 100 volts
This could give insight about the core he used on the patent
I use the common formula for pulsed transformer
Where turns equals =
Volts / bmax / area m2 / frequency / 2
If it was bidirectional pulse or square wave the last factor is 4 and for sine 4,4
Bmax is usually 0,3 Tesla for ferrite and 1,2 for lamination
There is one time where Stan gives example, including core....600 turn 36awg secondary, 200 turn 24 awg primary, 100 turnrn 24 awg chokes....says it's a 1.5" diameter, 1/2" thick "Ferramic 06# "Permag" ferrite toroid.
He then says "An alternate coil arrangement using a conventional M27 iron transformer core is shown in FIG. 9. The coil wrap is always in one direction only." -
#32 · date not recorded
Finally...I forgot to mention in video, for a split-second, just as current starts to flow, mutual-inductance overpowers autotransformer voltage and the HV lead is HV-...this triggers the diode conduction, which pulls LV+ off of primary.
Secondly, when this happens and forward mutual-induction is nullified, and HV+ pulls the current out of the primary, the current is reversed (same as flyback collapse), it would mutually-induct HV+ increase...so there is still some positive feedback, just a little different then I thought.
[youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=blKc26x6o8g[/youtube] -
#33 · date not recorded
As stated in a related thread...I have been on vacation with the family, and then had a lot of things to get done before winter rain starts here on the west-coast. Haven't had a lot of time, but I have been doing what I can, when I can.
I analyzed this circuit with my oscilloscope at a lower input power (12v signal generator). I have discovered two isolated, and inverted current flows (opposite direction) existing simutaneously within the ignition secondary. However, at such a low power, I was unable to trigger the phenomena shown in this video. I have come to the conclusion that there is a threshold voltage and/or current to trigger the phenomena shown, as I observed both currents, but could not get the HV lead to reverse direction as shown, I believe the current density (magnetism, ie self/mutual induction) is the overcoming factor, and the autotransforming action is the initiator, so it seems that the phenomena is neither of the two hypothesized modes of operation...instead it is a combination of both simutaneously. The autotransformer voltage distribution, and the rerouting/regauging of the opposing self/mutual induction are both prime-movers or essential factors in this phenomena. With focus on a low impedance primary, and a high(er) impedance secondary joined into one assymetrical autotransformer. (I want to attempt this on my very low impedance toroidal transformer so bad, but I'm scared I will short the secondary...I will do it, as I can re-wind it, but I need to do some more resonance tests first...lol)
In between active experiments and tests, I reanalyzed many of Stan's patents, most specifically his illustrations. Upon doing so, I made what I believe to be, a huge revelation. 14yrs ago, I was super excited about this circuit, and intuitively proclaimed it was the key...I now believe that more than ever!!!
After re-analyzing Stan's patent diagrams....I see this EXACT circuit in his circuit diagrams. Instead of a dual-pole, dual-throw relay/toggle....he used an SCR to deliver the EXACT same input. I will proceed to prove this in the following posts to come, and furthermore, I will show that Stan's "Electron Extraction Circuit" is the "split positive" diode chain in my circuit. -
#34 ·
I am posting currently from my cell phone...I recently moved my PC desk and my work station to create a proper work area. I need to finish setting up my PC so I can edit these illustrations with color overlays to make my observations visually obvious to others. But, for a "teaser" to my revelation, I will post the unedited key illustration(s) from Stan's patents now, and verbally explain it.
If you analyze the attached illustration(s), specifically 8b, you will see the "Voltage intensifier circuit" is analogous to an ignition coil (if not an actual standard ignition coil). Analyzing Stan's illustration attached, labeled 8b, notice the common connection between the primary and secondary (autotransformer)...notice the "ground" symbol connection at this junction. That "ground" symbol is deceptive...the polarization of the primary is backwards in the illustration, it's either deceptive, or just a conceptual diagram. The truthful polarization of that coil would have the ground symbol actually be low-voltage positive at that common connection point, and common ground at the opposite side of the primary.
I'm a conspiracy theorist through and through...and it's my suspiscion that this illustration was edited after the fact, evidenced by the anomalous continuation of the elipse at the top of secondary coil past the termination point to the diode and choke leading to the middle electrode, and also, if you zoom into various areas of the illustration...it appears the edit was done very crudely with MS paint 🤣
The original is photocopied and contains line breaks, inclusions and other optical artifacts....the edited areas are perfectly straight digitally created lines without optical artifacts, and if you look really hard, you can see slight misalignment, and portions of the original (removed) lines barely showing underneath.
I implore you to, at least temporarily, assume what I say is correct, and ignore the specifics of the deceptive alterations. The core of Stan's illustration persists, and the edits only mislead those who would attempt to create a circuit directly from the illustration instead of having a true understanding of the phenomena.
Now, analyze 8b's primary positive connection, notice the evidence of editing at this connection and then at several spots along the path...realize that this is actually the true point of the common primary/secondary connection, and then superimpose my circuit over it in your mind...this is the low-voltage positive, the path after the current limiting resistor is an edit...look at how perfect the illustration line is, it's a digital edit after the fact, it's so obvious. Something critical has been altered, so, just look at the core premise of the illustration....realize that it's my circuit's "split positive" diode chain path to the third electrode....quite literally, look at the last diode's polarization, look at the electrode arrangement, the inner electrode extends past the outter electrode, the floating 3rd electrode supplying LV+....it's what I have shown you here!!!
Lastly, let's analyze the familiar waveform of the attached Fig7 illustration.
What do you see? I used to think it was a gated resonant frequency...It is NOT!!! It is actually the synthesized equivalent of ~100uf capacitor at 120v....(ironic???) It's rectified 60hz AC...each pulse is 120hz four pulses long...that's a 30hz pulse, or a 33.3millisecond pulse. It's not a coincidence that the calculated capacitance of a capacitor taking 33.3milliseconds to discharge across an ignition coil primary having 7.6ohm resistance, and 1.48uh impedance (the value of my Spectra c624 ignition coil primary) is 90.7uf 🤔
attachment_16950 attachment_16952 Screenshot_20230717_235025_Samsung Internet.jpg Screenshot_20230718_000355_Samsung Internet.jpg
-
#35 ·
Last thing for now.
My custom wound toroidal transformer is (temporarily was) a huge success. I used a EL817 optoisolator to trigger a pre-amp ksp2222a npn, that triggers the power-stage 2n3055 npn transistor all commonly powered (except the input signal) by a Vhf engineering 11-15v regulated power supply I set to 13.5v. The input signal ground is attached to common ground.
The results were observed by monitoring the input signal on the LED side of the optoisolator and common ground on channel A of my oscilloscope (setting this to the trigger channel of the oscilloscope), and then channel B was attached to the 2n3055 tab (collector).
The results showed an incredibly high bandwidth of operation, and a pleasant audible musical quality reminiscent of retro 8-bit arcade music 🤣
I applied a neon across the secondary to aid in visual observation and was the only secondary load during my tests. I found that the MgZn ferrite core "rings" during the entire operation, from 1hz to 15mhz. The first resonance was found at around 150hz, the most powerful resonance at approximately 300hz, but higher harmonics at 900hz and 1.8mh were barely lower voltage than 300hz, going to higher harmonics produced more significantly lower voltages. I couldn't observe the secondary side as I do not have a probe capable of enduring the high voltage. However, my oscilloscope read just under 300v peaks on the primary side in the same polarity as the input, but out of phase 180deg, matching the T-Off period of the input at 300hz resonance.
Sadly, transferring my breadboard circuit to protoboard, I reverse biased the ksp2222a accidentally and overvoltaged the emitter to gate, frying the only ksp2222a I had at the time, and the opto. Only economical source of ksp2222a I found was in China (after trying multiple pre-amp npn transistors, the ksp2222a performed amazingly), and they recently arrived. I knew they would be slightly different than the one I had used, so I replaced the 220ohm limiting resistors I had used, with variable 500ohm resistors. Again, sadly...they performed very poorly, the circuit worked, but the performance observed in the waveform was atrocious. The transformer operation was dampened and the waveform was not ringing like it was before and the highest voltage observed on the collector tab was 34v...I resoldered many times getting it all back together, and that coupled with the leaky variable resistors I suspect was responsible for the poor performance, as I saw the characteristic ringing oscillations I was after, unreliably, and momentarily when I would physically push on the variable resistors. So I yet again remade the signal and amplification circuit on a protoboard using my original 220ohm resistors, all new ICs and never soldering above 300c. I'm nearly ready to test it again, and I'm hoping I again see the performance I had on my breadboard. If I do, I will post pics, maybe a video, and I will make a circuit diagram showing how well all NPN triggering works...oh yeah, it's actually 3 NPNs, as the output side of the opto is also an NPN. -
#36 · date not recorded
I did it...we have been so misinformed...using my knowledge/memory, and ability to hyper-fixate to my advantage. That plus my inclination to listen to my intuition....I used only components as listed by Stan, but I analyzed the evidence of patent tampering/digital editing after the fact to aid my efforts. I'm certain I figured it out, I know trying to monetize it leads to suppression, so I'm going to just give the info out free. I will answer honest questions, but I will not indulge any speculation, dissolution or distracting redirecting. This pretty much squares my obligations to mankind, and I'm not going to be public about my progress beyond the schematic I'm going to share, and a few pics of my power circuit. This is not about digital circuitry....I have made a nice cd4047b pulse generator, but I'm using my amazing FPGA I got for $80 on sale. It's super accurate and very easy to use....Anyway, enough talk. Take a look, I encourage you to download it or take screenshot. This is the key to Stan, Puriarch, the Gray tube, the fueless noble gas engine, etc,etc, etc. It's actually the key to the gas processor, the WFC, and even Stan's injector plugs.
Edit: Accidentally drew the SCR, and the NPNs with the wrong polarity...this new attachment is legit
attachment_16962 attachment_16964 attachment_16966 THE VIC+EEC.pdf 20230828_061732.jpg 20230828_061034.jpg 20230828_061022.jpg
-
#37 ·
P.S. I didn't draw or mention the chokes, because I already explained their function in previous analysis of this autotransformer feedback loop. They delay current flow, to bring it in harmony with the primary current dump. The only thing that isn't %100 certain is the placement of the resistive load...I placed it on the negative because of Stan's patent that describes a custom resistor on the negative consisting of a sandwich stack of stainless steel and carbon....that, and my observation of the 3 terminal discharge I shared in video before. The HV lead must arc to the LV+ diode string (it would rather arc to ground), then current can be seen rising from the ground up to the LV+. That is how the current amplification phenomena manifests. I will repost videos somewhere more secure than YouTube in the future, both videos are actually correct...but, idk...it's so easy to make one yourself, it's not a priority of mine...and if you do, it will be self-evident.
P.P.S. the chokes would go on the HV lead to the tube set, and the negative lead to tube set...the EEC resisitive load would most likely go on the LV+ after the diodes (like I said in earlier posts, ignore the misinfo and do not wind the chokes to nullify mutual induction)...good luck everyone.
Edit: I made an educated guess on the chokes, and the EEC resistive load in the previous post's edit...pretty sure I got it licked.... -
#38 · date not recorded
I am listening
Go on! -
#39 ·
I mean, it's all laid out....but, I will try and reiterate...Stan did several different things, the demo cell (Dave Lawton replication) is the worst. The next iteration Stan developed right before the miniaturized plug version, was by his own words "tweaked" to produce more gas. That is the autotransformer and diode positive feedback loop. The same circuit drives the last iteration (water fuel plugs). The conversation I initially had with chat gpt is correct, the second theory I had about instantaneous voltage distribution across an inductor (how a variac can be ran in step-up or step-down) is ALSO correct...I initially didn't think both could happen...but. after running the ignition coil/diode chain feedback loop at 12v with a 1/2 watt limiting 220ohm resistor in series with the primary....I swept every harmonic up until it drops off at around 3mhz. The first resonance was found at right around 150hz. In resonance at such low power, the phenomena I showed when dumping a capacitor straight into the primary (disappearing forward induction, straight to flyback polarity) did not happen. Instead using two channels, I set channel one to trigger using the cmos signal on the isolated side of my opto. Then I started by probing the negative of the primary. I found a much higher voltage mirrored signal, with the same phase (lowest input current, and voltage rise on primary in resonance). Probing the primary LV+ before the diodes (hooked to LV+ but, unhooked from the secondary HV lead) I saw almost nothing. Moving to the end of the free-floating diode chain I saw a curious sight, but it would not trigger, i attached the second channel ground to the primary negative while second channel probe was attached to end of diode chain, and shorted the common ground in my oscilloscope. I detached the triggering ground of channel 1, and checked again (now grounded to LV+) ...on the other side of the diode chain, free-floating in air...was a HV wave of opposite polarity but in phase. The diode chain was blocking it from causing issues and the standing resonant tension across the primary kept the two inverted ground potentials separated across the primary despite the HV lead conducting through a neon load to primary ground. Two opposing currents standing still across the primary. The same thing happening across the secondary...these are the opposing counter currents of self/mutual induction....not opposing.....instead, moved out of the way, just waiting all politely lol.
When allowed to conduct, this lower powered manifestation does increase the overall power seen in the load neon....but not like before (not as intense, and the wrong polarity).....the neon shows that the polarity is NOT flyback polarity...primary ground is positive biased to the diode chain/HV lead. So, without the current density, the magnetic flux isn't strong enough to produce enough opposing self/mutual induction counter-flow to overcome the normal flow and pull it all into the backside of the secondary (postive feedback loop).....because, the higher the magnetism, the longer it takes the forward current to get across the primary coil and the higher the counter-emf voltage climbs , yet the primary voltage travels across the coil instantly...and here's the key, this autotransformer voltage distribution (instantly across the primary......and the much higher impedance secondary, as if one long variac in step-up mode) results in the LV+ overextending all the way to the top of the secondary and becoming HV+. This results in a much stronger/faster pull on the primary current lagging behind 90deg. This in turn creates an even larger counter self/mutual induction than normal, the assymetry of the primary + secondary inductance as one coil, means the voltage of the mutually induced counter current in the secondary overcomes the autotransformer voltage (HV+) faster than the primary surge-current can get through the primary (the increased voltage=greater magnetism=greater opposed self/mutual induction=greater initial current lag....quite counter-intuitively) and it makes the diode chain start to conduct the opposing mutual-induction from the secondary, and the opposing self-induction from the primary to practically zero ohm backside of the secondary. This not only removes the opposition out of the way of the primary current making its way all the way to the tip of the secondary, these two flows, now create their own opposing self/mutual induction flows that pile up on the primary current/voltage, as such, the primary current moves faster than it would normally cross the primary and now wants to go up to the LV+ turned HV+ at the top of the secondary, the opposing flows head to same place in an opposite direction through the diode chain...this compounding positive feedback loop continues until the primary current empties from the capacitor. The moment the capacitor empties, the magnetic field collapses and both currents reverse polarity and all of the currents are in the secondary (either in the coil, or on it's backside in the feedback loop)...the 100uf capacitor is not enough to make if all the way across the primary (if it makes it at all), the self/mutual induced currents flip to HV+ , the primary HV+ at the top of the secondary flips to negative and through the low resistance HV lead, keeps the diodes conducting. The HV+ counter-flows are more opposed to ground, and when I sprayed water in a confined glass bottle containing the triple electrode setup I showed before, it avoided the middle diode chain electrode and skin effect conducted on the wet glass around it to the ground electrode....but, if the path to the middle electrode is the lower resistance than the ground electrode, the HV+ will strike lower HV+ of the primary current coming out of the diode chain, and together they will then pull even more current from the ground electrode.
There is some wave destruction as the discharge voltage is lower then normal flyback (normal flyback spark can span the entire distance, and this phenomena has to be positioned to span two 1/2 distances)....but ALL the current (minus loses) is applied to HV....the primary current is not destroyed as normally happens.....hopefully it clicks now. -
#40 ·
Furthermore, the intermixed discharge of these two flows creates a distinct HV, low amperage arc, then a slightly lower HV, high current discharge. High-surge current density is needed to make it happen....together with a low impedance primary makes for a tricky delivery. The alternate gating is to fill the rather small capacitor, and then disconnect it before discharging into the primary...while it's not a lot of power over time, it's quite a high surge current, something like 80amps in 33milliseconds or so....if you wanted to ramp it even further with, say a .48uh primary, E-Core epoxy insulated high performance ignition coil, you would probably need a smaller capacitor and surge-current would most likely be even higher.
Also, that circuit schematic isn't exact, pull-down resistors would need to be used, along with correct limiting resistors for the NPN gates, the SCR gate and correct voltage dividing....I have not found a single simulator that can correctly simulate this....and I doubt I will. So, I am carefully proceeding, as my SCR is $158....lol -
#41 ·
Spotted a mistake on the FWB rectifier and SCR connection polarity...working on the fix now -
#42 ·
Yeah, lol stayed up late drawing it, sorry...machined the assembly, and then actually wired the components correctly that day, reversed the SCR and Q1 and Q2 NPNs polarity to the FWB rectifier and C1 capacitor as if PNPs when drawing it up tired last night 🤦♂️
Verbal correction while I fix it - (PNPs won't work as SCR conducts in the same manner as a NPN)...FWB positive goes directly to C1 capacitor positive terminal (not ground), SCR Cathode connects directly to FWB negative, SCR anode connects to Q1 NPN emitter, Q1 collector connects C1 capacitor negative terminal. Then, Q2 emitter connects directly to C1 capacitor negative terminal, Q2 collector connects to primary negative, Primary positive then connects directly to C1 positive terminal.....🥴🥱 like I said days ago...switching on the negative....🤦♂️ sorry, the rest is correct. -
#43 ·
Fixed it, gonna post it here and edit the original post and include it, but my handwritten notes have some good info, so gonna leave the original....sorry all this one is polished though
THE VIC+EEC.pdf
-
#44 · date not recorded
Thats a very nice drawing!
I can follow what your are thinking there..
-
#45 ·
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell -
#46 · date not recorded
The statement "demystification" is too loud.
There are no formulas that can be checked and recalculated.
You can check your words (text), if only your installation gives a volume of Brown gas greater than Faraday electrolysis.That is, according to the final result. With the same size of the fuel cell area and the volume of water used.
Formulas also allow you to check at each stage. Starting from the generation scheme -> VIC -> fuel cell
I mean, burden of proof is on whoever wants the world to buy their product. I don't want you buy a thing from me. My efforts, now, and in the past speak for themselves.
Just like the truth, it's self-evident...and it's easy enough to explore for yourself.
I experimentally verified this circuit 14yrs ago...with a dpdt relay and a 555...I saw it underlying in many OU patents I've studied since I started this quest with David Wenbrent's water4fuel Skype channel in 2007... I have replicated many anomalous circuits on my quest to understand, and out of them all, this is the one that stuck in my mind. As I realized that a version of this is in all the significant patents, from Gray's tube, Puriarch's nickel coated water plugs, the three terminal excitation source in the fueless noble gas engine....I would put my money on this is the "truth" of electricity and magnetism Edward Leedskalin was alluding to, that he used to build the Coral Castle.
If you didn't see the experimental proof/demo I had on youtube, looking for a better host atm, but it's very easy to replicate, and that original schematic with the 555, ignition coil and dpdt relay will get you looking the phenomenon in the face, just swap the 35v DC with bridge rectified wall current to see it real nice and significant....you can do it with like $20 on Amazon parts (9$ ignition coil, a dpdt relay/switch and a few bucks for a bridge rectifier and a handful of 1n4007diodes).
It should be glaringly obvious that if the discharge energy increases, as I have shown, with a few extra diodes added in the right place, despite their resistive losses and voltage drops then it's output must be more efficient, regardless...if not, then I can't help you, and your opinion is yours. But why try and disparage?...just move on. If you got a hv ammeter and a hv probe, please take a definitive reading...
Odd how this "give use calculations, and hook it up, or quite down" shade throwing, comes after elucidating how the anomaly of the observation can be explained and how the "unexpected behavior" of a reverse-biased diode conducting by spurious spikes of self/mutually induced counter-currents, often referred to as "reverse recovery" or "reverse conduction" can be exploited to our benefit by using it to regauge the opposing forces of self/mutual induction.
Odd that while it was a demo circuit just showing the concept, with an experimental proof, and words (text)...it was no comment, or "interesting" at best. But the moment I share how I see it, or more accurately, it's abstraction, in some of Stan's circuits...then put together how the abstraction (or possibly the alteration) could be made to work with this observation I took the time to share, in a circuit (that I took the time to fix a mistake on), you want equations, and volumes 🤣
Take it or leave it, I don't really care either way. The word "demystified" is exactly the perfect decibel level to explain "Voltage can do work" as Stan claimed, then say "I believe certain claims and language were disingenuous and misleading....look at this circuit/effect, it's essence is in these schematics, and this schematic has the exact waveform made by digital/semiconductor means that this manually discharged capacitor in my experiment has...weird, this circuit just needs to have the common ground changed to a common +, and this alternate pulse needs to be delivered a little differently based off of my observations of the way this thing triggers/arcs"
Odd and dismissive response for someone on "ionization"x.com -
#47 · date not recorded
Thats a very nice drawing!
I can follow what your are thinking there..
Glad to hear it Steve, and thanks, thought it deserved a proper mock-up👌 -
#48 · date not recorded
These are just words, they are not confirmed by calculations, and calculations are not confirmed by experiments.
Having a successful experiment without calculations does not guarantee that the process went exactly as you describe in words.
There is no way to verify your words if you have not provided calculations.Moreover, there is no way to test the experiment if you do not provide calculations.
By what figures can you prove that you had the Meyer process and not the Faraday electrolysis?
I am skeptical of your words.
I think you got a Faraday pulsed electrolysis. -
#49 · date not recorded
Dude, the government was trying to get his investors to sue Stan in a class-action lawsuit for this being "normal" electrolysis before he died...I never said Stan's process wasn't Faradic electrolysis...in fact I'm alluding to it being just that. The only thing that makes it viable is the power amplification provided by the phenomenon I'm describing. It's my contention (implied), that his special terms were allegorical, to evade patent invalidation for thermodynamic violations.
Furthermore, DC neon electrode illumination is a known and fixed fact, it can most certainly be used to prove polarity changes experimentally. Empirical observations are also quite persuading in my opinion. The fact that the electrode polarity changes, and the discharge is obviously and undeniably amplified...coupled with the fact that a capacitor cannot supply anything above its rated capacitance is in fact "proof"....the dpdt switch/relay acts as undeniable isolation from source, and mandates nothing extra is added. Sorry that's not enough to prove it to you, and if you don't care enough to look at it yourself (cheap and easy to look at), then, once again, neither do I.
Mathematical proof is often crafted and in-fact invented after the fact to explain experimental observations. Mathematically crafting/modeling the experiment first, then running the experiment to prove the math is cool and all...but I'm a mathematical fallibist...and I'm after the truth first, then mathematical proof after. -
#50 · date not recorded
His demo cell (Lawton replication) was resonant and arguably non-faradic...but how the hell could he supply water vapor and ozone directly to a spark plug voltage zone (his very last version) and have a singular dissociation and then explosive event at the end, and it have any of the stuff claimed to be going on in the Lawton replication happen?
Hmm, I wonder what he meant by Voltage "Intensifier" Circuit...or the comment "current is not delivered or made to flow....in the standard way"?