Water as FUEL


REPLICAS of MEYER – Qiman13 posts 1

## QIMAN13 posts on Meyer Replication Posts Part 1: (page created at November 2007 Update)

# Integral posts from: http://www.icubenetwork.com, from a pdf file: (MDG nov07: Once more, ALL DETAILS WERE ON THE NET, FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, in this case since 3 years already, but we were still searching!!!)

This pdf covers Qiman13 posts from ‘Fri Sep 10, 2004’ to ‘Sun Mar 13, 2005’, for a total of 509kb, 81 pages.

qiman13, Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject: Secrets of the Water Cell Explained!!!:
Hi Everyone, new to the board but have somethongs I want to bring to the surface. Below was posted in Dave’s Cell folder. I added more below that.

Hi Gary, what material is your plates or tubes made from? I use t304 steel tube setup and I get no gunk. The only thing that even appears to corrode are the non ss leads that connect to the positive tubes.
Also, if getting gunk, then most likely you are getting too much regular electrolysis. The idea is to prevent current from doing that. Therefore, no oxygen can go to your positive plates/tubes and oxidize them.

I’m new in the group and would like to tell you that I have a circuit virtually identical to SM’s. It was developed by someone that I have learned from over the years. It isn’t used to make fuel from water but is used to charge batteries overunity. I can post the schematics soon as appropriate. I also have other info to share if you’re interested.

The circuit is not a resonant circuit. The water doesn’t go into some magical resonance. The blocking diode should be telling you all something. No resonance (at least not the circuit). The voltage never drops to negative.

What is the difference between a transverse wave and a longitudinal impulse?
http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
and http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l1b.html
and http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/mmedia/waves/lw.html

3 very good basic examples. Unidirectional DC pulses are not transverse waves. They are longitudinal impulses. The whole secret is sending TIME IMPULSES to the water. What the goal is is to pump the water with radiant energy. This is nothing but pure voltage potential with no current. When it is done right, you can create the voltage potentials without ever inducing electrons to flow to begin with.

How? We’ll get to that. Imagine not having all the problems of having to restrict amps. I will be happy to share this with anyone who is serious. Let me know what you think.

I’ve observed in this board some comments I would like to comment on. I saw that someone mentioned that Meyer was flawed in saying the inductor increases frequency. That isn’t a flaw, of course it increases frequency when a pulsed input is put into it and there is a blocking diode. One pulse is given and it goes through the blocking diode, charges the inductor and gets to the cell with less amps. That is one pulse. When the pulse is cut off, the inductor collapses in the SAME direction because the blocking diode prevents it from going opposite polarity and this is pulse #2 going to the cell. You paid for one and got 2 pulses.

For example, lets just stick to straight wall cycle. 60hz going into the bridge to turn it into pulsed dc will be 120hz pulsed dc. Remember that there is one dc pulse for each half othe ac. 120 hz pulsed into the inductor will get 240hz at the cell. So, the freuency is increased by using the inductor. Of course we want higher frequency than this, but this is only for an example.

The secret is pumping radiant energy into the water and this puts it into a higher energy state. You’re swelling the water up with the Aether.

Each time a coil is given a pulse, there will be a certain volt and amp over a certain time. When the pulse is shut off, the collapsed SPIKE is pure voltage potential with no current. That is why it is virtually a straight line.

You’re converting work back into potential. The spike is time compressed energy…pure Aetheric potential or radiant energy. Think about it…you’re turning work back into potential. It is the radiant potential that you are wanting to pump into the water unidirectionally.

Frequencies are important but that is a case by case situation. Based on cell spacing, material of it, voltage, etc… there will of course be optimal frequencies for each system and they will all be different. It has nothing to do with a magical frequency that water will mysteriously separate at. There are frequencies that can do that but that isn’t what Meyer was doing I don’t believe.

It is essential to understand what energy is and that energy is NOT the capacity to do work, what electricity is and to realize that there is no such thing as electricity…electricity is truly an adjective to describe an event…where the source charge comes from and for example if you power your system with batteries, the charge does NOT come from the inside of the battery…it is important to understand what a dipole is and how a dipole gets a flow over wires. It is a myth that we don’t know where the source charge comes from. These things are really necessary to duplicate something but if you understand the above and a little more, it will be overwhelmingly obvious what Meyer was doing. It is obvious he didn’t know but he still got results.

The patents are there to give the concept, not the actual working model. Same as the xogen patents. It will not work using the exact same circuit and input of 12v, etc… that shows the concept of what they are using but that doesn’t mean their working models are that same circuit.

For example, the battery charging method I’m using for overunity gain…this is how to measure it. measure the joules of input energy from the input source over a given time. When the battery is charged, power a resistive load (light bulb) from it and measure the joules being used to light that bulb until the battery is back down to the voltage that it was before charging. The joules will be more than what left the input source. This is overunity. Hundreds of % in fact and up to a few thousand is possible without a doubt.

This is what the fakes out there want you to measure: Well lets measure the input and hook meters to the output of the circuit and measure that hundreds of volts, etc… that is all BS. The ONLY honest way to test this kind of thing is measuring WORK. Measure work in and then measure usable work AFTER the battery is charged. You can’t directly measure potential like this with devices becaue there aren’t any devices that can measure pure Aether. The devices we use …. and this is important… only measure wasted energy. They all want to hook the output of the circuit back into the input source (battery) or whatever and have it run itself. That is ridiculous…that closes the loop and kills the dipole. Anyway, this is my 2 cents.

There is one book that spells out word for word what Meyer’s is doing, what Gray did, etc… that is chapter one on Tesla in this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813801/yokotahighschool
That book was used as a Rosetta stone to cracks Grays patents and therefore revealed some of Teslas secrets.

qiman13: Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:58 pm Post subject: correction:
I meant to say that it is NOT necessary to know about what a dipole is, etc… to make the things work. It is only necessary to easily see what Meyer and other were doing.

Murray, Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:04 am Post subject:
Hi Qiman, I converted the international news release briefings by Stanley A Meyer on the water fuel cell to PDF and laserline has uploaded them for all to see. thanks mate: http://www.icubenetwork.com/files/watercar/non-commercial/stanley_meyer/
worth a read. Murray
Imagination is more important than the knowledge. The knowledge is limited and the imagination is not. (Albert Einstein)

Murray, Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:34 am Post subject:
I thought this was interesting and has some relevance. refer to links : http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5322/ind-kick.htm

Quote: It is possible to step-up voltage without using a transformer. The property of an inductor to build up a high counter-electromotive force (cemf) can be used to flash gas discharge tubes and light neon bulbs and small tubes from very small batteries. All you need to do is connect a fairly large inductor (.5mH or higher works best) in parallel to the bulb or tube and then attach the inductor to a square wave pulse generator. The result should be the tube or bulb glowing, sometimes very brightly depending on the inductor used, the input voltage/current, pulse rate, and the bulb or tube characteristics. It is important to have the neon bulb, etc. lighting, if it doesn’t the cemf will come back to the output transistor and possibly ruin it. When the bulb is glowing the gas is a low resistance, therefore shorting the cemf. The bulb or tube you use will also protect the rest of the circuit. For the pulse generator, a low frequency 555 timer circuit or signal generator will do. Experiment with the inductor, I have gotten neon bulbs to give off almost white light.

also this is some good info on the dc resonate charging circuit : http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html#resonant
I am with you! and have came to very similar conclusions, now we just have to prove it. Murray

Gary, Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 8:57 am Post subject:
Hi Guys, that “richieburnett” link above in Murray’s post explains the dc resonant charging circuit very clearly, leaving no room for misinterpretaion at all.

Qiman, you can see that the frequency is NOT doubled, but the dc supply voltage across the capacitor is! You can see what Meyer was trying to achieve with this, doubling the supply voltage pulses while the inductor naturally limits the current – it even shows the step charging sequence. This explanation of the circuit is far, far better than anything Stan ever wrote in his wild babblings.

The blocking diode simply serves to stop the capacitor discharging in the opposite direction through the inductor once the capacitor is fully charged.

As I see it, the flaw with this circuit when applied by old Stan to his wfc is that of course, the wfc is NOT much of a capacitor, more of a resistor.

Pure water makes a great dielectric, with a dielectric constant of around 80 and a breakdown voltage in the order of thousands of volts per mm, but tap water conducts very well as we all know. Just 240v mains provides a very healthy current – or unhealthy if you happen to be in the bath when the hair dryer drops in!!!

Having said all that I intend to play about with the dc resonant charging circuit and do some proper tests as it might be there is enough of a capacitance to still provide a substantial step charging effect. I don’t really expect this to be the case tho as the resistance offered by my electrode set up is at best much less than 1 ohm!

However, I find that putting things actually into practice often throws up info, ideas and insights that don’t always reveal themselves on paper. All the best

qiman13, Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:40 pm Post subject: What a dipole really is:
Gary, I can understand your explanation of charge carriers, etc… Let me ask you this…when you measure voltage…what are you measuring? Electron charge or voltage potential? They are two totally different things.

First of all, where does the source charge come from? Isn’t that the big mystery with “electricity?” We all are told and we can all observe what this mysterious charge does but no textbook can explain where it comes from?

I believe it is cruicial to understand what a dipole is. Of course it is something with two poles. If the poles have a balanced potential, there is no movement possible. I think we can agree on that. If one potential is higher and one lower, then there is obviously movement capability. I think we can agree on that too. Now, lets look at the most common dipole that we use all the time. A battery.

It is claimed that the electrolytes in a battery create some chemical reaction that produces an electrical charge and this electrical charge is what goes out of the battery and over the wires and powers whatever is connected to the battery. This would of course be a bare bones explanation of what a battery is. Is this really what is happening?

It is important to understand what the Aether is. Michaelson/Morlay spelling?? have already been disproven long ago. They have also been proven to have miscalculated what they were doing when they “proved” there is no Aether, which is absolutely ridiculous. So in fact, there is an Aether just as Einstein predicted. In fact, the Aether does exist as Tesla knew way before and at a much higher level than Einstein ever did.

We know that there is unlimited vacuum energy…infinite potential available in 3d space and time. It is everywhere and we are immersed in it like a fish is in water. When I say vacuum, I’m not talking about a tube with atmosphere sucked out. All space is literally the vacuum. It is a misleading word because it causes people to think it is empty when the opposite is true. In essence, more accurately, it is a Plenum (having an infinite abundance).

Mathematically, E.T. Whittaker showed in 1903 the unlimited potential available. In conventional physics/math, what they all show the potential to be is this: take a cup and scoop out a cup of water from a flowing river in a moment in time. That is what they call the potential? That is totally nuts! What about the rest of the infinite river? That has caused so many problems it isn’t even funny. The basics of these physics and math are so fundamentally flawed, they are useless when dealing with devices that do no operate according to manmade self-proclaimed “Laws.” http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

Now, we are immersed in a sea of energy…then what? This sea of energy is filled with virtual photons – called virtual because as soon as they are there, they instanly dissapear. So they are in a state of flux…popping in and out and ridiculous speeds. Perhaps they are traveling like a mobius strip..1/2 here and 1/2 there, whereever that may be. Anyway, by the fact that they have a positive charge, there must be a virtual negative charge as well for obvious reasons. How do we tap this energy? We do it all the time and don’t even know it.

When you have a battery with electrolytes, the electrolytes do ONE thing only. That is to separate internal charges so that + is on one side and – is on the other side. Each terminal on a battery is connected of course to each side of the electrolytes by connections. The terminals will be + and -. That is a potential difference and that is what makes a battery a dipole. The electrolyte charges that were separated are NOT the charge carries of some mysterious charge that goes out the battery to power something. That is a myth. They only establish a dipole.

Now that we have a dipole, then what? The vacuum energy is very symmetrical in nature. Pretty much the same throughout in all directions (generally). With a battery – a dipole – sitting inside of 3d space and time where this Aether or vacuum energy is, the symmetry of the photon (different from regular light photon that we see) energy is broken. One polarity of the Aether goes to one pole and the opposite to the other pole. If nothing is connected to the battery, the Aether radiates outward spherically in all directions at the speed of light.

If a light bulb is connected to the battery, you close the circuit. The Aether at the + terminal flows over the wire towards the – terminal and induces the electrons to flow that pile up at the filament of the bulb and turn to photons that radiate out as light. There is ALSO the opposite polarity flow that goes out the – terminal towards the + terminal butting heads against the flow. This is what breaks apart the electrolyte charges so that the strength of the potential difference of the electrolytes get less and less. This is what kills the battery because the loop was closed and the circuit is caused to kill its very own dipole. It was not killed because some mysterious charge was used up in the battery.

This flow is called the Poynting flow usually designated a j-phi I believe. Heaviside also knew of this flow but he actually got the vectors right. I’m please to see that Dave understand Heaviside. Also, the amount of flow that goes over the wires…only 10 to the -13th power (1/11trillionths) of it gets diverged into the wire to move electrons to the surface from the copper atoms 3rd electron field. Imagine that!

Every atom is literally a perpetual motion device. Where do you think the electrons get the energy potential to sustain their perpetual motion? Look at the mass of the electron, it sure wasn’t given some incredible push that keeps it in motion. It is sustaining by interacting with the Aether.

Once something is set into motion, it will stay in motion unless it is acted upon by something else. This literally permits perpetual motion.

It never said that once something is in motion that it will stay in motion until something acts on it, which most definitely will happen.

Anyway, overunity doesn’t have to have a single thing to do with perpetual motion. Anyway, That is where the flow comes from to light a light bulb and NOT some charge carriers inside the battery. I don’t blame you for your explanation of that because that is in fact what is taught. Does that mean that they are correct? They first tell you that is what holds the charge and turn around and tell you it is a mystery where the source charge comes from.

Take a bathtub, fill it up and put a plug in the hole. It is all nice and symmetrical. pull the plug…make a potential difference and the water goes towards the hole and down the pipe. You broke the symmetry of the water. This is EXACTLY where the battery gets its source charge from except not a pipe..flowing over a wire at light speed while the electrons that are induced into movement only move at inches per hour literally!

You can read Lee and Yang’s presentation speech as they were given the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1957. http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1957/index.html
“for their penetrating investigation of the so-called parity laws which has led to important discoveries regarding the elementary particles”

It is because of their work that we understand that a dipole breaks the symmetry of the Aether. That is where the source charge comes from and not electrons.

The Aether moves like a gas under pressure. It is a conductive gas that is conductive to + and -. If you have a battery and you put a voltmeter on it, you get a volt reading. 12vdc for example. That reading has nothing to do with a charge in the battery. When connecting the leads to the meter, the Aether flows to the terminals and over the wires on the meter and that induces electron flow in that circuit. You are literally taking a pressure reading of the gas. Voltage is nothing more than the pressure of the flow of the Aether over wires. It has NOTHING to do with electron charge.

To clarify, a battery can be charged with hot current..electron current and you will have electrons piling on plates. You CAN also charge a battery in a superior way by charging it with cold current, which is void of electrons. This is a fact. The battery never warms and either does the circuit charging it.

Likewise, you can charge a cap with hot current or electron flow and those pile on the plates. Depending on the potential difference between the plates because of the electrons you will get a potential difference. That is true.

However, you can charge a cap with “cold electricity”, which is void of electrons by spiking the cap with PURE VOLTAGE POTENTIAL and NO ELECTRONS and the cap WILL charge up. The pressure of the aether here is what is measured when using a voltmeter. It is not measuring a potential difference between plates on the caps based on electrons on one plate. You can charge the cap both ways. One, you will have a cap that will be warmed up and one will be room temp.

Think about this. You have a little bitty battery and you have a monster battery. They obviously would have an enormous difference in the amount of charge if it was like the establishment teaches. Both batteries can read 12volts brand new. Therefore, it is not really measuring a charge at all because if it was, the bigger the battery, the bigger the charge and the reading would be higher. We know that is not the case.

I hope this clarifies what voltage potential really is and what a dipole is and what the voltage is NOT. This understanding jeopardizes oil money as it has all along. Remember, Morgan said to Tesla…that’s nice Mr. Tesla, but where do we put the meter? They want everyone to believe energy must be a non-renewable consumable and have everyones mindset tuned to scarcity and lack of instead of abundance.

qiman13, Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:46 pm Post subject: inductor frequency:
My understanding may be off on this. I’ll put a scope before the blocking diode and check the frequency and put one after the inductor. I guess that will be the easy way to really tell what the difference is in frequency if any at all.

If the frequency is not increased after the inductor, that means the collapsed field is seamless with the initial applied pulse. I find that hard to believe but maybe that is what is happening.

If that is what is happening, that means there may be a steady DC flow to the water cell and that means that no matter what frequency you put to the water cell, there will be only steady dc if the inductor is not giving a separate pulse on the collapse. If it is seamless.

Another possibility is that on the applied pulse,the water gets hit. When the pulse is off, the inductor collapses seamlessly at the end of the initial pulse so the pulse given to the water is longer than the initial pulse by itself and the voltage goes up. When the collapsed pulse is done, then another applied pulse comes and does the same thing so the frequency wouldn’t increase but yes the voltage would.

qiman13, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: inductor test:
Gary,
I read page 1-1 in Meyer’s book. First line “Using VOLTAGE POTENTIAL.” I think nothing else is necessary to read in that book. Iwill though. That is the whole secret. That is time impulses, which are unidirectional dc longitudinal impulses. That is what POTENTIAL is. All his info is only about how he is creating voltage potential to pump into the water. If you know what voltage potential is, you got it.

If electrons pile on plates and this makes the difference between the other plate and this is what the voltage is. Please explain this. With X amount of volts and X amount of amps going into the water cell, you’re going to get X amount of electrons piling on one side. However, when putting an inductor after the blocking diode, you can get a higher voltage with less amps. The inductor reduces the electrons in the cell but the voltage can be higher?

The voltage is not directly tied to electrons on the plates. Doesn’t this simple thought experiement show that voltage doesn’t have to have anything to do with a certain amount of electrons on a plate that has a certain socalled “charge?”

On page 1-2, Meyer says the LC circuit “tuned” to resonance @ certain frequency… This doesn’t have anything to do with LC resonance. This is what he means: Based on a given cap and a given inductor, there will be a certain frequency that the whole system will operate at “peak effieiency” meaning that at that frequency, the minimum amount of current is used meaning the minimum amount of electrons. That would be EXACTLY Teslas definition of resonance. For a given cap and inductor, there will be a frequency that minimum amount of amps is used. To see what the resonant frequency is for a given setup. Monitor amps input.

Turn the frequency up and down. Whatever frequency the amps is at minimum going to the cap from the inductor, that IS your resonant frequency and will be different for everyones setup.

qiman13, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:50 pm Post subject: inductor test:
I got results that were unexpected. The frequency was not increased after the inductor that I used. The interesting thing was that the voltage remained identical. However, it was negative spikes on the output of the inductor of the same voltage.

qiman13, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:19 pm Post subject: schematic #1:
[img]http://hydrogenpower13.tripod.com/schematic1[/img]
The wire going to the reisister that goes to the base of the transistor is 26 guage (trigger wire). The other wire is 23 guage (power wire). Both wires are wrapped together at the same time around an iron core the exact same amount of times. The resisitor for example could be 10ohm, transistor 2n3055, diode 1n914. coil can be about 500 turns on a 1/3 inch diameter core that is 1.5-2 inches tall. Make sure the spool ends are large enough so the windings do go past it.

This is NOT the 1:1 coil I mentioned before. It would basically be this coil with a 3rd wire wrapped in reverse also an identical amount of turns and the same wire thickness as the power wire. We’ll get to that later. Place a rotor over the coil core. 4 magnets every 90 degrees and all are facing NORTH outwards. connect as shown to a 12v dc battery.

Before I show the advanced schematics that are identical to Meyers, please tell me what you all think happens when you grab the rotor and give it a very slight turn? Meyer’s circuit is based on electronics that are NOT conventional. Please don’t use conventional electronics understanding to explain them because they do NOT apply. Only some of the basic concepts. Meyer’s is using voltage potential. Show me one text book that explains about charging a capacitor with voltage potential and no or little electrons.

qiman13, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: p.s. on schematic #1:
The rotor can be a roller skate wheel with good bearings and magnets taped to the rotor. Probably the easiest way to do it. I’m not asking anyone to build this. Just look at the schematic and figure out what is happening.

When I show the other schematic and yet another one, you will see EXACTLY what Meyer’s is doing.

johnh, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: inductor test:
qiman13 wrote: SNIP If electrons pile on plates and this makes the difference between the other plate and this is what the voltage is. Please explain this. With X amount of volts and X amount of amps going into the water cell, you’re going to get X amount of electrons piling on one side. However, when putting an inductor after the blocking diode, you can get a higher voltage with less amps. The inductor reduces the electrons in the cell but the voltage can be higher? The voltage is not directly tied to electrons on the plates. Doesn’t this simple thought experiement show that voltage doesn’t have to have anything to do with a certain amount of electrons on a plate that has a certain so-called “charge?”

SNIP. I haven’t read one conventional textbook that said that a certain amount of electrons was tied to voltage. amount of electrons is defined as a coulomb and coulomb per second as Amp – neither has anything whatsover to do with voltage.

Voltage is how much pressure the electron is under to move or maybe how active the electron is or how far it is removed from the nucleus of the atom of the substance it is in – all amount to the same thing. But the fact is in the conventional understanding of electrical theory you can have a high voltage potential with few electrons on a plate or a low potential voltage with a very large number of electrons on a plate.
Regards, JohnH

DORRO, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:06 pm Post subject: Secrets of the Water Cell Explained!!!:
Hi all also v. new to the forum! Monopole motor perhaps??? ROAM** ??? If am right, ope i dunna get kicked off already!!

DORRO, Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:26 pm Post subject: Secrets of the Water Cell Explained!!!
Wot about harnessing energy from “the vacuum” ?? is this a possible angle?? instead of recharging batteries, generate h2?? if so, would like more info(all ya got)

Gary, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:00 am Post subject:
Hi John, voltage is not needed in electrolysis calculations that’s why it doesn’t crop up much. Because its the current that determines the amount of gas given off (or substance deposited) it doesn’t matter what the voltage is. It just means that for any given system, the higher the voltage the higher the current flow per second, more coulombs – a faster reaction. The current flowing might be dependent on the voltage, but as long as we know how much current flowed, and for how long, voltage is redundant in the equation.

Somewhere above Qiman dismisses voltage as not being of any relevance at all, by comparing a large lead-acid battery to a small dry cell and saying that the lead-acid batter- should have a lot more potential if voltage made any sense.

This is wrong, and Qiman – no disrespect intended, but your science here really is flawed. Two dissimilar metals in an ionic solution, ie zinc and copper will provide a given voltage irrespective of whether the electrodes have a surface area of 2″ or 2ft. It is to do with how electropositive the metals are. For example, zinc is strongly electropositive (-0.76 volts to be exact), while mercury is far less electropositive at (+0.80 volts). Connecting a wire between a rod of each placed in an ionic solution (electrolyte) will cause the zinc to happily give away electrons, while the mercury happily collects them – a current flows to try to balance the potential difference.

This goes on until the supply of ions in the electrolyte are all used up. Add the two electrochemical charges above together and you have a potential difference of 1.56v. What we know as standard zinc/mercury dry cell 1.5 volt battery. Put 8 of these batteries in series and we get our 12 volt potential difference. Remember a lead-acid battery has 6 cells each providing around two volts, all placed in series. The bigger the battery the greater the current that can be delivered because more electrode surface is in contact with a larger quantity of electrolyte.

The potential difference between the electrodes is always the same given any (or no) current flow because it is not determined by the amount of charge that can sit on an electrode, but by the electrochemical potential difference of the metals used. There are no charges on the electrodes in a battery until placed in a circuit. If there was, the current would just flow internally until the charges were at equilibrium. You following me on this, John?

It is simply that a larger capacity battery, such as a car lead-acid has much more electrode area to react with the ions in the solution so enabling higher current flow, and a much greater capacity of ionic solution to draw charge from before it is exhausted. I’m not a big aether fan Qiman. It seems to be used a lot when other explanations fail. Many people of the time blamed the aether for spreading the plague!

Of course, Qiman you can carry on regardless, but I rather hope that what I’ve said above starts to make some sense to you! regards, Gary.

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:05 am Post subject: voltage source:
Hi Gary, Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying. When you were talking about electrons piling on plates and creating a difference of potential between the plate w/out electrons, it seem like you were claiming that the voltage is from electron charge. I was in no way saying what you think I said comparing a large battery to a small battery…I was only using that as an example to show that the so-called “electron charge” had nothing to do with the voltage. Reading my message, it would be obvious that I fully understand that.

I must insist that it is not ions being used up from electrolytes that kills a battery. It has always been a mystery where the SOURCE CHARGE comes from and it is NOT from the electrolytes. A battery is a dipole and the dipole breaks the symmetry of the aether. This is an established fact. It is possible that you and/or your sources are correct and that the leading energy physicists in the world are incorrect but they know better. You have to realize that the leading truth will never make it to mainstream for years and years.

Try this. Based on a certain battery, there will a certain amount of electrolytes. Based on whatever chemicals are used, it will have a certain amount of “ions.” Translate this chemical energy to electrical energy. Now run the battery and power a light bulb…a resisitive load and not an inductive load. Measure the joules of work you get out of the battery. You will find that they are NOT remotely related. Are you willing to prove this to yourself? I don’t see anyone else performing these calculations because they will find that it just “ain’t” so. What they will find is that the electrochemical energy in the electrolytes are only enough to separate their own charges, which pull + to one side and – to the other side. If those electrolytes provided the charge to power a bulb, etc… they would NOT be able to hold themselves apart and the battery terminals would come to equilibrium in a VERY SHORT period of time. This is a fact.

Study Myron Evans. He is probably the #1 most advanced physicist today that has solved the grand unifying field theory equations and is at a level many levels above what Einstein was at. No disrespect to Einstein. He only made the foundation and Myron Evans too all his work to a whole new level. This cannot be argued with.
http://www.aias.us/

Check this website. Just look at the people who edify his work. That speaks for itself and he is indisputably the most advanced physicist hands down. It is not Hawkings or any other “celebrity” physicists. Tesla? He was the #1 in what he did but Edison is the one who got all the praise and is the one that is taught in the textbooks. At least in the US he is. What about Tesla? I just hope in the future, we know who Myron Evans is. He has the equations that links it all together seamlessly.

I’m sorry if you’re not a fan of the Aether but it is already a known fact. Dipoles break the symmetry of the Aether. I already sent you a link to the Nobel winners Lee and Yang. It isn’t necessary to study them but I just give a reference to how a dipole breaks symmetry. I also gave you a reference to E.T. Whittaker showing the unlimited energy potential in vacuum space. You seem to not comment on those. I hope I am on the right board to share this information. You may not be a fan of it for whatever reason but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Please don’t take offense to my rebuttal but I’ve spent too many years showing working devices that violate everything the books show. For example. Over 100% efficiency. I don’t believe anyone can comment accurately on anything that Meyer was doing because his technology is 100% straight forward Tesla technology. Sending unidirectional longitudinal pulses into water. If Tesla isn’t fully understood at least to some basic degrees, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see what Meyer was doing. Get the book SECRETS OF COLD WAR TECHNOLOGY. Chapter one is incredible. It was used as a Rosetta Stone to crack some Gray patents which cracked some of Tesla’s patents. Therefore it is credible. If anyone wants to know what Meyer was doing, read this chapter over and over.

Just check over this link. It is a small summary of that book. http://www.padrak.com/ine/SOCWT.html

Focus on the text about radiant electricity. Meyer was using unidirectional impulses and no reversal of the impulse is allowed. Don’t you think that it is a good idea to see it from the INVENTOR of this concept’s point of view…Tesla himself? Meyer was copying Tesla as all the other great devices from different inventors out there are doing and have done.

Read what I wrote again. I obviously know that voltage isn’t from the “electron charge.” Your message to me seems to say that you are the one who believed that the electrons on one plate made the potential difference and this is where the voltage came from.

Anyway, my science is not flawed. You’re using the language of greek to decipher egyptian hyrogliphics.

Conventional electrical theory is greek and Meyer was speaking in Egyptian. I speak Egyptian if you get what I mean. Tesla was speaking Egyptian. All the info you quote is from Greek textbooks. Secrets of Cold War Technology is the translation book.

Meyer was using voltage potential. You’re telling me for a fact that electrons are piling on plates when getting hit with voltage potential. You said it was a fact. I say that it can’t be farther from the truth. You can send spikes that appear to be voltage potential but has a small bit of current (electrons flowing) and charge a cap so in that instance, yes, electrons are piling on the plate.

Now, if it is true voltage potential – clean voltage potential without electrons…I’m talking about true radiant spikes, there are NO ELECTRONS. What has Meyer been telling us all this time? When you pulse a coil for example with a certain v and amp, you get a certain amount of watts. Those watts x seconds are of course joules and joules are work. I don’t think we have a disagreement here.

Now this is important. The collapsed spike is high voltage no amps because that work in joules has been converted back into nothing but pure potential. Do you see this? Voltage potential is called potential because it has the potential to do work. If you perform work from potential and this goes to the water, there is nothing for the water to absorb. You have to supply water with POTENTIAL and when the water absorbes this potential radiant energy, it then has absorbed energy that will be able to perform work when ignited, etc…

The true voltage potential is NOT work, meaning it is not joules of energy meaning it has no watts meaning it has no amps meaning it has no electrons meaning that those voltage potential spikes are charging a capacitor WITHOUT ANY electrons piling on the plates and the capacitor WILL charge WITHOUT electrons.

This is EXACTLY what Meyer was saying and is EXACTLY what he was doing. He is putting potential in water. By the very fact it is potential directly implies it is not work but has the capacity to do work. Potential is the capacity to do work. Energy is NOT the capacity to do work. Energy is the act of potential converting to work. If it is not work, then no electrons are piling on any plate of the capacitor. His capacitor IS charging up to a high voltage and no electrons are piling on the plates. Of course based on efficiency, there could be a small amount of electrons that made it through the circuit to the plate or tube but only a small teeny tiny little fraction of what would be there if there was current going to the plates.

Also on the collapse of a field around a coil, an electromagnetic negative pressure zone is created at the top of the coil which electromagnetically attracts/sucks the vacuum energy into the coil and this is diverted to the reverse wound wire that goes to the capacitor or water cell. This is just one example of an extra gain mechanism. That is extra voltage potential (pressure of the aether – nothing to do with electrons) that is added to the circuit that did NOT come from the battery or other input “source.”

The high pressure voltage potential (aether) can be slowed down and intercepted by “charge carriers” electrons that are induced to flow, thereby reducing the pressure of the aether (giving it some drag) – reducing voltage and suddenly amps are measurable. This is the conversion of potential back to work.

If energy is the CAPACITY to do work, that implies no work is done only the capacity to do work at some given time. Therefore E=0 and NOT E=MC2. By this very fact, the definition of energy is all the books is WRONG because E is NOT 0. If energy is only the capacity to do work, then E=Potential and we know this is NOT correct. Energy and potential are in fact opposites of course.

Please don’t take me the wrong way. I am very open minded but what you are quoting, I’ve been there and done that and it doesn’t apply to Meyer’s circuit. I would hope you are open enough to follow up on all the sources that I’ve already given.

This link will tell you the facts about vacuum energy WITH sources/references included. Tom Bearden does an incredible job. He does have some quirks, so please don’t kill the messenger. Look at what he is saying. Look at the sources he quotes. Maxwell equations…all BS. This is a known fact, etc… so many flaws in conventional electrical theory it is ridiculous.
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/clean%20electrical.htm Anyway, lets just move forward.

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:08 am Post subject: dipole info:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/on_the_principles_of_permissible.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/on_extracting_EM%20energy.htm

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:24 am Post subject: Hi Dorro – unipole
Dorro, I’m not Roamer but know who he is. He has also duplicated what I’m talking about if you he is who you’re referring to.

Anyway, every device is already harnessing vacuum energy. Closed systems harness it in a way that kills the dipole and the systems dies going to equilibrium. An open system harnesses it in a way that the circuit isn’t closed so the dipole isn’t killed. EVERY overunity system is an open system built OUT of equilibrium.

Meyer’s system is an open system…the water cell is the part of his system that is open and is NOT a closed system in equilibrium. The water is open to the vacuum.

Anyway, that schematic…yes it is a unipole “motor” but in reality it is a mechanical oscillator. It is not a motor or a generator. The coil oscillates at high speed producing strong radiant spikes. I don’t have a wire wrapped in reverse to capture the radiant spikes into a cap, etc… just a fun toy. I’ll show the other ones later. solid state oscillating coils pulsing at ridiculous speeds producing enormous radiant spikes. I’ll include schematics.

By spinning the rotor, it will “start the engine” and the rotor will speed up all by itself to maximum speed until it hits RESONANCE. This is a SELF ORDERING mechanism. It is SELF ROTATING. The circuit stays COLD and never generates heat.

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:50 am Post subject: pics & videos:
http://hydrogenpower13.tripod.com/ check this out

fannta, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:51 am Post subject:
Hi there 😎
I am realtivly new to this forum but i hav ebeen following your posts and I find them very intresting .

What i have been leraning at highschool has of course been “classical” physics stuff . I however am pretty open minded and as i meintioned before , i find it very intresting and already have started reading through your links , so guys , please don’t stop posting , i gues a lot of other people are also reading these posts !
best whishes to You all !

Gary, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject:
My apologies Qiman, if I came across a little strong. It’s just that the “classical” physics I’ve grown accustomed too does not exactly fit in with a lot of the theories and ideas yourself – and Meyer – subscribe to. I’ll spend time looking in more detail at your posts and links and try to be a bit more open minded. All very interesting.. and mysterious really. And nothing like a bit of mystery to get the thought processes in gear.
regards, Gary.

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject: more info:
Thanks Fannta and Gary! No prob Gary. I’m really not trying to come of as a “know it all.” However, using “voltage potential” really is what I have been doing exclusively with the circuits I’m working with for several years. I would recommend that anyone who wants to know the truth from the perspective of Tesla who invented unidirectional DC pulses (the concept of it and application of it) should read Secrets of Cold War Technology.

I really believe that book will clarify everything that Meyer was doing. It is written in very simple and straightforward terms that anyone can understand. It takes several readings to really get it but it is all right there in the 1st chapter of that book.

It goes into a lot of detail of certain resistive elements Tesla was using to restrict electron flow, etc… It goes into good detail on how he went from ac polyphase motor experimentation to the unidirectional dc impulses and shows the difference and why it is superior. It shows his progression getting higher and higher frequency and higher and higher voltage impulses while all the time he is progressing in getting better and better at restricting electron flow. Everything 100% that Meyer was doing. Same thing as Edwin Gray with his Gray tube converter.

Same thing. Same thing as the circuits I’m working with, which in no way am I wanting anyone to believe I invented or innovated. I just happen to have teachers who get results and I’ve duplicated them to satisfactory levels (mine and his/theirs)

That book will unlock just about every single thing Meyer ever said about his methodology. You don’t know how much it means to me to find open minded people. I really think we can make some progress working together. You all seem to have a lot more hands on experience with the actual water cell technology. I’ve used the “voltage potential” in other applications so I am really new at applying it to the water cell.

I’ve had some short clips of Meyer’s technology for about 5 years but it never excited me. I thought it was incredible and thought I knew what Meyer was doing. The path I was guided thru was in the battery charging technology. After becoming proficient in getting results and finally coming to an understanding of what the energy really is and where it comes from, everything clicked. It took me little over a year just to be able to understand the dipole and how it breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon energy. I persisited and finally got it and everything finally made sense of how the devices really worked. I got some ok results and used conventional explanations to explain it to myself. From the understanding I thought I had, it kept me from getting even better results. When I finally “got it” with really knowing what Tesla was talking about, my results skyrocketed. About 2 months ago, I rewatched the clips I had on Meyer and I damd near fainted.

“High voltage pulse frequency restricting the amps.” Without ever hearing it from his mouth, I knew it was “voltage potential.” Ok, now I’m interested in his technology. I knew EXACTLY what he was talking about.

Ahhhh, so that is what he was doing. Now it all makes sense. Secrets of Cold War Technology by Gerry Vassilatos unlocked the whole thing for me and many others. Remember, it was used to crack Edwin Gray’s patent, which revealed exactly in simple terms what Tesla was doing. I just read chapter one again last week and it just amazes me everytime.

You can get the book on Amazon or anywhere else. This link is an Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932813801/yokotahighschool

Anyway, I posted the schematics to one little fun “roller skate motor” that holds all the keys to this whole deal. I’ll post one more after that that shows the actual capturing of the radiant spikes and then after that, I’ll show another. This 3rd one will be identical to Meyer’s schematic and is doing the same thing with the same type of 555 frequency controller. The difference is the voltage levels and frequencies. Meyer’s is using higher voltage output to the cell. That is the main difference.

Then, I’ll post a schematic on how to make it solid state…letting the circuit find it’s own resonance without a rotor being needed to trigger the transistor. Very exciting! This setup upscaled for the voltage Meyer is working with can be done. The output can be put to the cell.

Anyway, thank you for your message. If anyone has any questions, I’ll be more than happy to share what I have with you but get that book. It will answer just about everything. If not from that above link, find it elsewhere. It holds the answer.

qiman13, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:44 pm Post subject: p.s.:
I did post some things in Dave’s cell area before. I’ll concentrate on putting my input here.

DORRO, Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:27 pm Post subject:
Hi qiman13, Sorry if i offended you in any way with my incorrect guesswork, with your “two cents” remark i felt sure that you were roamer as this is his cathphrase on one of J Bedini’s pages.

Any how, I am very interested in your thoughts, and those of Bedini and roamer, so i would like to learn more about radiant energy.

The problem is I am bound by the constraints of conventional teaching, v = I * R etc., and do not really understand this revolution! Which brings me quite nicely to my next point: Again i do not wish to offend but how can Gary suggest that your science is flawed when it has niether been proven or disproved?

Not so long ago it was deamed impossible for man to fly, now we can put men on the moon! maybe we should open our minds a little and do what the human race does best….learn and adapt. Perhaps with a different view we stand a chance of looking after this planet, after all we are only guests here. As far as my own experiments go with water as fuel, on J L Naudin’s webb site he has made progress with submerged carbon arc ( i know strictly speaking this method is cheating as the carbon is consumed during the reaction) but it does produce enough gas to fuel a small ice. Maybe if carbon rods are cheaper than gasoline we can stuff one up the fuel giants in the process!!! l.o.l.
Many thanks for the forum gentlemen. I wasn’t sure how a newkid on the block would be received however i nead not have worried. thankyou.

Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:22 am Post subject:
Qiman, I’ve had chance to look through some of the material via your links, and realise now that we were thinking on two different levels.

I don’t actually think my physics that is flawed in respect to the level I was working on, its just that you are a level or so up… in the realms of quantum physics! Basically as I understand things, quantum mechanics can pretty well explain everything, but as its so complicated lower levels of physics are kept far simpler by avoiding where possible the complex quantum nature of the universe.

I remember being taught something in school and thinking I knew and fully understood the principle. That was until I went to college where the science was more detailed and I was told, “Well.. no it doesn’t really work like that, it actually works like this!” I remember it well because I felt more than a little annoyed at my school physics teacher, feeling that I’d been mislead. Some interesting reading on your links Qiman.

DORRO, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:29 am Post subject:
Sorry Gary, I really must learn to keep my stupid big mouth shut!! have just read your last post and now feel a bit silly, mind you i did post my thoughts after a 12H nightshift and 4 cans of stella!!!, not the best time for being objective.

i don’t yet grasp quantum theory but i have a nice little book to help me on my way,….i’d better stick to reading than theorizing!….. …..and poking my nose in!

Some time ago i read about a fellow called John C. Bedini and his research, a found it both fascinating and difficult to understand, we really are not taught this kind of electromagnetism at school, maybe some peolple do not want us to know.

I downloaded everything i could find about this man and his theory, about 15Gigabytes in all, then one day my hard drive failed and i lost the lot. So now I am trying to start from scratch and i need all the help i can get, after all i am only a maintenance engineer in a curry factory! From small acorns eh?

One other thing: fakes and hoaxers do not last long, they soon get bored. Although he has been quiet for some time, John has been proving traditional science wrong since at least 1984, according to his pages. This kind of work, standing up in front of the world and saying it’s got it wrong, takes dedication and passion, not a quality shared by many cranks. Hope i didn’t waffle too long please bear with me many thanks

Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:44 am Post subject:
No probs Dorro, the main obstacle on forums like this is that we are all often coming from completely different angles depending on our level of education, knowledge and understanding. It often makes for fiery debates but it does no harm – in fact only good can come from it really. Getting a grasp of quantum physics is not easy, as like Qiman understands, you have to almost dismiss what you think you already know about the physical universe and start from scratch thinking along completely different lines.

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:19 pm Post subject: physics
Hi Dorro, I’m not offended. You pegged it perfectly where the schematic came from. The bingo fuel cell you’re talking about from Naudin’s page I guess is a legitimate overunity hydrogen device. However, it seems to be more novelty than anything. The carbon probably gets burned up pretty quick and there would be problems with constantly regapping the gap, etc… However, it does work. Of course, the Meyer method is practical.

Gary, the “conventional” electrical engineering explanations do quite well when working with devices that are “closed systems,” which every electrical device commerically made is the world is designed as a closed system. I mentioned before that the water in Meyer’s cell is what is open and not closed. When putting impulses into water, there is no current therefore the loop is not closed. No current is put to one side and taken to the other so the loop can’t be closed. If it was electrolysis and there is a current…that current would close the loop because it would connect one side to the other. Conventional understanding applies to electrolysis, but not on open systems.

I would say that it is definitely unnecessary to understand quantum physics to understand the water cell. The most simple way to understand it is to really see the connection between everything by way of the Aether, which would be in the realm of the quantum I suppose. Secrets of Cold War Technology explains it perfectly.

Here is a summary of the unfied field: (with my interpretation and much of this is not written but quite a bit is in Secrets of Cold War Technology) The TIME explanations down below are mine I admit and I can’t prove it but it seems like common sense based on what we do know. Einstein laid the foundation of course. As described before what the Aether is and it’s relationship to a dipole. That is how the battery taps the Aether attracts it and diverts it over the wires to power things. So this is the vacuum energy to electricity connection.

That aether flowing over wires around an electromagnetic coil would of course create a magnetic field. That is a connection between the vacuum energy, dipole, “electricity” and electromagnetism. Every atom acts as a dipole in a way and every electron sustains movement from the aether as a battery taps it. When standing on planet Earth, there is no gravitational pull. There is only a gravitational push and we are pushed to the ground. The aether flows like a gas under pressure. Earth is a mass in 3dspace/time. The aether is displaced by a certain volume you could say. The aether tries to push back to the area that it was displaced from.

If you have a balloon and push your finger into it, the finger would be the Earth. The balloon tries to push back to the space that your finger is occupying. The Aether is pushing back towards the center of the Earth. An extra effect is that the spinning sphere actively attracts it even more and a spinning magnetic field even more. As it goes to the center of the Earth, it becomes dense I guess you could say and bonds together to create electrons, etc… and the electrons rise to the surface of the Earth and this is why there is an abundance of electrons on the surface of the Earth. This is where it comes from. From all the density of the Aether, etc… a lot of heat is created and this is the source of geothermal heating.

Why we are puhsed to the ground is because we are made of certain mass. Certain elements have different “atomic matrixes”…the atoms have electrons with “fields” that resist or attract the aether. The “spacing” of the atoms are different. If we put a block of lead on the ground, it is tightly packed so the aether can’t flow thru very well and this is why it appears to be more “heavy.” If we have a block of wood, the atomic structure is not as packed and the aether can flow through easier towards the center with less resisitance and the wood appears “lighter.” If we take a net and have spacing so tight that it is nearly solid, this would be like lead. Swoosh that net through the water back and forth and there is a lot of resistance. Take a net that has large spacing and swoosh it the same way and there is less resistance.

As you are standing still there is no inertia. As you increase speed, there is an “apparent” densening of the aether relevant to you and you would feel this resistance. This is what inertia is. It can only go through at a certain rate. Gravity is basically inertia. Standing still on a big mass like the Earth, the aether is moving to where it was displaced from so it is the same thing as if we were moving against the aether. But we don’t have to move. In outer space away from a mass, being fairly motionless, the aether is in an ambient state I suppose you could say and there is no gravity or inertia.

I guess gravity could be defined as a mass resisiting aether as the aether is moving through the mass towards a certain direction. Inertia could be defined as a mass resisting the aether as the mass is moving through the aether towards a certain direction. These are my definitions.

Now, as we are fairly still or slow moving, time clicks fast. As we speed up to high speeds and the aether is getting reletiviely very dense, time slows down. Slow down and the less dense aether area..time speeds up. non-“dense” aether, from its own movement or our movement against the aether, time can “unravel” very fast. dense aether from it’s own movement or our movement against the aether, time “unravels” very slow because there is more resistance that the POTENTIAL has to work against to convert to work. Joules in my opinion is a measurement of decompressed time energy.

The speed of conscious awareness is the exact same speed as the speed of light. The speed of light is dependent on the density of the aether. Time will always appear to be moving at a “normal” speed if we are moving fast or slow, but relevant to each other, they are of course different. It will appear to be normal no matter what speed we are going to our own conscious awareness because if we are standing still and the aether is not as dense, the potential energy doesn’t have much resistance and therefore time clicks fast and light can move more freely. Based on the speed light is going when it is going fast, we are consiously aware at the same rate and the clock ticks and it seems to be moving at normal speed.

Light doesn’t have a constant speed. The speed of light that is always quoted is in reality a AVERAGE based on the measured speeds. There is no such thing as a constant speed of light. When I refer to light speeding up or slowing down, we would know no difference because we are subject to our own conscious awareness of it and it always seems to be at “light speed.”

If we move really fast, aether is more dense relevant to our movement, there is more resistance to work against and potential has more resistance to work against to become work and time clicks slower and the light slows down in this dense aether, therefore, our conscious awareness is only as fast as the speed of light, therefore, the clock appears to be ticking at normal speed of course. An of course the light would always appear to be moving at the “speed of light.”

Now, if we take a “ship” and if we divert the aether from the front of the ship around the ship sort of like a faraday cage, the aether cannot go through the ship and therefore we can travel at light speed or inifinite speeds with zero inertia and go to far galaxies and come back and our family and friends are still alive. If we have no inertia, then time clicks the same as if we are standing still.

The other way would be to act as a valve where the aether is drawn into the center of the ship and channeled through it and out the back. There would be a negative pressure zone around the front of the ship since it is pulled in faster in the front center than around it, there would be no inertia possible in any area of the ship around this valve.

The big bang theory should be called the big bang hoax in my opinion. Anyway, as our universe is expanding…at the farther edges it seems to be accelerating violating entropy. As it expands, the aether throughout the universe is becoming less and less dense. Therefore time is speeding up. We are consiously aware of it because we are subject to it. Our unconsciouness is not subject to it. We can feel that time seems to be speeding up. Anyway, it will get to a point that the acceleration of time is exponential until time ticks infinitely fast and at that point, everything will convert to pure potential energy. This is my opinion of what happens to the universe. Hope this doesn’t open a can of worms for anyone.

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:21 pm Post subject: p.s.
I believe the truth is simple and beautiful. No need for complicated mathematics to see it or deep understanding of quantum mechanics, etc… Just try to see, feel and understand the concepts conceptually. Get an intuitive feel of how it works together.

I’m not claiming that my explanations of TIME are correct but to me, it is the only thing that makes sense and seems to be common sense based on known variables. Take care!

Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 2:00 pm Post subject:
OK Qiman, just to get a bit more on the practical side here, and my problems with old Stan. I’ve got the complete works – thanks to Murray – and within the first few pages Stan quotes the dielectric constant of water to be around 78. Great, I agree, but this is pure refined water and very hard to achieve in reality. Tap water has nothing like this figure. But stan insists he is going to make his water capacitor with just plain old water. So you see straight away I’m at odds with this fellow. And there are other serious errors in his writings that further dents any confidence in what he is saying, to a point in fact where I dismissed his science as pure fantasy.

However, if we assume that Stan did get his wfc to work as he stated, but simply formed his own hypothesis on how it worked because he lacked the full understanding behind the science, then where do we go from here. I am still fascinated to know how we are going to pump charge the plates without electron flow. How exactly do we produce this pure voltage potential and induce it onto the wfc plates without any current flowing through the water – or the cct? Stan seems to think that we can charge the plates to a high potential with minimum or no charge carrier movement, and without this charge simply conducting through the water – how does/can the cct do this??

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject: reference to Stan
From my experience with the circuits I’ve experimented with, I don’t find it hard to believe Stan’s claims. Of course I can’t say 100% he did do it. For all I know, he had a big power supply hidden that pumped a lot of current to his cell making it look really impressive. I don’t think that was the case. I’ve communicated with several people briefly that knew him personally and witnessed it and/or worked with him. I don’t know if they are telling the truth. There is someone that I do trust that tells me it really worked. That is the only source that I can put my faith in. Still, I don’t know personally.

I would focus on things we do know. We know for sure 100% positive that the inductors do reduce the amount of current flow regardless of it changing the frequency and/or voltage. Even if after the inductor the frequency and voltage is unchanged, it does reduce electron flow since it restricts current but still lets the voltage potential come through. Current still flows through but less that what is available at the front end.

Inductor definitely further restricts current that can come through the negative electrode to ground so it makes sense to have an inductor (variable for fine tuning) on that end as well. Tesla used things such as carbon resistors to do the exact same thing, etc…

In Edwin Gray’s conversion tube, the top electrode (low potential) had a carbon resistor to keep current from flowing to that side only letting voltage impulses slam into it. These examples show us that the principle is sound. This tube is designed for a regular high voltage capacitor discharge to physically explode the voltage potential away from the electrons. Not the same thing as Meyer but it definitely had a resistor on the low potential side.

So, inductor before the cell and after the cell is definitely helpful. Another thing to restrict electron flow is the frequency itself. For example, if a coil is pulsed at a certain frequency there is a certain impedance. If the frequency gets high enough, the impedance is so great that no electron flow can happen but the voltage potential is still available at the output. I don’t know if I’ve seen too many references to the connection between high frequency though an inductor the limiting of electron flow but permitting voltage potential to get across in reference to Stans work. I only printed the first 2 “chapters” so far.

Instead of focusing on 100% inhibiting electron flow, maybe we should focus on limiting it as much as possible and if we happen to get no amps detectable, then yahoo!

I believe the Holy Grail (or at least close) of the water fuel technologies would be to have the output of a Gray Tube going to the water cell. That would be guaranteed to be nothing but 100% pure radiant blast to the water. Not only that, the amount of potential exiting the tube dwarfs anything Meyer has ever done by a longshot. That is a totally different project. At least the Gray Tube has been duplicated with results.

Anyway, have you or anyone else monitored amps going to the cell while playing with frequency? Increasing the frequency should reduce the amps as well and not just the fact of having an inductor. Inductor + higher frequency = even more electrons restricted.

I guess the inductor is to invoke the Lenz effect or Lenz law intentionally and using it in our favor. As the frequency increases, the applied field and the collapsed field is happening off and on quicker and quicker. Eventually, the applied field is applied before the collapsed field can totally collapse and the collapsing fields aren’t totally collapsed before the next applied field is applied (at a high enough frequency). Eventually, they meet in the middle somewhere at a high enough frequency and they butt heads so there is no current movement and no electron flow. No matter what the impedance, the voltage potential is still available on the output to the cell. Anyone’s thoughts on this?

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 4:51 pm Post subject: inductor heating
p.s. If the frequency is too high and there is too much current going to the inductor, the inductor will get super hot. To prevent this, as little amps as possible have to be pulsed to the inductor. That is what Stan is trying to do with the VIC. Not only just getting high voltage, but by doing so, the voltage spikes are high but the time of each spike is very small, therefore, very little amps. So, getting high voltage spikes with low amps going through the inductor is ideal. That way, the inductor won’t be heating up. Maybe a little bit but with those spikes, it shouldn’t very much. In addition to having those low amp spikes hitting the inductor with high frequency, the high frequency furthermore restricts electron flow.

emmett, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject: re: secrets of the water car explained
Hi, I’ve been into several Bedini motors and extensive Boyce hydrogen experimentation and am very interested in what you’re doing. How do I find and look at the schematics you’re talking about?

DORRO, Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:28 pm Post subject:
Hello all, Yes qiman13 in the bingo fuel cell the carbon is combined with some of the oxygen creating CO..BAH!, and some is burned away and lost…..double BAH!!!!

I have been working on a current measuring circuit and stepper motors to index the carbon rods towards each other as the current decreases…next phase will be an automatic cassette style rod feeder. I know this forum is about water cars and electrolysers but would anyone mind if I asked qiman13 a question about magnetic motors? Would you mind qiman13?

After all it does not matter whether the electrolyser is powered by the alternator, or a bank of RECHARGED BATTERIES does it?

I have my own theory behind Bedini’s schoolgirl motor, and i would like to run it past you qiman13 but I do not wish to dilute this thread further without the permission of other users. Would anyone mind???? Having read and re-read John bedini’s pages I am satisfied that his machines work however controversial, otherwise he would have quit a long time ago, it is up to the rest of us to play catch up with him. I read he had been frustrated by silly questions and sceptics that has now stopped him from helping others. This is such a shame although I do not blame him. The problem is, In order to teach others one has to accept that not everyone has such a good understanding, I mean there are no schools for such theories so where would be a good place to start for willing but somewhat stupid student? Kind regards, Dorro

Ps Gary, If someone does get Stanley Meyer’s cell to power an ice then why not reclaim some of the h2o from the exhaust and along with water from an on board tank and distil it with a stove wrapped around the exhaust manifold???…..just an idea.

Gary, Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:22 am Post subject:
Could do Dorro, but its far easier just to carry water on board – its not like there is any shortage of the stuff. At this point I wouldn’t bother with the extra complications. The important thing is to get a bloody wfc working over Faraday first, as Dave seems to have done on his thread. And then develop it into a viable and practical unit. I’m in the process now of buying some test and measurement gear in order to set up a proper test facility.

Equipment includes: Oscilloscope, digital frequency counter, function generator, and quality PSU. I already have multimeters, but with this new equipment I can actually see my various pulsed waveforms and monitor results in quite some detail.

DORRO, Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:30 am Post subject:
Hi Gary, yep, lets walk b4 we run eh? trouble is, you can easily get carried away with yourself. I don’t know if it will help, but if you need to make prototype pcb’s, i find that a laser printer image on photo paper(clay coated) works very well, when ironed on to the copper at a low heat setting and for at least 2 minutes. you have clean the copper first with wire wool and soak afterwards to remove the paper. i have had some quite accurate circuits using this method, it’s quick and easy.

Using this method I made a simple variable freq. p.w.m. supply for a friend, using ss plates in a wfc. still awaiting results though sos i dunna have anything more constructive to add. cheers. dorro

DORRO, Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:15 am Post subject:
Hi all, Yeah I know, back again like a bad penny! This form stuff is kinda new and it’s a bit like a new girlfriend, at first you can’t keep away but after a while the novelty will wear off and I’ll have something interesting to post. In the meantime, got a problem with link http://hydrogenpower13.tripod.com/ just get error not found. Same w
[img]http://hydrogenpower13.tripod.com/schematic1[/img] Think I know what the schematic is though, but would like to be sure. Any other way of me getting my grubby little paws on it??

Just a thought qiman13.……your user name…..is it Qi man13 as in QI the life energy??? Us westerners don’t understand but the Chinese have had it dotted sine 1300 bc. Just a thought Cheers, dorro ………again……..and again……..and again……l.o.l.

qiman13, Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:11 pm Post subject: suppression
This is the message I get when going to the Tripod site. I had only about 4 pics and 2 video clips. No porn or anything. I think there are some eyes in this site that are trying to nip real progress in the bud. Violated Tripod’s terms my ass!

Think about it, if I chose to self-delete then I wouldn’t get that message because I could go back into that directory and reload everything. It would just be a fricking empty directory!
——————
Please Note: You are no longer an authorized member of Tripod. You have been removed because your web site violated our Terms of Service or you chose to self-delete. For more information, click here.
——————

Anyway Dorro, good luck on your mechanical method of keeping the rods in the bingo cell spaced correctly. Seems a little complex but if it works, then it works. That is more than most people get. I agree with Gary. Get it over Faraday.

One interesting thing to note in Yull Brown’s patents is that the more cells (+ & – plate combos) you have, the less current is necessary. Check it out.

Dorro, it doesn’t matter if an “electrolyzer” is powered by an alternator, battery bank, gerbals in a wheel, solar cell, etc… Just as long as the output gets into a form that is pulsed correctly to get high enough voltage spikes and each spike of course should be as quick as possible to prevent amps. Then take those spikes and put them into a primary so the secondary on that second “transformer” to get even more pure potential, then send it to the water. The second transformer or (vic) is only to get more clean radiant spikes free of electrons.

Don’t consider yourself a stupid student. If anyone of us are really that smart, we would have a working Meyer’s device. We’re all smart enough to try but still ignorant of how we can manifest a working device.

There is no school for this, but the best #1 text book to give a good primer that explains PERFECTLY the concept of what Meyer is doing is in Secrets of Cold War Technology. I can’t state that enough. Are you willing to get that book and study the 1st chapter? That is the beginning.

The inductor limits current. Any thoughts on the fact that higher frequency creates impedance that further restricts electron flow? Everyone seems to think the frequency has (only) to do with just getting some magical frequency that makes water do its thing.

Dorro, why don’t you see if Roamer will post his schematic here? I know of him but don’t know him.

qiman13, Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 2:18 pm Post subject: Meyer’s videos
Has anyone been able to upload his Video’s online? If so, I’ll bypass the 2nd schematic, 3rd, etc… I’ll get to the point and post that schematic. Deal?

If anyone has it in avi mpeg or whatever, I could get it from you on Kazaa or something or just put them in a file here.

Gary, Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:56 am Post subject:
Hi Qiman, just a quick note about the dirty brown scum accumulating in my hydrolyser, and me blaming my tap water.

Seems you were right, that’s not the problem. Even though I have used ss for everything submerged I still get it. However, I recently aqcuired some neodymium rare earth magnets to experiment with and guess what… although they show no attraction at all to my ss plates, they are attracted to my submerged ss nuts & bolts. I guess the quality of the nut & bolt ss is not up to much, containing too much ferric material. Problem sorted!

LaserLine, Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:06 am Post subject:
Gary wrote: Hi Qiman, just a quick note about the dirty brown scum accumulating in my hydrolyser, and me blaming my tap water.

Seems you were right, that’s not the problem. Even though I have used ss for everything submerged I still get it.

However, I recently aqcuired some neodymium rare earth magnets to experiment with and guess what… although they show no attraction at all to my ss plates, they are attracted to my submerged ss nuts & bolts. I guess the quality of the nut & bolt ss is not up to much, containing too much ferric material. Problem sorted! Great to see you found it Gary and how. Good to keep in mind for others building their electrolyzer.

Gary, Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:48 pm Post subject:
Interesting reading some research about the implosion of combusting stoimetric proportions of Hydrogen and Oxygen – as produced by normal electrolysis.

Basically I think we can pretty well dismiss the implosion of the combusted gases as non-relevant in terms of our ICE. It seems that experiments to show that combusting the two gases produced water and so created a vacuum only happens – and of course thinking it through logically it makes perfect sense – on a cold cylinder.

The two gases combust producing the one gas, water vapour, which then condenses on the cold cylinder walls, so creating a vacuum, plus a few drops of water. But this only happens on the 1st ignition – thereafter there is enough heat within the cylinder to prevent condensation.

I was also reading about a man called Hare, who invented a hydrogen welding torch in the early 1800’s. So how this arrogant arsehole ‘Brown’ had the outright nerve to put his name to the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, claiming it to be a new discovery and call it “Brown’s gas” is beyond me!

I must say that when I first heard of “Brown’s gas” I assumed it was something special – its not even one gas as such! Just regular H2 and O2 mixed together in their stoimetric proportions to form water upon combustion. Just airing my thoughts.

Attos, Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:26 pm Post subject: New and impressed
Qiman, Gary, and Dorro, I want to say that I am kinda new on all this -as perhaps everybody is at some point in time- but I also want to let you know that I have been following pretty closely all that has been said on this very forum and I am very impressed with the various concepts disclossed here -specially yours, Qiman. I really hope this thread continues for I have learnt more on this spot than what I have learnt in many years by looking around and asking here and there.

I have been playing with some experimentation on my own for some time already. At this point, however, I have a question I would like to share. Does anyone of you know what the outcome of the cell would be if the entire sinoidal wave is input into it? This instead of just half of it.

Gary, Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject:
Attos, in normal electrolysis, the ions in the water must reach the electrodes to give up or take on electron charges. If the currect was alternating, as in a sinosoidal signal, then the electrodes would be continuosly changing polarity.

This means the ions would be trying to move back and forth within the electrolyte, but with not many actually getting to an electrode to gain/lose a charge. At high frequencies the ions would remain fairly static. Hope that helps.

fannta, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:09 am Post subject:
@Gary , In theory that should not be a problem . The H2 / O2 ( gas ) would move up to the surface and the next water molecule would get in contact with the electrode , so there is no need for the ions to travel from one elctrode to the other . Changing the polarity of the electrodes at a high enough rate , H2 and O2 would be set free at all electrodes right away. Of course the recombination of the two gases should be inhibited .

johnh, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:28 am Post subject:
fannta wrote: @Gary , In theory that should not be a problem . The H2 / O2 ( gas ) would move up to the surface and the next water molecule would get in contact with the electrode , so there is no need for the ions to travel from one elctrode to the other . Changing the polarity of the electrodes at a high enough rate , H2 and O2 would be set free at all electrodes right away .

Of course the recombination of the two gases should be inhibited . I thought that too Fannta however I had to admit I was mistaken See my red face posts last month on OUpower . the problem is I think inhibiting the recombination – It seems to me the recombination happens before enough gas has been generated to form bubbles even. In other words AC 50 Hz (voltage to suit the cell) does not make any gas in my electrolyser – The current is consumed and the cell heats up at around the right rate for resistance heating

Further reading makes me believe this will be true up to mHz above this there may be other effects. At very low frequencies one or two Hz There will be standard DC gas production as there is time for the molecules to form clusters (bubbles).

With DC I have tried half wave with one or two diodes and full wave with a bridge rectifier with and without a smoothing capacitor and it does not seem to affect the gas production much ( I would not say there is no effect but the difference is a few % and not orders of magnitude.) With standard electrolysis Faraday probably knew what he was talking about. Regards. JohnH

Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:35 am Post subject:
You’ve got to consider here too, that the water is effectively only the ion carrier. Basically only the impurities in the water are allowing the process of electrolysis in the 1st place – remember that pure water is an extremely good insulator with stand-off voltages of, I think, Kvolts per cm!

On a slightly different note. Today I acquired at 20MHz dual scope, 5MHz function generator, 5Mhz pulse generator, 10MHz frequency counter and a digital stabilised psu. Just need to make some space now, in order to set up some fairly detailed experiments. Looks like my old 10ft x 10ft gardening shed is in for a clear out! Will keep you posted on experiments and results.

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:35 am Post subject: Brown’s gas
Hi All, I believe Meyer’s gas was Brown’s gas. I believe Meyer just happened to have the most efficient way of producing it.

William Rhodes was the first to get a patent on a fuel from water device that did not separate O & H into seperate compartments like the Brown’s gas. However, his gas was just O & H separated and kept together in one area. I beleive the properties do NOT do the same as Brown’s gas. This Rhodes character obviously is very conventional thinking and is really pissed that Brown tries to take credit. I don’t blame him for thinking that but they are not making the same gas, so Brown deserves the credit. Not Rhodes and not somebody in the 1800’s that was using a mixture of H & O. Browns gas is not a mixture.
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/oxyhyd1.htm

Occult Ether Physics is an interesting book. I don’t think the author really knows what he is talking about but he is in the right direction. Anyway, the back of the book talks about energy from hydrogen and an old atomic hydrogen welder. Just fyi…wouldn’t really recommend the book, but that is one reference to the really old h welder. Brown on the other hand, his gas is of course kept together in the same area. The kicker is that Brown’s gas is NOT separated O & H that are kept together in the proper ratio and then burned. That is NOT what is happening. It is a different water molecule that is fully intact. Instead of the Mickey Mouse shaped HOH molecule, it is HHO. Still a water molecule but of an enormous energy potential. When it is “burned” it releases its energy and collapses back to a visible water molecule. Still HHO but not “swollen” from the potential. It takes on the form of a vapor when made but is still two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom COMBINED.

My thoughts on why it is rearranged is: When the VOLTAGE POTENTIAL goes from the + to – electrode in an IMPULSE, this is what is happening. The oxygen is jerked towards the + electrode and the hydrogen is jerked towards the negative electrode. Electrons are freed up from the covalent bonding. Some of the electrons are jerked towards the + electrode and some of the electrons are following the + charged hydrogen. Some of the hydrogen will become negatively charged by having a total of 2 electrons. As soon as this happens, it will attract a + charged Hydrogen in its vicinity. Now you have 2 hydrogen atoms attached, when the pulse is off, which prevents anything from really reaching the plates in the first place since the off/on is so fast, some electrons and the oxygen are jerked towards the middle, the hydrogen and electrons that followed the hydrogen are also jerked towards the middle as well as the double hydrogen. The double hydrogen, one is – and one is +. Much of the + hydrogen will attach to an oxygen. That is what makes the HHO.

Now, this rearranged water molecule is “created” in the middle between both plates and not at the plates. That HHO is what is going out the top of the cell to be “burned.” George Weisman at www.eagle-research.com has an idea of an “expanded” water molecule but he is not the first to come up with this explanation of what Brown’s gas really is. He thinks he is, but that is ok, he is doing incredible work. Either way, he made a clear cell so he could see the “electrolysis” in the Brown’s gas maker. He noticed that exactly in the middle between the plates was a wall of bubbles that were so dense, it looks like another plate. That is the browns gas. My explanation above explains what is most likely happening. Read all his info carefully on Brown’s gas. My vote is for Yull Brown. He had a unique gas. Rhodes did not. Rhodes may have had the first patent for a non-separated H & O mixture, but Brown’s gas is NOT separated O&H that is in a proper ratio. Forget about all the stoichiometry non-sense.

Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:58 pm Post subject:
Ah! Stoichiometric – knew I hadn’t spelt that right! Where did you read about “Brown’s Gas” being a rearranged molecule Q? Can’t say I’ve seen any reference to that before.

Not sure about this though – but then you know what a “Doubting Thomas” I am! Firstly, I’ve always wondered how the “Mickey Mouse” water molecule was determined and why it would maintain that alignment with the electrons buzzing around like flies! However your HHO molecule surely cant exist like this as the valencies are no longer fulfilled. The oxygen molecule for a start is now effectively an electron short and so unstable.

If as you say the gas is like water vapour with different properties, one being that it will not condense immediately back to liquid, this should be easy enough to test.

The first thing that is apparent is that we should have only one third of the overall gas produced by normal electrolysis due to Faraday’s law. Instead of 2 x H2 and O2 we have just one molecule of HHO! I’m very skeptical about this Q, as I’ve never seen any figures for gas production or heard mention of HHO. I thought it was supposed to be varying proportions of parahydrogen and othohydrogen that created by the pulsing?

qiman13, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject: good question
I don’t know if I spelled it right myself?? The below sites all refer to the same thing. I don’t know where they get their info from. How does anything hold its form, piece of lead or wood or our eyeball when the electrons are in constant movement? I think it is a matter more of consciousness and our intent to observe it. our awareness collapses anything probable into being. it is already a known fact 100% that the movement of electrons depend on the intent of the observer. 1 million observers can “expect” for it to be here, there, whereever in a chamber experiement and they will all be 100% right, it will be where they expect proving 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that our mind can influence energy at a distance.

I think this place might be related to Dennis Lee the scammer. http://secure.northrim.net/e3/kuest/catalog/item_number/100030

Brown’s Gas is a revolutionary new technology in which water can be “burned” as a fuel. Through a patented process, water is safely separated into hydrogen and oxygen gases, and then molecularly rearranged to create a new, “stoichiometric” mixture, called Brown’s Gas. It is now HHO, rather than HOH, the usual molecular structure of water.
http://www.brownsgas.com/ – http://www.rangeguide.net/prodinfo.htm

This site says HHO goes back to HOH when burned. When burned and the browns gas turns back to visible water…which we do know does happen. that means its memory has been reset and it should be quite vibrant and that is probably why it makes plants grow better, etc…unless a collapsed hho is visible water then that may be why it has different properties than water.
http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

Do away with heavy and dangerous oxy-acetylene tanks, as well as the expense of them. The physical properties of Brown’s Gas make it a very safe mixture. It is the only material known that implodes, rather than explodes! The machine makes gas by using a relatively small amount of electnc current and a spark ignites a flame as the HHO (gas) goes back into HOH (water).

So what if one hydrogen had 2 electrons and the one next to it had 3, the one with 3 would be + and would attract the O? Things seem to do funny things when exposed to VOLTAGE POTENTIAL, which is a time reversed energy.

Example: cold fusion, in negative time, like attracts and opposites repel. the strong force holding the nucleus together is bound tight in forward time, when being exposed to negative time (very short bursts only are necessary), which is VOLTAGE POTENTIAL, the bond reverses. 2 up quarks and 1 down quark per photon and 2 down quarks and 1 up quark per neutron (or the other way around). when they pull apart from the negative time, if one of the down quarks in a neutron flip and the negative time (time reversal zone) decays, the strong force pulls them back together and if only 1 downquark in a neutron flips, it becomes a proton and bumps it up 1 element in the table. of course it it not predictable like this and the quark flipping is a “random” event. It does happen from the time reversal zones.

If the hydrogen atoms retain enough VOLTAGE POTENTIAL, which is time reversed, they could remain attracted with the same number electrons. when that voltage potential is used, it collapses back to normal. this would be more probable if it has nothing to do with the amount of electrons different H atoms have. it sounds weird, but it is a fact that time reverses in very small areas..atomic scale…I’m not implying that our whole universe is going to be pumped backwards ruling out time travel into our past, which of course is a possibility but I don’t see how at this point. your thoughts?
Gary, Posted: Wed Sep 22, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject:
Back with the Quantum Physics again eh, Q! Quantum physics seems to make anything possible, and I suppose nothing should be discounted, but frankly I don’t think that we are providing anywhere near enough energy from an electrolyser to reform the water molecule and maintain it in a knew shape!

Though the arrangement of atoms within molecules can provide one compound with very different properties to another which has the exact same elemental make-up, but just differently arranged, water being of only 2 elements does not have this luxury.

A proton is composed of 2 up quarks and 1 down, but can have no real bearing on what we are doing. If a neutron was converted to a proton by changing an up to a down, it would need to react with either a positron or an electron neutrino – we are talking energy levels in excess of 1MeV!

These kind of energy levels are only achievable by design, within massive particle accelerators… certainly not a 120W electrolyser! I favour looking for other explanations… at present anyhow.

qiman13, Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:09 am Post subject: energy requirements
Hi Gary, Time energy (voltage potential) has totally different properties than forward moving current energy (joules). I think the neutron would have to have a down changed to an up instead of an up to a down to change to a proton.

It isn’t true that particle accelerators are the only thing that meet the energy requirements for these changes. They are a waste of time, money and energy. A particle accelerator is like using a tidal wave to wash your face. Totally useless.

Look at cold fusion. It is a fact and not theory that it works. It has been duplicated HUNDEREDS of times around the world at “credible” universities as well as private labs. It can be done very cheap and with relatively very low power. All of this can be done on a desk in your workshop and a power source that plugs into your wall. It is a known fact that a transmutation of elements happens and therefore, quark flipping is occuring at these low power levels. The (time reversal zones) do pull apart the strong force enough for the quarks to flip and the trv decays and the strong force pulls it back together and a neutron has changed to a proton.

Again, using time energy (time energy conserved within the voltage potential) is not comparable to energy requirements you quote that are measurable in joules. Voltage potential is not measurable in joules since no amperage is available. realistically, there may be a very small amount of amperage since our technological limits keep us from pulsing something with zero time. It can be in fractions of a nanosecond but not much quicker. ideally, there would no time per pulse.

For time energy, it doesn’t happen this orderly probably but for example. each time you half the time of a pulse, the voltage doubles. (just for example). you can keep halving the time and doubling the voltage. theoretically, there are an infinite number of halves that the time can be reduced by going towards zero time and an infinite number of doubling of voltages towards infinite voltage potential. getting to zero time in a pulse has a theoretical infinite voltage potential. all the time energy is conserved within the voltage potential itself. the less time, the more voltage potential, the more time the less voltage potential.

If a pulse had an infinite pulse width, the voltage would be zero. example, speeding up towards the speed of light, energy increases towards infinity according to e=mc2. speeding up (faster pulse), there is less time ticking because all that time energy is being absorbed by the mass (absorbing voltage potential – pressure of the aether or a relative resistance to it based on speed of a mass through it, this is inertia…inertia is the conversion of time energy directly to mass) and the mass takes on that time energy. this is a direct conversion of time to mass (matter). e really equals absorbed time energy. it is a totally different energy from voltage X amps = watts X seconds = joules x duty cycle = joules (adjusted for duty cycle). This is the energy you refer to as being necessary to pull apart the strong force.

Using voltage potential or time energy is not comparable. time energy dwarfs “wasted energy” and wasted energy is what joules are a measurement of.

Freedomfuel, Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: voltage source
[quote=”qiman13″]Hi Gary, I must insist that it is not ions being used up from electrolytes that kills a battery. It has always been a mystery where the SOURCE CHARGE comes from and it is NOT from the electrolytes. A battery is a dipole and the dipole breaks the symmetry of the aether. This is an established fact. It is possible that you and/or your sources are correct and that the leading energy physicists in the world are incorrect but they know better. You have to realize that the leading truth will never make it to mainstream for years and years. [quote]

It looks like someone has been reading Tom Bearden. Now we getting somewhere! This very interesting thread will need to be studied carefully before I make my contribtuion

qiman13, Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:14 pm Post subject: Hi Freedom Fuel
Glad you know Bearden. The Father of Scalar Electromagnetics deserves a lot of credit because he really nailed the source charge problem.

So, it’s probably very obvious to you that Meyer was pulsing longitudinal impulses into the water keeping it an open circuit verses current, which would close the circuit. This is definitely the method behind the whole deal. Would love to hear your take on this thing.

qiman13, Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:16 pm Post subject: more out than in:
I think I stated it before, but not sure. Meyers cell is an open circuit and not a closed one. This is essential to understand. Any system that is open with its environment can freely output more energy than the operator inputs. Any system that is closed to its environment will dissipate all its energy until it comes into equilibrium with its environment.

The laws of thermodynamics do not apply to Meyer’s cell. However, the laws of non-equilibrium thermodynamics do. A closed system is a child’s top that is spun. X energy in and there is no more access to any energy input. The top will spin dissipating its energy back to the environment and will come to a stop when all the energy is used. Then it is in equilibrium with its environment. The laws of equilibrium thermodynamics apply to this system and this is the thermodynamics that all of learn in the school books.

A diesel generator is a closed system. X amount of diesel in a tank, the engine runs and the electricity produced is less joules of work that the joules in the diesel. So if 10 parts go in, maybe 5 parts is usable in the end. That would be 50% efficient for simplicity sake. When the diesel is used up (no access to other energy from the environment since it is closed) the engine will stop meaning it has come into equilibrium with its environment.

An open system: A tree. You plant an apple tree, you get a seed put it in the ground and water it. You do a little mainenance. When the tree is full of apples, those apples will equal a hell of a lot more energy than what you put into the tree. The tree had free access to energy from its environment. Sun, air, rain, soil nutrients, etc… An open system doesn’ t mean the output is more than the input. I said the output is more than the operator inputs. There is other input but we don’t have to do it, nature does it. So if the tree planter person puts in 10 parts energy, the apples could wind up with 1000 parts energy. This is WAY over 100% efficient and is totally possible with an open system. This is an open dissipative system. The laws of equilibrium thermodynamics do NOT apply to these systems. Never had never will. Only non-equilibrium thermodynamics apply, which easily permit over 100% efficiency.

An atom. H has one nucleus with an electron spinning around it. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe an atom is a closed system. If it was, the electron moving would have to sustain on nothing but pure momentum from some initial push. Very ridiculous. It is open and the electron has access to the Aether to sustain it. Every atom is an overunity device as is a tree and as is any electric circuit that is an open circuit. A human being…open system.

Electrolysis = current bridging a gap from one plate to another closing the circuit. The laws of thermodynamics apply here.

Voltage potential = pulsing longitudinal impulses into water. no current bridges a gap. the pulses are pulsed and shut off very fast. It leaves the circuit completely open with its environment. The water cell receives a “charge” and it turns it into a dipole. That dipole has free access to the Aether. Every water molecule is also an open system. This is an open dissipative system. The laws of non-equilibrium thermodynamics apply here. Why?

Because an open system keeps dissipating energy but cannot come into equilibrium with its environment. Learn about the laws of thermodynamics that applies to the WFC and not the laws of thermodynamics that apply to closed systems!

Ilya Prigogine: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977 “for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures” http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1977/index.html

Study his Nobel Lecture: Called: Time, Structure and Fluctuations Available on pdf here: http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.html

————————
The voltage potential spike moves from one direction in the cell to the other, it gets the electrons to flow in the opposite direction in a quick pulsed fashion. The spike is shut off and the electrons don’t make it to the plate. H doesn’t make it to the plate, O doesn’t make it to the plate. When it is shut off, they’ll go back together in the middle of the cell. This has just happened with voltage potential and current wasn’t necessary.