Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[tao]

Ok gentlemen, time for another awakening.

Water is a carrier of energy, surely we all know that. We also know that water has more energy in it than gasoline does. Yet, we assume that a device that can easily split water is akin to a 'OU' or 'Free' energy device, and it is to an extent. Yet, water still needs to be transported to the device and the water is still 'used up' so more needs to be added to the device.

I am making these statements because people often group Stanley Meyer type systems in the same light that solid state electric only OU devices are in, this shouldn't be done. This shouldn't be done, because water is a FUEL, like GASOLINE, and we are ADDING it to the system. The only thing that these water splitters are doing is efficiently splitting the water, which then lets us USE all it's contained energy.


Now lets meet Stanley Meyer and his METHOD for water splitting, and SEE why it has been so hard to replicate...

The whole 'secret' to Meyer's method was to use the 'water to be split' as a DIELECTRIC and to use the SS (stainless steel) plates that were in the water as CAPACITOR PLATES. He would then use ONE of his various methods to build up VERY HIGH VOLTAGE across the plates in the water which, at a certain point, would cause DIELECTRIC FAILURE. This means that all the voltage that had build up on the SS plates would reach a level higher than the voltage breakdown of the water and the dielectric would FAIL. This means that effectively, the voltage across the SS plates would ARC OVER to between the plates. For this to happen, there NEEDS to be a pathway for this ARC. This is what happens in the air when you get an electric shock. In the water though, when the ARC happens, this MEANS that the water molecules are SPLITTING, basically being RIPPED APART.

Hence, you are basically using VOLTAGE *ONLY* to SPLIT WATER by using the water as the DIELECTRIC of a capacitor and exceeding that water's voltage breakdown level! The GOOD THING is that VOLTAGE isn't POWER, and the LESS CURRENT that is used to REACH said VOLTAGES, the lower the POWER USED. So, very much unlike normal electrolysis where all use want is current flow, these methods of splitting water only really care about using VOLTAGE, which ISN"T POWER!

Lindemann went over a lot of this in his "The World of Free Energy" video...


Ok, now that we know HOW to split the water and how to do so WITHOUT POWER, lets see why it is so hard to duplicate Meyer's setups....


First off, when I say that you DON'T WANT CURRENT, I mean it! Having Current (electron flow) in and around SS plates completely DESTROYS THIS WHOLE WATER SPLITTING METHOD! In fact, this is one of the major reasons why people refute Meyer's setup, because they don't think it is possible!

Allow me to explain: The idea is that you build up a very high voltage on the SS plates and then the water splits when it's dielectric 'fails'. Simple enough right? No. If you just take a normal power supply, say that you took a 100V DC power supply and hooked it up to the SS plates. Well, long before those SS plates ever get a voltage of 100V across them, you are going to see current moving through the water. Why is this? This is because a normal power supply is ADDING/MOVING ELECTRONS TO THE SS PLATES, which are in the water, and this is making it VERY easy for the WATER to CONDUCT and for the electrons to FLOW from one plate to another. So, this means that using normal power supplies, it would be almost impossible to EVER GET A HIGH VOLTAGE ACROSS THE SS PLATES, and HENCE impossible to rip apart the water via a dielectric failure method.

This is where Stan's work comes in though. He realized that the status quo power supply just couldn't handle it, so he build ever more complex devices and methods for generating VOLTAGE WITHOUT CURRENT, ala Tesla! This is the KEY to being able to SPLIT WATER WITH ONLY VOLTAGE, PERIOD.

The problems with trying to replicate Meyer's systems come from the complex nature of his various methods to get to this NO CURRENT and ONLY VOLTAGE situation. Meyer used pulsed DC, collapsed magnetic fields, bifilar coils, diodes, with charging chokes, magnetic fields to strip away some of the electron flow, PRACTICALLY ANYTHING he COULD USE to try to get to a situation with NO CURRENT and HIGH VOLTAGE. It was harder for him then it sounds. You might think to yourself, why not just use the capacitor like a parallel RESONANT circuit and apply AC to the system to cause the voltage to move toward infinity while the current goes down to nothing? Well, the PROBLEM with doing that is that, water is complex and expecially in a water wplitting type of device, the capacitance of our water capacitor (the water as dielectric and the SS plates) would constantly be shifting, and as this is shifting, we wouldn't be able to constantly maintain near perfect resonance and the  voltage would lower and current would be introduced which would RUIN THE WATER SPLITTING PROCESS.

It is all very complex, and it was even complex for Stanley Meyer. He originally thought it was going to take him only some months time to get everything working well, when in fact it took so many years. This is all understandable.


Now, enter Dr. Avramenko...

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avrasch.gif)

He figured out how to send ENERGY down a single wire, and at the END of that wire where he places his 'Avramenko's Plug' (which is two diodes connected in opposite to that single transmission wire), VOLTAGE WILL APPEAR at the ends of the two diodes! SO, there is NO CURRENT AT ALL IN THE SINGLE WIRE, YET VOLTAGE WILL MANIFEST ITSELF AT THE ENDS OF THE DIODES!

Here are some excerpts from ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS done by Frolov and Naudin:

From Alexander Frolov's experiments detailed in frolov1.asc
"I used for this scheme a 30 VAC hand-made generator (variable oscillator) to
supply the input for L1, at a frequency of 10 KHz.  The transformer was rated
at 30/3000 Volts and the diodes rated at 1.5 KV.  The ammeter can be used as
load R. Note that an ammeter placed between the transformer and point A does
not show any current drain.
                           CONCLUSIONS
These circuits have experimentally proved the possibility of producing power
in a load by means of POTENTIAL ONLY!"

Point A that he refers to is the single wire, so here we see confirmation that there is NO CURRENT flowing in the single wire, hence no electron flow. This confirms Avramenko's findings. JL Naudin has found the same things as Frolov to confirm Avramenko's findings.


The MOST important thing to realize about Avramenko's setup is that there is NO CURRENT FLOW AT ALL, and yet the voltage GETS TO AND BUILDS UP IN THE A CAPACITOR THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE TWO DIODES!


Have you pictured it yet?


We can now do what Meyer only dreamed of, that is to use ONLY VOLTAGE, WITHOUT CURRENT FLOW, to APPLY VOLTAGE to the SS PLATES in the water thereby using the water as a dielectric. Since there is NO CURRENT FLOW, there is no ADDING/MOVING electrons GOING INTO and ONTO the SS PLATES, which MEANS we can BUILD UP a VERY HIGH VOLTAGE across the SS Plates without having to worry about electrons prematurely conducting through the water!

So, a completlely viable solution to solving the crisis of trying to duplicate Meyer's 'hard to duplicate' setups is to merely use an Avramenko single wire setup , and use the SS plates from Meyer's setup as the capacitor that is connected to the two diodes in Avramenko's setup. This means we don't have to worry about electron flow at all, since we are using a single wire! There are no 'grounds' that we need to worry about, there is no need for any of the convoluted setups that Meyer was using!


In addition to making a setup like Frolov, Avramenko, or Naudin, you can make a setup like Milan Manchich did. He used a flat Tesla pancake coil, and applied a HF voltage to the inner or outer wire of the pancake coil, and on the opposite wire of the pancake coil, he placed an 'Avramenko's Plug', and he found the same effects as the other three gentlemen! So, there are MANY ways to use Avramenko's ONE WIRE and PLUG (two diode) setups to reach the effects that we are after, NO CURRENT, ONLY VOLTAGE!


More later, kind of tired at the moment, lol.



Sources/Sites:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/frolov1.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avramenk.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep01.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep012.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/milan.htm

[Unicron]

.

[ZeroFossilFuel]

Not sure I agree completely about zero current flow. Avramenko's single wire generator sends AC down a single wire. The two free ends of the diode capacitor junctions act as the 2nd half of an antenna dipole, enhanced by immersion in water. Voltage is rectified creating a 2nd current path through the diodes and spark gap. Potential across a spark gap will induce a current when the dielectric breaks down. Conductivity of the water is still going to bleed off the charge attempting to build up in the capacitor.

I think one would still be on the right track to walk the parallel resonant path, however to make it self tuning via microprocessor to maintain the optimum frequency for shifting cell conditions.

Another factor in the PWM frequency equation that I think many ignore is rise and fall time of the square wave (attack and decay frequency). This is where I think Meyer's series inductors played a significant role. It's not enough to consider the fundamental frequency alone. It may not even the major contributing factor. Control or addition of harmonics should not be ignored.

ZFF

[tao]

Not sure I agree completely about zero current flow. Avramenko's single wire generator sends AC down a single wire. The two free ends of the diode capacitor junctions act as the 2nd half of an antenna dipole, enhanced by immersion in water. Voltage is rectified creating a 2nd current path through the diodes and spark gap. Potential across a spark gap will induce a current when the dielectric breaks down. Conductivity of the water is still going to bleed off the charge attempting to build up in the capacitor.

I think one would still be on the right track to walk the parallel resonant path, however to make it self tuning via microprocessor to maintain the optimum frequency for shifting cell conditions.

Another factor in the PWM frequency equation that I think many ignore is rise and fall time of the square wave (attack and decay frequency). This is where I think Meyer's series inductors played a significant role. It's not enough to consider the fundamental frequency alone. It may not even the major contributing factor. Control or addition of harmonics should not be ignored.

ZFF

There might be some current flow, but I doubt it.

"Some tests has been done successfuly in Moscow (Electrotechnical Institute) with a
1kW power generator through a single-wire transmission line with only a 10 microns
tungsten wire. No significant losses has been recorded on the wattmeters."

He has even been able to send energy through all sorts of conductors like tungsten, the earth, etc, and even was able to send energy via NONCONDUCTORS.

There is an effect akin to Tesla here, and IMPULSES.

I do agree with what you are saying about the conductivity of the water and the altering of frequencies, but that would be much easier to handle (if we have to handle it at all) by using an Avramenko or Milan setup, because we are merely adjusting one variable, one input frequency. Whereas, in Meyer's setups, you have dealing with trying to stop current flow, adjusting the charging chokes, and adjusting the input frequencies to match the status of the water...

[tinu]

Hi Tao,

It?s an honor for me, really, to partially reply to one of your posts.

I?d like to address the Avramenko?s plug.
I have begun experimenting with it starting from 8-9 months ago. I really did not know at that time that the setup has a name and that it was actually extensively researched/studied as I stumbled upon it by pure coincidence. (I don?t think my personal experience is relevant but I can give details, if needed.)

Anyway, I found that although no real current is flowing through the one wire setup, power through that wire is still flowing. In all, the power from the power source is partially transferred to the load connected after the Avramenko?s plug, despite the fact that one can not measure a real current in-between. In my understanding, there is a longitudinal oscillation occurring in the single wire (between the electrons along the wire) and that oscillation is carrying real power. (There are limitations, also; such an oscillation is less effective than the usual two-wire setup/transversal oscillations).

I felt to post about it because the set-up for verifying the above is not very complex and facts can be relatively easy verified. I can provide info for other experimenters, if interested.
I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes. Based on a dc ? ac (kHz) ? one wire ? Avramenko?s plug - dc setup, I was able to verify the down to a very good precision the dc power-in and the dc power-out. They match.

Many thanks for your attention,

Tinu

[tao]

Hi Tao,

It?s an honor for me, really, to partially reply to one of your posts.

I?d like to address the Avramenko?s plug.
I have begun experimenting with it starting from 8-9 months ago. I really did not know at that time that the setup has a name and that it was actually extensively researched/studied as I stumbled upon it by pure coincidence. (I don?t think my personal experience is relevant but I can give details, if needed.)

Anyway, I found that although no real current is flowing through the one wire setup, power through that wire is still flowing. In all, the power from the power source is partially transferred to the load connected after the Avramenko?s plug, despite the fact that one can not measure a real current in-between. In my understanding, there is a longitudinal oscillation occurring in the single wire (between the electrons along the wire) and that oscillation is carrying real power. (There are limitations, also; such an oscillation is less effective than the usual two-wire setup/transversal oscillations).

I felt to post about it because the set-up for verifying the above is not very complex and facts can be relatively easy verified. I can provide info for other experimenters, if interested.
I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes. Based on a dc ? ac (kHz) ? one wire ? Avramenko?s plug - dc setup, I was able to verify the down to a very good precision the dc power-in and the dc power-out. They match.

Many thanks for your attention,

Tinu

I thank you for your response Tinu.

You bring up a key issue, and the reason for my slight introduction to my intro post in this thread!

You said this: "I also felt to post because, although energy is transferred, it is not free, as some wrongly assumes."

I totally agree with you, the energy isn't free at all, we are only getting on the output what we put into the input, about 100% efficiency.

The KEY here is this: We are USING the Avramenko type setups to ENGINEER a HIGH VOLTAGE with practically NO CURRENT, and we are then applying THIS ENGINEERED OUTPUT to WATER, in order to SPLIT that water. WATER is our FUEL, which must be ADDED to our setups continually as we USE THE ENERGY FROM THE WATER... In this instance, water is no different than GASOLINE, BUT to US, water is easy to get to and to US it is almost FREE, so we might think its all free energy, but it isn't!

So, We would be using an Avramenko type setup, KNOWING that there is NO FREE ENERGY involved with it, but KNOWING that an Avramenko type setup can ENGINEER the right types of High Voltage and Low-to-no current that we need to SPLIT the water so that we can use the WATER's energy content for use in our generators!

So, no breaking of any laws, nothing really obscure happening here, just precisely engineered inputs to the SS plates, so that we can GET TO the water's energy source! Just like plants already do!

Thanks for your post.

[Super God]

This is good news, now I can use all those parts I bought for the lawton pulser for something else, like a tpu pulser or something.  What value would the capacitor in the circuit be related to?  Does it depend on how far away the condenser plates are from one another?

[Nastrand2000]

So...If I am to understand this....the closer the SS plates are together, then a lower voltage can be used( 100 to 1000)...using the water as a dielectric. Dielectric breakdown is measured between the oppositely charged plates and their medium. I am interested because I have a motor that runs on 16 milliwatts (0.008 amps @ 2 volts) and produces 160 volt spikes. This has been measured with an oscilloscope, and the motor runs at about 60 rpm at this setting.  However, if this voltage could be used to generate h2, then I would like to further this experiment.   

[Super God]

I've got an idea to re-vamp the lawton solid state circuit to use the MOSFET and ONE 555 timer to drive the plug.  I have little ceramic capacitors that I could run in series or parallel, dunno which yet.  But essentially I'm cutting the circuit in half and using a plug to interface with the gaps, maybe a plug for each one!  What would you recommend for a capacitor value?  Obviously a very high voltage.  Low capacitance, high capacitance?  I dunno.

[Super God]

Ooo another question popped into my mind.  Do we use a SINGLE plug for EVERY two plates (pos and neg in a normal setup) or do we use a plug for every two plates?