Guy´s - the secret to Stanely Meyer is OUT!!!

[Jehu]

[Hydrogenworld]

[iteration69]

[Hydrogenworld]

[iteration69]

First I would like to set things strait. I am not bashing Meyer's design, but i am bashing, if that word is to be used, the crude methods in use by everyone approaching Meyer's design. What i am bringing to attention for everyone are the requirements of scientific replication. Without scientific replication there is no control over the experiment and therefor you can not quantize any meaningful data.

There can be no collaboration without standard conditions and baselines. Instead of everyone working together to solve the greater problem, everyone is going in there own direction with absolutely no control over the experiment but at the same time they are trying to convey data as if it means something. This is the exact purpose of para-science, that is to produce misinformation in regard to scientific models. With everyone abandoning the fundamental scientific models, no progress can be made.

No scientific replication- No standard conditions - No base lines = No control over the experiment = no meaningful data. This is a problem that must be solved for any progress to be made. I will stress this point until the problem is corrected.

Once scientific replication has been proven (and it can be done) the paradigm will shift and drastic changes will unfold. This will never happen if everyone keeps tinkering and disregarding these models.

I find it particularly disturbing that COP and "over 100% efficiency" (as if it exists) are used in the same context implying the two are one of the same. This is a major problem with in this area, owing mostly to the propaganda from para-science. That is, COP > 1.0 systems, and the analysis in general are the same as "over 100% efficiency". Nothing is over 100% efficient. This is why COP ("Co-efficient" of performance) is used. The terms must be used properly with analysis. Understand that a system may have a COP > 1 or maybe COP > 10 and have an efficiency far less than 100%, in reality most systems are less than 75% or even 50% (other than mechanical to heat which tends to approach 100%)

Back to the EEC, it does much more than capture electrons. The EEC is the very triggering process, otherwise you end up with a high efficiency electrolysis experiment. Take note that i said efficiency, this is a proper context because it is not COP > 1.0, in fact it is much less than 1.0.

With the EEC operating, efficiency can not be used to cite the product because the energy out is many times what is supplied in electrical energy. When speaking in terms of operation in regard to the EEC the system is COP > 1.0 (by a very large factor). Hypothetically, the system may have a COP of 500, but this does not negate the fact that it is less than 100% efficient.

Because people tend to interchange the use of COP and efficiency, I'm going to elaborate a bit. There are losses in the circuits, losses in which the electrical energy is converted into heat via the resistance of the electrical conductors. Losses in the electromagnetic circuits in terms of fringing flux, eddy currents which also decompose into heat, there exist radiated emissions which leak out as stray broad band RF signals. Mind you there are micro and macro losses. No matter how good the design, there will be some degree of electron leakage and losses. All these losses exist, are accumulative, and unavoidable. The fact that the system is not 100% efficient owes to prior losses. In short, the losses are energy which can not be utilized by the system nor recovered. Do not mistake or equate efficiency and COP, not even in general conversation with someone who would not know better. This propagates misinformation and impedes progress.

COP and efficiency are not the same.

There is nothing that i have stated here that can be argued by any theoretical physicist, scientist, engineer, analysts, etc. This is all based from solid scientific models. Anyone who would question the scientific model would in turn have to turn the questions on their very line of discipline.

As i have pointed out numerous times, we need scientific replication and until the experiments and apparatus mature to such a degree, nothing can be agreed upon, trusted, or taken seriously. Progress will not be made. This being the very reason COP > 1.0 systems are considered jokes, even though several exist and are used in day to day life.

Don't let the para-science of politics dictate your objectivity, Science is the road.

[Hydrogenworld]

@ iteration69

For the record, I agree to 110% in what you wrote, nothing less then that.

There are two reasons I started my research (and in time stumbled upon Meyer). 1. Produce a non-hazard fuel. 2. Answer the question: Is it possible to run a car on water, later on changed that phrase to Is it possible to use water as a fuel source.. The answer is yes on too all, it is possible. Some of the technical steps are used by the industry today while some not. The point is that it is possible to develop a system that give you a water based fuel source system and doing it safely.

In terms of you're agenda here which I do understand and ones more agree upon is the fact that there possible to arrange for such a test (soon) where we use or create a set of standard rules, equipment and so forth. In time we will get what you ask for.

At the moment I am evaluating Meyer's VIC card and GMS cards used in the Dune Buggy alongside deciding which core material to go for, for the multi-coil (5) used for the WFC as every thing ells including the EEC and so forth.

[iteration69]

Hydrogenworld,

Meyer's designs aside for the time being, you will need a cell design that can meet the strict requirements of scientific replication.

Take note that the scientific requirement of replication is traceable and pays particular attention to details. As you will see in the following rough draft outline.

First and foremost thee controlling variable in such a cell is the water. At first this may seem to be a trivial question but i assure you that this is not the case. A detailed log must be kept in regards to the water. Whether the water source be a natural spring, a well, city, deionized, distilled etc. Special care must be taken to use the same source in all experiments. If the source is changed then the log must reflect the change and continuing calibration verification (CCV) must be proven.

A quantifiable batch of water must be used, that is a large volume of water taken from a single source. The volume of water should be at least ten times your cell's capacity. Doing so will allow you to maximize the throughput of the apparatus while addressing initial quality control requirements(QC).

The standard operating procedure (SOP) requires standard conditions (ie, water quality) to be known and met prior to any experimental run. These conditions comprise of basic water tests:
-Water batch PH
-Water batch Specific conductivity
-Water batch total dissolved solids (TDS)
-Water batch total suspended solids (TSS)

Quantitative limits, both minimal and maximal must be determined and control mechanisms in place. That is, if a given batch of water is below or above some predefined limits, the batch must be rejected and the rejection cited in the log book.

Noting the source of the water, the time and date of the water sample, the batch size, the time and date of the experiment, the water analysis results, the technician's signature, and the documented SOP in a log book, the experiment is now permitted to continue in a documented, traceable manor.

Now that we have a given batch of water that has passed basic QC requirements we can move on to determine the thermal capacity of the apparatus. In order to cite thermometric figures relative to the apparatus, another set of standard conditions must be defined, met, and documented.

We will call this "thermal base line". The thermal base line itself has it's own set of strict rules which must be met.

1) The apparatus may not be changed in any way during experiments
2) A calibrated volume of water must be used during all experiments
3) A calibrated thermal source must be used to raise the temperature of the apparatus by a predefined stimulus unit. Note that this unit is not required to be reported as a thermal unit, it may be ohms, voltage, or current. But it must be repeatable.

A few notes on the thermal base line requirements. It's easy enough to ensure the cell does not change during test, simply and strait forward - do not touch it in any way. In order to ensure that a calibrated volume of water is delivered to the cell an intermediate stage must be constructed. This intermediate stage will also require replication to be proven, to do so, we use digital balance that has been proven to be repeatable given our mass-range of water. The time and date, the mass and stimulus unit, and the technicians name will be cited in the log book. The thermal state of the water must also be under control with minimal and maximal stimulus figures predetermined, once again this does not have to be in standard thermal units, it may be ohm, volt, or current. The thermal source must also undergo proof of replication, that is voltage and current must be sampled and cited, this with a given rise of stimulus and known volume of water delivered from the intermediate stage under thermally controlled conditions, the apparatus will meet the scientific requirement of replication and control in regards the thermal base line, and thermal tanking.

If the apparatus has proven repeatable to this point, it should be allowed to continue. Otherwise corrective actions must be taken, cited, logged, and the process repeated until proven reliable.


--Here is where it starts to get fuzzy in terms of standard conditions--
The next variable of interest is another volumetric, that is gas. Before any experiment can be allowed to continue a leak testing must be performed, but prior to the leak test a pressure range must be established. That is minimal and maximal pressure differences relative to atmosphere. The apparatus should be kept in a temperature controller environment,IE, and incubator. The incubator itself will have standard conditions which much be met, that is, a range, minimal, maximal cited in a thermal stimulus.Just as before, the incubator must be proven to be within operating range prior to an experiment, this would be cited in the log book as well.

With a proven, thermally controlled environment, the leak test may be allowed to continue. The leak test will have it's own range

Note, if the minimal and maximal range far exceed that of the pressure gain from IR radiation, then an incubator will not be required. However, such a large pressure range is not likely to yield qualitative figures such as a low pressure range. For scientific replication i highly recommend a low pressure range as this will eliminate any doubts that may be evident otherwise.

It's ridiculous to expect a person to log hundreds of data points a minute. But it is foreseeable to use a computer to log and control; simply require a person to sign off on a digital record. It then becomes obvious that a SCADA application is a definitive requirement of such an apparatus. Such a SCADA application should be discussed in great detail, as once established everyone could share their results and control algorithms.

Consider this the standard conditions for experiments. What i have just out lined here will provided hundreds of variables that meet the strict requirements of scientific replication. In addition, everyone will be able to contribute in a positive manor. The data produced by such a system will be useful by many people for years to come.

With such a system, we progress.

[iteration69]

Nearly two weeks since my last post and no signs that anyone has given this topic the time that it deserves.

Considering the trend of energy prices i would have guessed that there would be a line of people with interests in properly approaching the experiment. The fact that there is very little interest in doing things properly certainly coincides with the outrageous energy costs.

That's right, keep on tinkering and disregarding the proven methods. Think of all the time wasted tinkering the next time you pay for gas, electric, heating, cooling. Then consider if all the energy put into haphazard tinkering was used in a constructive manor, in such a way that a large group of people could collaboratively contribute to a greater cause productively, through scientific methods. When a proof is obtained it will be virtually indisputable.

It's your choice, right now.

United we stand, divided we fall.

[mrgalleria]

No replies?
Sad?
Could be the discussion has veered off topic, into a ego mountain.
How about a practical progressive constructive advancement in simple procedures to be successful in doing what Stan did?
In his back yard?
With a VW?
No fancy demands for "gauge language".
Who cares about scientific language and procedure?
1 in 999, maybe?
Everyone just wants to see a car run on water,
and they don't want to study physics, mathematics, science, etc.,
for years first. And why should they?
Stan's lecture in Colorado laid it out in simple terms.
Tesla and Donald Lee Smith did the electronics for us.
High voltage (9000+ volts), High frequency (20+K Hz.) as primary on a secondary, design of wide variety. Amps input can be very low, Donald Lee Smith used a neon light transformer (voltage amplifier).
Induce a HF HF current in the secondary coil, use that current on any WFC, and water should come apart with ease.

[kevinsatterfield]

i posted some pictures in the project section.... if you havent seen em yet

[chemelec]

[chemelec]

[kevinsatterfield]

[kevinsatterfield]

[iteration69]

mrgalleria:

No ego mountain at all. There are probably 10,000 people out there with wires running in a bucket of water and not a single shred of evidence of anything more than standard electrolysis.Keep on perpetuating misinformation. Everyone new to this field has to dig through a mountain of failed experiments which are represented otherwise. What a terrible waste of time, how many qualified people are turned away due the plethora of scum floating around? People neglect the very fundamentals in favor that somehow in the end it will all work out. Perhaps a few people do get lucky, but due to their haphazard approach and lack of fundamental theories they find that the experiment only works sometimes, when the moon is the western sky and the radio is partially tuned to the oldies(or some other ridiculous excuse passed on as a explanation). But no one else can replicate it. -- What a waste of time! Why not play the lottery if you are feeling lucky, at least playing the lottery is not perpetuating misinformation and turning people away!

If you pay close attention you will notice those who get some followers start making all sorts of claims with no supporting evidence. It's very obvious they lack the very basics to even make a crude analysis, if any analysis at all. Then they stop working on the experiment for one reason or another. Why? Certainly not because "big oil" is trashing their experiment. They do a good enough job of that themselves. And then they perpetuate "results" of a given design in a grossly misrepresented manor.

I'm not giving up and I will cite these problems as long as they exist.
STOP THE PERPETUATION OF MISINFORMATION!

Chem seems to be one of the few capable of citing the problems. And everyone ignores the voice of reason.

There are people out there in closed circles who have cited many controlling factors such as variable trends, control problems, replication standards, etc. Everyone who shrugs their shoulders pushes away those who know better.