voltage intensified transformer

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Benches > rizla > voltage intensified transformer

2023-12-06, 17:51:29
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Author Topic: voltage intensified transformer (Read 47833 times)

rizla	voltage intensified transformer « on: 2011-04-23, 06:58:06 »
Group: Guest	This is for research into my current restricting transformer, if anybody has anything constructive to add then please do. It will be used in chemistry applications that i will not go into here. I have built a basic version, here is the build info: The transformer is about 55mm x 55 mm, I have noticed the core i used the center leg has a gap, i have not tried one without a gap but it should still work. Next find a tube to fit over the center leg. The tube is then wound bifilar from top to bottom with .2mm magnetic wire. Now the primary, i have used .5mm for this but my re-build will use 1mm. One half of the transformer primary is wound in one direction to the center and the other half is then wound in the opposite direction forming 2 coils of opposing magnetic fields, this is wound longitudal to the inductor (bifilar tube), over the core. The picture shows one half wound. Any "goo" you see is wax. Now wind the secondary over the top of primary in same direction as bifilar inductor ie secondary is wrapped around core in a east/west direction over top of primary (being north/south direction), do 1 or 2 layers. Use .2mm magnetic wire. I have wound a small secondary, it has been wound from each inside edge of the core giveing a larger output voltage. Thats the transformer build, next post will be the wireing but what i will finnish with is what you get for your effort. This transformer can be built with a secondary and inductor resistance of about 15 to 20 ohms, and when shorted the voltage remains across the secondary thru the working bandwidth of the transformer, the inductor is in the circuit so to measure across the secondary is not testing across the short.So what i am saying is almost no current flows in the circuit.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #1 on: 2011-04-24, 07:23:26 »
Group: Guest	Here is some wireing info: The primary at the moment is driven by 2 transistors in a darlington config connected to a signal generator. The bifilar coil is tesla`s wound side by side instead of on top of each wire. Connect in circuit as the diagram shows then swap wires so the magnetic fields align, primary and secondary need to be aligned at the same time to give max. output and current restriction. I put more wire on the secondary becouse the voltage was a little low and the 1mm primary wire heats the driver transistor up with no noticeable advantage, .5mm to .6mm looks a better option. When testing with a scope the scope ground multiples the current drawn even with it`s earth disconnected. In fact testing this circuit has a few odd problems, for example putting the probe on x10 has sometimes caused the circuit to draw more current, it`s like the transformer ground position has moved and i have had the direction of current flow reverse according to the ammeter by adjusting the frequency. So at the moment i cannot pin down exactly whats happening and how to make it happen when i want. On the circuit diagram is a few measurements, and yes they are a little odd, the 2v is is there more or less open or short circuit, in fact the secondary drops voltage a bit with a open circuit. My aim is to design a high voltage version of this transformer that has current restriction., thats if i can work out the small one first. I have had it working correctly however it seems to go out of "tune" like the ground point moves for no known reason, but at least i know it has done what i want it to.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #2 on: 2011-05-03, 01:32:23 »
Group: Guest	Done some testing on this circuit but still cannot re-create a past experiment. By placeing the output across metal tubes 1.5mm apart in a water bath bubbles formed, the core also heated and only 2 things can cause core heating that i know of, as to why it will not do that now is unknown. Maybe someone with transformer design experience can shed some light on it. Here is a scope view of the primary (top) secondary (bottom), as the leading edge of a positive pulse flattens it immediately "rings" oscillating from about max. to zero and decays. The trailing edge drops and it oscillates again going negative as well this time. If the time base is turned down another sinewave can be seen oscillating thru the waveform this can also be seen on a ammeter at the right frequency. Generally only a few uA shows flowing on the ammeter until the scope lead is attached. Adding more secondary winding seems to add more "ringing" rather than actually increase the voltage pulse. Since i cannot get that transformer to repeat a previous experiment time for a new design. As you can see this is a very different design, on the outside is the secondary, in the middle the primary and the inside is the inductors. I have tried a few inductor configs and the results are still not exactly what i am looking for but as they say rome was`nt built in a day. I am now useing tesla pancake coils for the inductors, they are turned with a .4mm gap with poor results, makeing a tool to cut .4 is a bitch, so that will now be changed to .8mm for future designs. Also i have add a second inductor coil to increase voltage. The primary is wound the same as the previous transformer design, two equal opposing magnetic fields only now on a circular former. You can "tune" the output by turning the primary coil. This has a clean sine wave output at resonance, when out of resonance only a few uA`s flow and the voltage waveform is low, at resonance the voltage shoots up 300v+ (don`t wanna blow my scope up) and the current goes up to a few mA`s. This is the opposite from what you would expect? I will take a closer look at this transformer and the magnetic field interactions. It looks promising with very low current so it would appear to be on the right track, however the increase in current at resonance is unwanted and shows it is not working as i need it to. Another redesign is called for this time to reduce lathe work and coil winding makeing different coil congfigurations easier to build and some more information for anyone interested. You may have noticed now that this work is based on stan meyers, but most people have given up on him so i will concentrate on building this transformer by experimentation rather than just duplication.

Stevie1001	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #3 on: 2011-05-03, 10:15:38 »
Group: Guest	Hi rizla, Great stuff. Question: which setup did you hook up to a watercell and produced some bubbles with micro amps? regards Steve

Farrah Day	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #4 on: 2011-05-03, 11:07:48 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: rizla on 2011-05-03, 01:32:23 This has a clean sine wave output at resonance, when out of resonance only a few uA`s flow and the voltage waveform is low, at resonance the voltage shoots up 300v+ (don`t wanna blow my scope up) and the current goes up to a few mA`s. This is the opposite from what you would expect? Not sure why you say it is the opposte to what you would expect. Resistance is why the current also rises with the voltage at resonance as this will be constant. You need to take into account the resistance of the circuit and hence, V = I x R. If the circuit had no resistance, then no current would flow at resonance and the voltage would be infinite. Unfortunately these ideal conditions do not tend to exist in real world.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #5 on: 2011-05-04, 04:43:37 »
Group: Guest	Hi Stevie1001 Bubble wise i have only proved i can split water with just voltage, i have had the first transformer splitting water very slowly but this is not consistant as explained, so i would only recommend building it if you want to understand how the magnetic fields interact. what i am concentrating on is a close look at different circuits for doing this. Ravvi, lawton and crompton have claimed splitting water with voltage, i have not tried there method. So many people think meyer is a fraud, but stephen meyer after stans death started the company xogen, a oil company friendly efficient way of splitting water, bit of a coincidence i think and not bad for a fraudster that spent about 20 years pretending to drive a car on water useing stans crusty old pants and some double sided sticky tape. They were not daft either, stan done work for HAARP (known as the star wars project in the 80`s) now been up and running for a number of years you will not find that on fast freddys cv and of course you don`t get a 32 million contract from the military for being a liar. So this in my opinion is worth a close look at. Hi farra We are dealing with reactance which is frequency dependent This is my understanding of a parallel tuned circuit http://www.softwareforeducation.com/electronics/notes/A2/Radio/tunedcircuit.php series tuned circuit works the opposite to parallel I do not understand what you wrote so i cannot comment more on that. Farra we have talked before so may i take the time to test your lateral thinking? If i ask you to find out who owns the bank of england you will probably run off and write a letter or look on their web site and report back that it is run by the goverment and accountable to the goverment, ok. So the goverment borrowed 16 billion from themselfs and now must pay themselfs back 16billion plus the interest. Can you explain exactly how this works? I would like to know your answer.

MileHigh	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #6 on: 2011-05-04, 06:48:02 »
Group: Guest	Rizla: For your transformer designs you should try some basic tests, voltage in, voltage out, power in, power out. You can change the load and observe how the power in and power out and output voltage changes and stuff like that. You can find the saturation point for the core. These are the basic nuts and bolts of transformer design. What you could find is that the transformer has a certain maximum power transporting capacity which is a function of frequency. You should also find that some of the secondary coils are very weak in their output as compared to others. It depends on how much magnetic flux is flowing through them. Note that when you wrap coils at right angles to each other, they don't really cut much mutual flux. This is all easier to do with sine wave excitation, but you could do it with pulses if yo really wanted to. There is a really cool and simple experiment where you can measure the pulse output energy. This is telling you the energy storage capacity of the core. You have a resonating tank setup as part of the design as you show in your scope shots. The ring-down represents energy that is being burned off inside the transformer. So perhaps you would be more interested in exporting that energy into a load instead. The efficiency is a biggie also. What is your power in vs. power out for a given test? Anyway, a few suggestions for your consideration. The stuff I am describing requires some real bench experience but you could always take small steps and get some help around here. Perhaps something suggested here will be interesting for your application. MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #7 on: 2011-05-04, 06:48:13 »
Group: Guest	<space for rent due to double post>

Farrah Day	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #8 on: 2011-05-04, 10:35:56 »
Group: Guest	One of the big issues with Meyers cct, fig 3.22, is that the circuit cannot resonate with the blocking diode. Are you replicating that cct? If you are, you should be aware that it is not a parallel or series resonant LC cct. LC circuits are capacitors and inductors whereby the current can flow both ways - the diode will not allow this to happen and hence prevents a resonant action. Hence it is not a tuned LC cct. Perhaps MH can add to this. Quote Ravvi, lawton and crompton have claimed splitting water with voltage, i have not tried there method. This statement is incorrect. None of these people split water with voltage alone - or claimed to do so. I was actively participating on the forums when Lawton and Ravi were about, and I conversed with Lawton frequently at the time. What they seemed to achieve was a 3 x the efficiency that one would expect from standard Faraday electrolysis, but current flowed in all of their cells - just as it does in yours. Quote from: rizla on 2011-03-31, 13:32:07 You should be able to prove voltage alone splits water with distilled water, i remember reading a stephen meyer article about this. I have had gas production from a switched HT supply thru purified water, at uA current can that be straight forward hydrolysis? Which is why it makes no sense at all to say that you have 'proved' water can be split with voltage alone when you readily admit to having a current flowing through your cell. Quote Bubble wise i have only proved i can split water with just voltage, i have had the first transformer splitting water very slowly but this is not consistant as explained, so i would only recommend building it if you want to understand how the magnetic fields interact. what i am concentrating on is a close look at different circuits for doing this.

Stevie1001	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #9 on: 2011-05-04, 11:06:01 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011-05-04, 10:35:56 One of the big issues with Meyers cct, fig 3.22, is that the circuit cannot resonate with the blocking diode. Are you replicating that cct? If you are, you should be aware that it is not a parallel or series resonant LC cct. LC circuits are capacitors and inductors whereby the current can flow both ways - the diode will not allow this to happen and hence prevents a resonant action. Hence it is not a tuned LC cct. Perhaps MH can add to this. This statement is incorrect. None of these people split water with voltage alone - or claimed to do so. I was actively participating on the forums when Lawton and Ravi were about, and I conversed with Lawton frequently at the time. What they seemed to achieve was a 3 x the efficiency that one would expect from standard Faraday electrolysis, but current flowed in all of their cells - just as it does in yours. Which is why it makes no sense at all to say that you have 'proved' water can be split with voltage alone when you readily admit to having a current flowing through your cell. Agree here with Fara....(well, for everything is a first time... ) Rizla, i am also for years now into this HHO research. All systems and inventors you mention are based on current. Ravi added the calcium coating on his electrodes as special feature. Cramton was current too. No special crossing of the faraday law there. Rizla, i am happy that you replied to my question on which transformer setup you proved the high voltage option. Can you explain on which points in your setup you did measure ampflow and voltage? Was that at your walloutlet of your powersupply which fet the whole setup, or was it, for example, at the cell? The reason is that i too had setups that showed almost no current in my measuring devices at the vic transformer and cell, but i was still pulling amps from the wall...... The multimeters can fool a persons measurements, so to speak. Keep up the good work. Very much appriciated! Steve

muDped	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #10 on: 2011-05-04, 20:21:09 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: rizla on 2011-03-31, 13:32:07 Quote You should be able to prove voltage alone splits water with distilled water, i remember reading a stephen meyer article about this. I have had gas production from a switched HT supply thru purified water, at uA current can that be straight forward hydrolysis? Hydrolysis is an entirely different action and should not be confused with electrolysis. Unfortunately, many of the "newbs" aren't doing sufficient research into the process and are falling for incorrect terminology which makes its way around the various forums. The "resonance" which is sought after in the efficient production of hydrogen and oxygen electrically is not a circuit resonance. Rather, it is a condition where the production of the desired gases suddenly increases dramatically with vigorous bubbling when the proper electrical mix of DC and AC stimulation is attained. The signal waveshape which accomplishes this "resonance" is complex. It mimics electrical circuit resonance in that we observe a great increase in gas production at that point without any increase in electrical input. The complex signal is "tuned" for maximum gas evolution. The zone/zones of most vigorous bubbling is/are rather narrow and simulate/s a High Q resonant circuit. Meyer, Puharich, Boyce, Kanzius and even Kanarev have given us important clues as to what the spectral composition of the most effective stimulating waveforms may and can be. « Last Edit: 2011-05-05, 00:57:40 by Dumped » --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Farrah Day	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #11 on: 2011-05-04, 22:58:47 »
Group: Guest	Quote Hydrolysis is an entirely action and should not be confused with electrolysis. Unfortunately, many of the "newbs" aren't doing sufficient research into the process and are falling for incorrect terminology which makes its way around the various forums. Agreed, hydrolysis is not electrolysis. Quote The "resonance" which is sought after in the efficient production of hydrogen and oxygen electrically is not a circuit resonance. Rather, it is a condition where the production of the desired gases suddenly increases dramatically with vigorous bubbling when the proper electrical mix of DC and AC stimulation is attained. The signal waveshape which accomplishes this "resonance" is complex. This is an area of great confusion, and indeed the word 'resonance' is frequently misused. I personally do not support any blatant misuse of this term as it only serves to confuse issues. And indeed there is very little - if anything - by way of proof to substantiate any claims of complex - or other - waveforms dissociating water more efficiently than standard Faraday electrolysis. This is a minefield - tread very carefully! Quote Meyer, Puharich, Boyce, Kanzius and even Kanarev have given us important clues as to what the spectral composition of the most effective stimulating waveforms may and can be. Meyer is probably the most profilic, but never does he once give a balanced - or otherwise - chemical or electro-chemical equation for the reactions that he suggests occur within his electrolyser. It's simply all nonsensical pseudoscience, and so meaningless mumbo-jumbo. Unfortunately, Kanzius's work was continued by Rustum Roy, who too, is now sadly deceased. But the chemistry behind Kanzius's burning water will explain much, as it does not fall in line with any other known method of dissociating water, primarily because, unlike all other methods, there are no electrodes and hence no charge exchange medium.

muDped	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #12 on: 2011-05-05, 01:15:43 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011-05-04, 22:58:47 ... This is an area of great confusion, and indeed the word 'resonance' is frequently misused. I personally do not support any blatant misuse of this term as it only serves to confuse issues. And indeed there is very little - if anything - by way of proof to substantiate any claims of complex - or other - waveforms dissociating water more efficiently than standard Faraday electrolysis. This is a minefield - tread very carefully! ... Those who've made the most progress in discovering the necessary details aren't saying much. Even Boyce seems to have abandoned further research into this. This Group appears to have made significant discovery and have gone public with some info. Perhaps if and when the patent application is processed we'll learn more. This Video is a clarified portion of the video which made the original announcement. In the original video certain parts of it were blurred in order to avoid revealing too many details. The group can be contacted and they do provide "services" but at considerable cost. Have they indeed broken the Stan Meyer code? --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #13 on: 2011-05-05, 04:52:36 »
Group: Guest	farrah day: Let me clarify what i am trying to do, i am trying to split water by a different/better method than straight forward electrolsis, mainly meyers work. If i lets say find the way the company oxogen splits water with a very high efficiency , do you think i really care if 500ma flows thru the water, no i would not. So farrah day please do not go on about current flowing becouse it is getting annoying, i am trying to keep the current down becouse meyer says only about 1ma flowed thru his setup, which is the method i find the most fascinating to research. Now people have split water with high efficiency in the past and are doing this now it is a fun and harmless hobby right? So please do not spoil it for me. If you do not wish to help, or show any positive input then why are on this thread? Let me go thru some of your statements to show you what i mean. You pointed out the use of the word hydrolysis which is just a mistake i put the wrong word in, could you not see that? I have never referenced chemical reactions in this thread. The blocking diode, tesla`s pancake coils work in respect that they step up voltage with the diode in circuit and peak at a resonant or certain frequency. If resonant is the wrong word then i am sorry for useing it but it seems to fit for me. Your statement there does not seem helpfull at all and just really appears to say it cannot work, dispite my test showing it does what i want it to. The ravvi claims, when i read his document it said he split water with voltage hence the "claims to of split water with voltage", i refer you the statement previously written about current flowing thru the water. Here you just seem to nag and nitpick over nothing and mention your favorite word current, reading your comment is like reading junk mail. Now when i mention haveing proven voltage splitting water i refer to a experiment with a eht transformer 1Mohm resistor and line transistor createing tiny bubbles across a metal plate. The bubbles should not have formed showing to me something else other than current is causeing them, yes it was not well worded. If you are interested in finding better ways of splitting water then contribute something positive becouse i really can`t be arsed with what you say. What you are doing is just nagging, picking as many faults as you can, saying this is wrong and that is wrong and they can be so trivial but you still point them out. You add nothing positive, show no constructive input on a thread that is really more suited to meyers work and you know that, in which case i must ask myself why are you here, Answer: to piss me off, there are meyer fans still out there and they do not need to wade thru your endless unhelpfull comments if they turn up so please stop posting. thankyou « Last Edit: 2011-05-05, 06:02:03 by rizla »

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #14 on: 2011-05-05, 05:37:48 »
Group: Guest	Hi stevie101 Don`t worry about ravvi stuff, just gets you bogged down in a pointless discussion. I will answer your questions first: The current measurement is taken between secondary ground and inhibitor choke. The mains feeds a bench supply that runs the driver circuit for the vic. Yep i agree meters can give dodgy readings, with the way my primary is wound this has been a problem. can you let me know about your vic construction and maybe we can bounce a few ideas of each other and see what works best. Cheers

Farrah Day	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #15 on: 2011-05-05, 08:51:11 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: rizla on 2011-05-05, 04:52:36 farrah day: Let me clarify what i am trying to do, i am trying to split water by a different/better method than straight forward electrolsis, mainly meyers work. If i lets say find the way the company oxogen splits water with a very high efficiency , do you think i really care if 500ma flows thru the water, no i would not. So farrah day please do not go on about current flowing becouse it is getting annoying, i am trying to keep the current down becouse meyer says only about 1ma flowed thru his setup, which is the method i find the most fascinating to research. I know what you are trying to do, and if my going on about current annoys you so, then stop saying that you have proved that you can split water with voltage alone... but, ahem... a current flows! Meyers bench electrolyser drew around the half an amp mark, which can produce a seemingly deceptive amount of gas by standard Faraday Electrolysis. Hence it was wrong for him to say that he could split water with voltage alone. Quote Now people have split water with high efficiency in the past and are doing this now it is a fun and harmless hobby right? So please do not spoil it for me. If you do not wish to help, or show any positive input then why are on this thread? This is my main area of interest, that's why I'm on this thread. You must expect feedback of all kinds, not just idle praise for any work you do. I'm not against anyone having fun and enjoying this experimenting, but it all boils down really to your statement whereby you say you can prove water can be spit by voltage alone. I hate this kind of unsubstantiated claim, particularly a claim that is not backed up with any real science. Therein lies my gripe. It is one thing to split water efficiently, but quite another matter to achieve over-Faraday results. Many such claims of which can be attributed to bad science, poor test equipment and incorrect calculations. You seem to think that I'm not trying to help just because I don't agree with some of the things you are saying. There is more to 'help' than simply mindless support and back-patting. Quote Let me go thru some of your statements to show you what i mean. You pointed out the use of the word hydrolysis which is just a mistake i put the wrong word in, could you not see that? I have never referenced chemical reactions in this thread. The blocking diode, tesla`s pancake coils work in respect that they step up voltage with the diode in circuit and peak at a resonant or certain frequency. If resonant is the wrong word then i am sorry for useing it but it seems to fit for me. Your statement there does not seem helpfull at all and just really appears to say it cannot work, dispite my test showing it does what i want it to. The ravvi claims, when i read his document it said he split water with voltage hence the "claims to of split water with voltage", i refer you the statement previously written about current flowing thru the water. Here you just seem to nag and nitpick over nothing and mention your favorite word current, reading your comment is like reading junk mail. I always nit-pick as the devil is in the detail, and details are often overlooked or conveniently ignored - by both amateurs and professionals. This is afterall a science forum - wishful thinking simply won't cut it! Quote Now when i mention haveing proven voltage splitting water i refer to a experiment with a eht transformer 1Mohm resistor and line transistor createing tiny bubbles across a metal plate. The bubbles should not have formed showing to me something else other than current is causeing them, yes it was not well worded. If you are interested in finding better ways of splitting water then contribute something positive becouse i really can`t be arsed with what you say. What you are doing is just nagging, picking as many faults as you can, saying this is wrong and that is wrong and they can be so trivial but you still point them out. You add nothing positive, show no constructive input on a thread that is really more suited to meyers work and you know that, in which case i must ask myself why are you here, Answer: to piss me off, there are meyer fans still out there and they do not need to wade thru your endless unhelpfull comments if they turn up so please stop posting. thankyou Yep, I have a tendency to get under peoples skin rather quickly, usually through asking the 'wrong' questions. Agreed there are a lot of Meyer fans out there, but like many football supporters, if their brains were dynamite, they wouldn't have enough to blow their hats off, so I wouldn't put to much faith in them. Anyway, I'll leave you in peace as I can see we are on two entirely different planes here.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #16 on: 2011-05-06, 04:08:03 »
Group: Guest	Over unity is not excepted by main stream science therefore this web site is for like minded people who think outside of the mainstream, a ideal place for my project. Let me go over what i am doing. Transformer one at the start of this thread (read this to see what i am discussing here) when shorted will still have about the same voltage across it`s secondary as when open circuit.With the primary wound any normal way the output will short circuit . Now a few question pop up a) Why does it not short circuit b) Can i find a use for such a transformer c) and if b is yes can i improve on its design It just so happens that stan meyer described just such a transformer he called the vic (Voltage Intensified Circuit) used in his water fuel cell amongst a number of other devices. I am now trying to build the vic with some promising results and will be posting my latest progress soon. If anyone is interested in following my progress and helping please do. To keep the thread from turning into choas as many threads i have followed tend to do here is some sensible rules: 1) use common sense 2) do not force (bully) what you believe on someone else 3) stay more or less on topic 4) keep your postings constructive, do not spiral down into a pointless argument . 5) do not let your ego/belief that you are superior to everyone else and can never be wrong post for you. 6) it is just a workbench project dont get angry/upset or start a fight It is always the minority that spoils things for the rest.

muDped	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #17 on: 2011-05-06, 04:51:04 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	What Meyer said regarding his VIC and the manner in which his non-electrolysis cell functioned has been misconstrued by many. Some have come to the conclusion that such a transformer as you've proposed is actually possible; that somehow voltage can be produced which isn't diminished by "loading" or current flow. Or, that the transformer can somehow "restrict" current flow without any loss of voltage at the load. No doubt Meyer himself contributed to the confusion and actually wanted such; to mask the simplicity of what he'd discovered. So long as he had all potential replicators seeking the impossible and lost in their confusion, they'd not be looking for the obvious and simple truth. The "secret" to Meyer's electrolyzer is not in the specific circuitry or the mystic transformer. It is in the frequency and waveshape of the signal that is applied to his electrolyzer. Once the "vibrations" between the plates assume the proper "near standing wave" characteristics within the ionized medium, then the production of gas bubbles increases markedly without any increase in electrical input. Both Puharich and Boyce were able to attain this condition, as well as many anonymous others. Hopefully, you will as well. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Farrah Day	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #18 on: 2011-05-06, 09:29:47 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Dumped on 2011-05-06, 04:51:04 The "secret" to Meyer's electrolyzer is not in the specific circuitry or the mystic transformer. It is in the frequency and waveshape of the signal that is applied to his electrolyzer. Once the "vibrations" between the plates assume the proper "near standing wave" characteristics within the ionized medium, then the production of gas bubbles increases markedly without any increase in electrical input. Both Puharich and Boyce were able to attain this condition, as well as many anonymous others. Hopefully, you will as well. Dumped, what you are almost describing here - and something that I personally feel is the key to the whole thing - is creating cavitation. A standing wave which provides areas of compression and rarefaction within the fluid will induce the decomposition of water via cavitation without the need for charge exchange mediums (electrodes) or indeed the usual heavy current flow. We would also see bubbles emerging apparently from within the fluid as opposed to solely at the electrodes as in Faraday electrolysis. As for efficiency compared with Faraday electrolysis, well that has yet to be determined. Of course, there is no reference to cavitation in the relevant literature by any of the above mentioned - but it would certainly go a long way to answering a lot of questions. Rizla, I apologise for my apparent negativieness, I just say it as I see it, and of course you will always get people that either see it your way or don't. This is to be expected and so you shouldn't see negative posts as personal attacks. Anyway, good luck with your transformer, I'll be watching with interest.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #19 on: 2011-05-07, 01:13:02 »
Group: Guest	Dumped I think if meyer had a "special" waveshape this would be very risky on his behalf. Not putting it into the patents means if he did not die and the cars roll off the production line any bloke with a scope can find his waveshape, patent it and sue meyer for copyright. There seems to be no movement of water in his wfc that would show with gas bubbles and it may not work with his injectors being a very different setup. This of course is just what i think, i will not force my views on you. May i suggest you start a thread to investigate your theory, a d/a plugged into your computer with some software makes waveshapes easy to create. My thread is to take a close look at his vic, if you wish to test out other theorys please do.

muDped	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #20 on: 2011-05-07, 01:30:18 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: rizla on 2011-05-07, 01:13:02 Dumped ... My thread is to take a close look at his vic, if you wish to test out other theories please do. This work has already been accomplished. If you strive diligently and thoughtfully you'll eventually arrive at the same level of understanding. Leave no stone unturned. Haven't heard RizLa for a good many years. My Father used RizLa papers when he rolled his own with Bull Durham tobacco long ago. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #21 on: 2011-05-07, 03:21:19 »
Group: Guest	Thanks dumped lets hope so, or at least enjoy getting as far as i can I have just been reading a document from dublin institute of technology that studied one of meyers wfc. Really sheds some light on things, seems it uses zero point energy. Just don`t ask me to go thru it now thats going to take a bit of studying

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #22 on: 2011-05-07, 08:39:54 »
Group: Guest	It would appear electrolysis is involved in this process, u learn something new everyday

rizla	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #23 on: 2011-05-09, 01:28:30 »
Group: Guest	Stan meyers vic design update: There needs to be a correction with the circuit diagram, it now looks like there are not 2 coils but one with the bifilar shown on the circuit as two seperate coils. The dielectric water itself provides the charge to charge up the capacitor and create the high voltage. this charge comes from the hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. I always presumed the charge choke done this but it was never clear to me how it "charged up" createing such high voltages as he claimed. Stans vic triggers the process in the wfc with voltage at the "resonant frequency of water" while inhibiting current into the wfc. The process i believe should work out of resonance with a much lower output. It is the bifilar chargeing choke and the water capacitor that forms the LC circuit. I should present this and more new (to me) information better however that takes time and also needs to be tested. Until next time let me just leave you with this, imagine what we can achieve if we have a combined effort to uncover this technology.

Stevie1001	Re: voltage intensified transformer « Reply #24 on: 2011-05-09, 10:21:49 »
Group: Guest	In the Meyer decription on how the the whole VIC circuit is working (meaning, the transformer + chokes + watercapacitor) Meyer stated two things wich are a little bit of a contradiction. First, he states that when the circuit is in resonance, voltage acros watercap is higher then output of transformer, secondly that voltage across choke is higher then output of transformer and as last comment that VT is higher then output of transformer. A Simple calculation of U=I*R can tell you that HV across the watercap is simple BS. So only VT is left...... Creating a HV zone on one side of the watercap and a HV zone across the negative side. If you use a Bifilar winded choke, then at the right timing, meaning at resonance of the LC of the choke and with a little R from the cell, you will notice HV of VT. (VT = 1 choke plus cell = L+C, accoording to Meyer.) C = electrode. Not the dielectric of the water, because Meyer states that that acts as R) regards Steve

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2023-12-06, 17:51:29

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2