OU or not OU with a waterfuelcell

[stevie1001]

Hi,

I want to ask you all here about some measurements i have of my waterfuelcell. The facts i see is that i gain up to 60% in power on my wfc compared to what i measure at the input of my circuit.

Output of FET: 20.8Vrms by 2.06A = 43Watts
Input in cell: 17.0V by 4.0A = 68Watts
Gain: 58% = 25Watts

As you can see, i do not measure in rms on the cell, because the voltage is strait dc accoording my scopes.

The setup is pretty simple and many have tried the same.
1 coil in serie with my seriecell
1 diode in across over the cell and coil.
I am switching the negative.

The Bemf of the cell and coil is redirected by the diode towards the positive.
Frequency of switching: 12.1khz

Kind regards
Steve
http://www.ionizationx.com

[Oneminde]

Is this a measure of the electron avalanche effect on the anode - is that what you are gaining?

The electrones released form the ionization in the capacitor will produce some effects an if you look at Stans EEC (amp consuming device) it whould make some sence that you pick up the extra electrones. In a sence, the WFC work both as a capacitor and as a battery. So, i cant see anything strange according to the science i know.

But a gain is always nice no matter what...

Take care

[BobBrown]

Hi,

I want to ask you all here about some measurements i have of my waterfuelcell. The facts i see is that i gain up to 60% in power on my wfc compared to what i measure at the input of my circuit.

Output of FET: 20.8Vrms by 2.06A = 43Watts
Input in cell: 17.0V by 4.0A = 68Watts
Gain: 58% = 25Watts

As you can see, i do not measure in rms on the cell, because the voltage is strait dc accoording my scopes.

The setup is pretty simple and many have tried the same.
1 coil in serie with my seriecell
1 diode in across over the cell and coil.
I am switching the negative.

The Bemf of the cell and coil is redirected by the diode towards the positive.
Frequency of switching: 12.1khz

Kind regards
Steve
http://www.ionizationx.com

First, BEMF is called Back electromotive force, and only occurs in regular electrical rotating machinery. Generators, motors atc.
What your seeing in the coil is a radiant spike, not the same thing. Not sure what your measuring as BEMF for your cell. ..Sorry, there is a thread that is dealing with this specific thing, I just had to mention it
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ion-terms.html

Second, Nice gain ! I would assume there is a further gain, inside the cell due to the way the radiant charge acts in a water capacitor?

Andrew T

[stevie1001]

Is this a measure of the electron avalanche effect on the anode - is that what you are gaining?

The electrones released form the ionization in the capacitor will produce some effects an if you look at Stans EEC (amp consuming device) it whould make some sence that you pick up the extra electrones. In a sence, the WFC work both as a capacitor and as a battery. So, i cant see anything strange according to the science i know.

But a gain is always nice no matter what...

Take care

Hi Onemind and tackse mucket for your comments

It might be that avalanche effect. I am not sure what other explanation i can give to it at this moment.

I have tried the EEC from SM with a lightbulp, but if you handle that wrong, you take out all electrons, like you use a battery. That way, no electrolysis is happening.

I my current setup, i gain watts and gas output.

@BB
I will show you some pictures i took, some weeks ago and explain them.
Hope you can assist in giving it the right therms.

Picture resonance1 and res2 are taken on my wfc. The setup is just a wfc hooked up to a 50% squarewave oscillator with a FET as switch. The odd thing i saw was that crazy resonance ring when the puls was zero.......

The 2n3055 pic is indead the 50% squarewave oscillator with a 2n3055 as switch. The reason i tried that was the fact that the FET is having a build in diode that might have trickerd the resonance.

I was right. Without that diode, you see a big negative dip on the scope.
(I know, the positive squarewave is not looking very nice, but you have to look at the dip )

Next step is to hook up a diode that works as a crowbar.
Hmmm, there was not much to talk about that effect.
But as soon as i added a coil and started tuning the frequency, i stumbled on this gain. On my scope, you coil feedback and the wfc feedback puls fill in perfectly the downtime of the 50% squarewave.......

Steve
http://www.ionizationx.com

[stevie1001]

@admin
I tried to modify some words in my previous post, but that didnt work.....
Why can i not chang my wrongly written words?

Steve

[stevie1001]

Conclusions:

Output FET: 43.8Vrms by 4.22A = 184W
Input WFC: 36,5V by 8.08A = 294W
Output AC Variac: 79Vac by 4.9A = 387W (different set of meters as the other 2 measurements points.)
Gasoutput: ca. 2 minutes for 0.5 ltr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strait DC into wfc: 37.4V by 7.62A = 285W
Output AC Variac: 41V by 9A = 371W
Gasoutput: ca 2 minutes for 0.5 ltr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
1. My meters on the AC side where not identical as the other 4 meters, so a
mismatch is very possible between AC power and DC power.
2. My circuit is a perfect converter for squarewave to strait DC.
3. No OU or any gains what so ever compared to totall input vs output. (from trafo till
wfc)
4. Strait DC still wins against any kind of pulsing circuits.


As you can see, lots of time is again consumed with no results, except the gain of knowledge......

bammer.......

Steve

[Oneminde]

Input W on the stepup transformer (VIC) = the same output on said transformer. All you do is to rais the voltage and lower the amp or vice versa -in our case we step up the voltage. If you reverse the process, you whould get close to or the same result.

So if you read other W on the output side this then means that you have gained energy. But, you need to tap into this energy release from the ionized water - this is a seperate circuit. I dont think it is possible to draw this true the blocking diod.

Another question for you. Do you know why Meyer used a blocking diod, a EEC and 2 spoles (VIC) and also that he used one VIC for both actions (meaning that the VIC acts as both a stepup and step down transformer).

Also, aditionel information states that there is vacuum energy between the L orbite electron and the proton, this energy is also released in the process according to some researchers. (ZPE) or Energy from the vacuum.

[Oneminde]

If you wich to change or add words etc when you select edit, you must go to advanced in the same window, this will alow you to edit your post and remember to save.

[stevie1001]

Input W on the stepup transformer (VIC) = the same output on said transformer. All you do is to rais the voltage and lower the amp or vice versa -in our case we step up the voltage. If you reverse the process, you whould get close to or the same result.

So if you read other W on the output side this then means that you have gained energy. But, you need to tap into this energy release from the ionized water - this is a seperate circuit. I dont think it is possible to draw this true the blocking diod.

Another question for you. Do you know why Meyer used a blocking diod, a EEC and 2 spoles (VIC) and also that he used one VIC for both actions (meaning that the VIC acts as both a stepup and step down transformer).

Also, aditionel information states that there is vacuum energy between the L orbite electron and the proton, this energy is also released in the process according to some researchers. (ZPE) or Energy from the vacuum.

I dont have all answers on Stan Meyers setup, except for the logic ones, i ll guess. If i look at the VIC with 1 diode and some chokes, then its a similair setup as my setup with a FET, coil, crowbar diode and wfc.
Meaning, you have an AC voltage and you half rectify that and so you have a 50% duty DC voltage signal. When the chokes are tuned, or if you tune the frequency before the vic, you will see the same as i did.
Meaning 50% duty becomes strait dc.
Stan wrote he used the chokes to limite amps and thats what i also see on my meters, when the circuit is tuned.
The advantage of using a transformer, like the VIC, is that you probably save lots of blown up FETS. The Bemf puls, as i call it, is returned thru the secondairy of the VIC and not, as in my case, thru the diode. In my case, the FET will get a blast of that bemf puls.

The EEC could have been used to get the charge out of the wfc with reason that coils dont work with a charged cap/wfc. My serie cell for example, is holding so much charge that you can light a 230V bulb on it for some seconds.... The negative dip is just available with my 10 tube parallel wfc. Not on my serie cell.


I am still puzzled with the negative dip i seen on my scope....Not sure what that is, or how to handle it. I thought i knew......

About the vacuum energy of the L electron, i do not know that theory.
Sure there must be lots of energy to keep the electrons spinning and spinning around the proton. Where that power is coming from, is a question.
Tune into that power, and we are in business...
We do know that electrons are freed by the proces of electrolysis.
So, we feed electrons by use of voltage and amps and we free/pull off electrons of the water molecules.

Steve

[Oneminde]

The VIC (Air Core E type Transformer) is just a good way of limiting the amp. Stans capacitor need a voltage charge or polarization mode to switch of the covalant bonding between the hydrogen and oxygen and the water have a treshold close to 20kV, you only need mA.
What happens is that all that voltage will turn into amps and start a wave of BEMF forces on the primare coil, but since you have a blocking diod that amp puls will be denied to pass and said wave will then go true the capacitor AGAIN to the secund pickup coil (VIC bobbin #2) and experiance a similar action there. Some of this amp will pass, but since there is energy left, this will then fly back to blocking diod etc... until all of the energy have passed true pickup coil #2 - pick up coil #2 is a stepdown transformer, turning amp potential into voltage and amp. This "energywave" is known to exist for some 0.74 - 0.95 secunds.. this is free hydrogen production - or OFF PULSTIME!

You can see on stans schematics that he uses two chockes/bobbins - this is the reason why. In my mind as i see the action inside he's capacitor - charge, discharge! Look at the primary choke, there you see a blocking diod, then look at the secondary choke, ther you see non and also, notice that the winding is opposite ( a turned choke).. the rest is logical!

I have added an image of he's VIC.

[stevie1001]

The VIC (Air Core E type Transformer) is just a good way of limiting the amp. Stans capacitor need a voltage charge or polarization mode to switch of the covalant bonding between the hydrogen and oxygen and the water have a treshold close to 20kV, you only need mA.
What happens is that all that voltage will turn into amps and start a wave of BEMF forces on the primare coil, but since you have a blocking diod that amp puls will be denied to pass and said wave will then go true the capacitor AGAIN to the secund pickup coil (VIC bobbin #2) and experiance a similar action there. Some of this amp will pass, but since there is energy left, this will then fly back to blocking diod etc... until all of the energy have passed true pickup coil #2 - pick up coil #2 is a stepdown transformer, turning amp potential into voltage and amp. This "energywave" is known to exist for some 0.74 - 0.95 secunds.. this is free hydrogen production - or OFF PULSTIME!

You can see on stans schematics that he uses two chockes/bobbins - this is the reason why. In my mind as i see the action inside he's capacitor - charge, discharge! Look at the primary choke, there you see a blocking diod, then look at the secondary choke, ther you see non and also, notice that the winding is opposite ( a turned choke).. the rest is logical!

I have added an image of he's VIC.

Well, thats a fresh new look at things...

I ll come back on that.

Steve

[Oneminde]

Aditionel information for you.

I did a post over @ oupower.com some weeks ago - as Hydrogenworld.
Be sure to check it out also.

here's the link.
OUPower.com :: View topic - Guy´s - the secret to Stanely Meyer is OUT!!!

[h20power]

I did a post over @ oupower.com some weeks ago - as Hydrogenworld.
Be sure to check it out also.

here's the link.
OUPower.com :: View topic - Guy´s - the secret to Stanely Meyer is OUT!!!

I like how you totally took the information learned from me and failed to mention me at all. If it wasn't for me you would have no understanding of the GP and you didn't get how the WFI's break down the water molecule right. Nope you just write as if all those ideas came from your head knowing that is a total lie. Since you don't understand what Stanley Meyer did all you really have done to those poor people over on that site is confuse them and lead them down a blind ally that will lead them nowhere. So your mad at me for putting you on the ignor list, so mad that take what I posted and make it like it came from your mind, right? Pure playgerizim. Search far and wide and you will see I am the only one that ever took the time to look at what the GP was doing and I am the only one that noticed that Meyer had two totally different ways he used to break down the water molecule. Both you got wrong and misslead a lot of good people trying to come off as you are acting on your own thoughts with the knowledge of Meyer's work when learned it from me, though incorectly, still it all came from me. So, why is there no meantion of where you learned how Meyer's patent really works? Why didn't you name your source of enlightenment? Is beacause you are mad at me you failed to mention where the knowledge of the GP & WFI came from. All it takes is one post from me to show everyone where you came up with the truths from. Why try and take my thoughts and make them your own? And to make matters worse you got them wrong!

I, like you, am glade HMS-776 started his thread for it lead me to understand the GP even more in that it attempts to recreate the aurora lights, perhapes you might want to edit your post and add that one in as your thoughts on the other site.

If your going to take my thoughts and pawn them off as your own the least you can do is get it right so as people reading it will have a chance at energy independence! People like you make me sick to my stomack. I am going to ask a few friends of mine to rain on your peraide over there, hope you don't mind . Where do you get off doing something so low in charictor? In the future if you are going to use my thoughts please have desentcy to give your readers know your source, me! Just so you know Meyer seems to have had three different ways to pull the water molecule apart, HMS-776 knows the third way.

@Steive,
If you want to unstand how Stanley Meyer made use of water as a source of fuel read my thread "Stanley Meyer Explainded" as I am done with it for the most part. I started that thread just shortly after I left ionizationx for I felt people had a right to know the science behind Stanley Meyers work.

h2opower.

[Oneminde]

@ H2opower

If you look at page one on the oupower tread you can see that you'r tread is mentioned. For the VIC's, that i finaly figured out for myself. And for the GP i was among the first to mention corona discharge and UV.
I stoped writing on your tread becouse you did not want me there, but you keep on following me and starting a fight - but i am not going to fight. If the source information is important LIKE WHAT I DID ON PAGE ONE AT THAT OUPOWER TREAD then i will add it.
You'r tread is mentioned and the reply was about the capacitors and not the GP, and in this tread i talked about the VIC - that is two different things.

You'r not the king of water tech and i am not the king of it. I see the information as the important part, the science behind it and i try to understand it and also evolve my understanding. There are hundreds off people beside you that have done similar work like what you have done on your tread.

I am tired of fighting whit you and that was the reason why i stoped writing (to you) in that tread.

[stevie1001]

I like how you totally took the information learned from me and failed to mention me at all. If it wasn't for me you would have no understanding of the GP and you didn't get how the WFI's break down the water molecule right. Nope you just write as if all those ideas came from your head knowing that is a total lie. Since you don't understand what Stanley Meyer did all you really have done to those poor people over on that site is confuse them and lead them down a blind ally that will lead them nowhere. So your mad at me for putting you on the ignor list, so mad that take what I posted and make it like it came from your mind, right? Pure playgerizim. Search far and wide and you will see I am the only one that ever took the time to look at what the GP was doing and I am the only one that noticed that Meyer had two totally different ways he used to break down the water molecule. Both you got wrong and misslead a lot of good people trying to come off as you are acting on your own thoughts with the knowledge of Meyer's work when learned it from me, though incorectly, still it all came from me. So, why is there no meantion of where you learned how Meyer's patent really works? Why didn't you name your source of enlightenment? Is beacause you are mad at me you failed to mention where the knowledge of the GP & WFI came from. All it takes is one post from me to show everyone where you came up with the truths from. Why try and take my thoughts and make them your own? And to make matters worse you got them wrong!

I, like you, am glade HMS-776 started his thread for it lead me to understand the GP even more in that it attempts to recreate the aurora lights, perhapes you might want to edit your post and add that one in as your thoughts on the other site.

If your going to take my thoughts and pawn them off as your own the least you can do is get it right so as people reading it will have a chance at energy independence! People like you make me sick to my stomack. I am going to ask a few friends of mine to rain on your peraide over there, hope you don't mind . Where do you get off doing something so low in charictor? In the future if you are going to use my thoughts please have desentcy to give your readers know your source, me! Just so you know Meyer seems to have had three different ways to pull the water molecule apart, HMS-776 knows the third way.

@Steive,
If you want to unstand how Stanley Meyer made use of water as a source of fuel read my thread "Stanley Meyer Explainded" as I am done with it for the most part. I started that thread just shortly after I left ionizationx for I felt people had a right to know the science behind Stanley Meyers work.

h2opower.

Hi H2opower,

I opend the forum, so anybody can become a member now.
We had some good discussions at that time. I have seen your posts here and i am glad you are still on it.

@ Onemind
I am happy with your suggestions.

Both: please do not pull me into a fight. I dont have any influence here on such a thing.
One thing is for sure. We all use the great info from Stan Meyer. Lets break his techno and lets go on from there.


Steve
http://www.ionizationx.com