Water Sparkplug 2

[Aaron]

@SuperCaviTationIstic

The magnifying effect should be addressed in a new thread, as I know it to be true.

From one young person to another - I have made plenty of mistakes in
my life - who hasn't? But don't "stop" your mistakes - keep making them
as long as you learn from them and if you really learn from them, you don't
make the same mistakes. As corny as the old cliche sounds - it is timeless
wisdom that is simply a part of life.

I am not lying by stating you seem to be buying into crack's statement
about the disruptive discharge. When you said these people have a point,
the closest thing to a point that crack made that has any semblance of
sanity is comparing the plasma effect to Tesla's disruptive discharge. And
from my perspective, being that it is the closest thing to a valid point,
yet still grossly incorrect, and if you say they have a point, it seemed to be
the most sensible thing to assume from your statement.

If I am wrong, then I apologize, but I am not a liar - I simply misunderstood
what your point was - IF you're being straight up with me.

I greatly appreciate your stance in the patent episode - that actually
means a lot to me - when some others I'm surprised don't seem to
be equally appalled as I am - that to me is very suspicious as to the
nature of their ways - or a reflection of their moral integrity.

I'm not sure if it really would be to my benefit to explain what I mean by
it not being a simple disruptive discharge - I already did explain it in the
past multiple times in multiple threads and by spelling it out will give
insincere people (such as I have witnessed), a reason not to do the
research. In reality, the average person doesn't actually want to learn
any of this - they want it handed to them on a sliver platter because
they're too unwilling to appreciate what they are already given and are
too lazy to do the experiments to find out what is going on. It is actually
a disservice to people to spell it out when it can be simply deduced by
information that has already been freely given. Bottom line is that it
doesn't benefit anyone by spelling out things for them that have already
been posted in no uncertain terms, including simple diagrams.

The magnifying effect - I think can be explained in another thread.
However, it is actually KEY to this entire circuit by any variation -
as long as it elicits this exact plasma effect - the magnifying effect
IS the manifestation of the plasma effect.

I don't think it has anything to do with a PPCM but if that is the direction
that inspires you - I think you should go with your gut feeling and see
where you end up - you could be on to something.

Whether or not you agreed with the uninformed individual's analysis that
this plasma effect is due to Tesla's disruptive discharge, it needs to
be discussed so people don't follow degenerative rhetoric or false logic.

In regards to the "disruptive discharge" - as one seriously uninformed
person wants to claim, I have a few comments to reveal the ignorance.
Claiming that taking away the disruptive discharge takes away the effect
is so completely laughable that it is beyond pathetic.

Please contemplate this. A capacitor discharged into
the primary of of an ignition coil is discharging into what? The initiator
of the plasma effect is what? The initiator is a typical CDI or capacitive
discharge ignition circuit that discharging into the impedance or resistance
of the coil.

It takes but about the smallest smidgen of common sense for anyone
that thinks they know anything about Tesla's work to know that if
you have 10k ohms of resistance - THE DISCHARGE FROM THE
CAPACITOR IS ANYTHING BUT DISRUPTIVE!!!!!!!! The cap is discharged
into the primary and then is discharged through 10K OHMS, which is
about pretty typical for a standard black body cylindrical factory ignition
coil and then the discharge "sparks" across the gap and the potential
goes to ground while the current moves from ground to the high voltage
positive. Even though the electron current theory is wrong, lets just
use it as a simple widely accepted analogy.

A capacitor discharging into the primary of an ignition coil that then
discharges through 10k ohms of high voltage windings is a slow and
laborious process that greatly slows down the discharge relative to
zero or negative impedance and has plenty of dissipation and losses.

And if anyone wants to claim that a CDI is a
"disruptive discharge" that is the fundamental basis of this plasma
ignition method is possibly high on crack and should surrender
themselves to the jurisdiction of the nearest mental institution.

Technically, ANY spark is a "disruptive discharge", which simply means that
when the voltage exceeds the dielectric ability to hold it back that it
blasts through. When there is ANY kind of spark - the voltage built up and
overcame the dielectric ability of the air in a spark gap for example and
is therefore by technical definition a "disruptive discharge". And being
that this IS the technically correct definition of a disruptive discharge,
crack is thereby claiming that Tesla invented the spark itself that jumps
a gap as well as claiming that Tesla invented the gap, which is
unfathomably beyond ludicrous to the point that I had to be redundant
there intentionally!

He doesn't even know that Tesla had different definitions for the terms
he used compared to many people that used the same terms.

When Tesla used the term "electric" in the context of the aether, it had
NOTHING to do with the term electric as used by his conventional
"contemporaries". This applies to disruptive discharges.

So for crack to claim that a disruptive discharge from Tesla includes
discharging a small cap directly into 10k ohms of line resistance is so utterly
ignorant that there are no words to describe it. Yes, there is a gap but
that line resistance plays - oh just a little role in not making it so disruptive.

For the Tesla method of conversion, everything is super tuned! That means
that a cap may be charged on ONE pulse - not multiple. And when the cap
is discharged, whatever it is discharging into is impedance matched to have
little to "none". To have a cap that needed rapid multiple pulses
just to get it up to where it needs to be and then to discharge it into
10k ohms would have been unthinkable or blasphemous to him - in the
context of calling that a disruptive discharge.

Spark plug wire losses are huge as well - 1500 ohms is actually considered
by the industry to actually be a low resistance
high performance spark plug wire that lets a "lot" through. When looking
at the stats for ignition systems and seeing what % of the power
input into the coil makes it to the gap - for example 12-14v into the
primary from a battery - ONLY 1% of that turns into a spark!!!!!!!

And that is with a non-resistor spark plug - don't ask what it is with
a typical 5k ohm plug. (not even 0.20%!!)

Again, in actuality - if you bring your finger to something
that is grounded and you feel a spark - THAT IS a disruptive discharge
so knowing not just what a disruptive discharge is but a TESLA disruptive
discharge is - is very important and crack simply has no idea what that
means or what the difference is.

If the ignition coil is lower resistance and the spark plug cable is lower
and there is a lower resistance plug, the efficiency increases quite a bit.
And if there are peaking caps or other used, the efficiency can jump
50 FOLD!!!

Anyway, back to point - there is an underlying fallacy to cracks' entire
argument with the disruptive discharge claims - and that is...
ONE OF THE PRIMARY BENEFITS TO THE CDI IS AN EXTENDED DURATION OF THE SPARK AT THE GAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not an English professor but lets look at the definition of:

Extended: "drawn-out: relatively long in duration; tediously protracted; "a
drawn-out argument"; "an extended discussion"; "a lengthy visit from her
mother-in-law"; "a prolonged and bitter struggle"; "protracted negotiations"

Disruptive: "causing, tending to cause, or caused by disruption; disrupting: the disruptive effect of their rioting."\

Disruptive doesn't have as clear as definition but is common sense that
it is to stop or halt abruptly, which is OPPOSITE OF extended.

The capacitive discharge ignition will EXTEND the spark life at the gap
while something disruptive is meant to HALT QUICKLY.

Further consideration to be pondered into the profoundly vacuous claims
at the premise of the plasma ignition is a disruptive discharge!

And the claim to take away the disruptive discharge is to take away the
entire effect.

For a Tesla disruptive discharge, the discharge has to be initiated quick
and cut off quick - NOT extended like a capacitive discharge on a typical
CDI setup for ignition purposes. Only a bumbling buffoon would claim a
conventional CDI is a disruptive discharge that may result in a true
longitudinal impulse, which moves in a unidirectional manner.

NO - the end result is a discharge that happens to be disruptive by
definition but the cause has NOTHING to do with THAT Tesla patent that
crack wants to claim - this claim is about as nonsense as claiming that
big bird is qualified to build a stealth bomber just because he has feathers
and feathers are associated with the air and stealth bombers fly in the
the air so the must be the same!! lol

Now, AFTER the capacitor is discharged into the primary of the ignition
coil (BEFORE THERE IS ANY DISRUPTIVE DISCHARGE) - an actual discharge
which is faster than normal occurs and it is has nothing to do with these
"disruptive discharges" that are claimed to be in Tesla's patent by crack.

A capacitor is discharged and then where does it go?.....................

[Aaron]

@SuperCaviTationIstic 2

Does it jump the gap first or does it first jump towards the opposing
diode that is connected to the very capacitor that is responsible for the
initial discharge that caused the HV CDI output to begin with?????

So again, to take away the disruptive discharge means to take away the
plasma effect? There is no disruptive discharge to take away before
a disruptive discharge is made that is completely different from what
is thought to be a disruptive discharge!

No matter how clever crackuuh is convinced his verbal skills are - he is so
far from the money he's in the red!

When the HV moves to ground over the gap finally, there IS a disruptive
discharge that happens but still has NOTHING to do with the patent
that cracker wants to point out. AND, the time compression factor
is accelerated which counters what should happen with the impedances
accounted for. And this "moves to ground over the gap" doesn't even
happen until the discharge of the CDI goes elsewhere!!!!!!!

Lee or Greg are first to put some evidence to this but
I'm not sure they even agree with what it means. I believe I know what
it means by comparing it to other experiments I've done that were
inspired by their scope shots and I'd have to say that if anyone thinks
this is a typical disruptive discharge is so completely lost they'd need a
GPS to find their way out of their bathroom.

Supercav - pm me if you want a reference that you've been asking about.

It is interesting you have cavitation in your name there was
one person in the water sparkplug thread from the beginning that
ever seemed to have got it right or nearly right as through the eyes
of a carpenter, the whole world is a nail - to him - cavitation was the
root of everything in "free energy." Anyway, we had different terminology
to describe the events but he was right in my opinion when he said
the LV current was being sought by something...

Before I end this post - I have to say you really do not know anything
about John Bedini or Peter Lindemann and are unfairly judging them.
They are two of the most generous people I have ever met and they
continue to give without asking for anything in return. They have to make
a living just like I do and everyone else and they do that by spending
their time passionately in these topics. But in their free time, without
payment or requiring anything from anyone, they contribute their knowledge
and experience to other on an ongoing basis FOR FREE! You're completely
out of line with your judgments of these two friends of mine that you really
know nothing about. I just have to be straight up with you.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your response by PM IF you want to see
things as they are.

[Aaron]

circuit problems

I built the aforementioned circuit of disrepute and am trying to ignite water vapor with it. So far I get a good spark with or without water vapor. I'm using two nails rather than a standard spark plug. Water vapor doesn't seem to make a difference. I'm using 2 uF capacitor charged to 200 volts as the input source to the ignition coil. My diode is a microwave diode. I'd love to see the effect with water vapor igniting. Any advice on what's wrong with my setup?

If you aren't getting a difference w/water vapor, you may not have
the circuit right. Can you post an exact schematic and/or video?

YouTube - Water Sparkplug Circuit Verification

That is with two nails but with a 47uf 120v cap I believe. Try using
10uf or more just to make it easy to see if you have the circuit right.
It has to be really good to do it with such a low 2uf capacitance. If
you have 47uf or more, it will be undeniable if you have it or not.

Besides increasing your cap, MAKE SURE your diode is facing the right way.
If your ignition coil is outputting a positive HV or a negative HV, you have
to have the HV diode facing the opposite direction from each other.

[Aaron]

@powerme aka power1

hey supercavi,
I had read the explanations provided by Aaron and Luc and both are not the divine truth.

NOBODY is claiming to have the divine truth, end all be all, etc... or
any other absolute definition of what is happening. But if you don't even
build a circuit, are simply paraphrasing what someone is telling you,
and don't take time to study what has ALREADY been posted, then anything
anyone tells you that has experience with these circuits is exponentially
more "truthful" than anything you can ever comment on otherwise.

Also, signing up on multiple accounts to post here is not permitted. You had
a chance to move your conversation to a thread that won't be debating
people that have actually done the experiments.

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

Before I end this post - I have to say you really do not know anything
about John Bedini or Peter Lindemann and are unfairly judging them.
They are two of the most generous people I have ever met and they
continue to give without asking for anything in return. They have to make
a living just like I do and everyone else and they do that by spending
their time passionately in these topics. But in their free time, without
payment or requiring anything from anyone, they contribute their knowledge
and experience to other on an ongoing basis FOR FREE! You're completely
out of line with your judgments of these two friends of mine that you really
know nothing about. I just have to be straight up with you.

Anyway, I'll look forward to your response by PM IF you want to see
things as they are.

Once again, you are correct, and I do owe Peter and John a public apology. I have never met them, but I would like to some day. I had high respects for Peter after reading his books, and seeing his work. In one of my first threads that I, I asked Peter to comment on it, and he said something to the effect that he had too much work to do, but it looked interesting. Shortly afterward I saw him posting quite a bit here and there, and I was somewhat jealous that he didn't respond directly to the subject matter in my thread. I also had been under the impression that since he has had so much experience in the field, and met and worked with so many of the modern day pioneers in the field, that he knows far more than he discloses. That may be true or it may not be, but I have to leave that in the 'maybe' column in my brain. I felt similarly about John, though I've never tried to contact him. I see men profiting from this line of work, and I feel that the only reason they are allowed to live (and not be killed by the powers that be) is because they hide most of the deep knowledge. I feel I would be killed if i were to seek profit, just as many other inventors who tried to profit from such important technology have been killed. I don't think it is just to conceal even a fraction of the truth, nor is it just to profit from it, aside from recovering expenses that were invested in order to facilitate the production of devices. Just today I stopped and gave a homeless veteran my food, and the pants around my waist, driving in my underwear for the first time ever, so that's the life I choose to live, and I feel that the sooner others do the same, the sooner we will all live as one, and the machine will crumble without bloodshed.

I will send you an other PM shortly, and maybe at some point, once we have no more conflict, and I have stopped making assumptions about situations where I don't have all the details, we can speak on the phone, as I prefer that method of communication over typing, although face to face is by far the best.

[skaght]

@Aaron--Thanks for the clarification! I'll try a larger cap and see if the effect becomes more obvious, if not I'll recheck my schematic.

[gmeast]

Ahem, dont forget the only reason why any one got anything, patents or progress or any thing.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................
Nah what? I see Gregs car. Ahem. Its never worth it. Now how much more time do we want to spend banging our heads against the wall? Time will tell. .

.................................................. ...............................................

Aaron, i am gonna send you and Peter some beerz soon. Yeah i know not much. Least i can do.

Ash

HEY! WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY CAR??????? ... other than the fact I had to get rid of it.

just kidding ... but it is gone now.

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

........BTW, the method of energy collection I was curious about when using this spark method is similar to Tesla's atmospheric generator (see his Colorado Spring's book p 405 ).

WOW! I just opened my copy of Colorado Springs notebook, and I can't believe I hadn't noticed this drawing in here before! It's the unfiled patent application that we've all seen before, that didn't have a description to go along with it.
I'll dig up a link to the picture shortly.

Before, I was looking at it all wrong! Now I see that it's a spark driven plasma ignition engine generator like the Papts, but it just uses atmospheric air and isn't sealed! The receiver's stepdown secondary goes to a spark gap in what is analogous to an internal combustion engine's cylinder. The spring-loaded piston is connected to a flywheel by friction driving it, which rotates back and forth, which is connected to an electrical generator!

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

and look, Bill Gates, was granted a patent that looks similar to it
Patent | Auto Green Magazine

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

Method of retrofitting an engine - Google Patent Search

US patent 7856714

[SilverToGold]

WOW! I just opened my copy of Colorado Springs notebook, and I can't believe I hadn't noticed this drawing in here before! It's the unfiled patent application that we've all seen before, that didn't have a description to go along with it.
I'll dig up a link to the picture shortly.

Before, I was looking at it all wrong! Now I see that it's a spark driven plasma ignition engine generator like the Papts, but it just uses atmospheric air and isn't sealed! The receiver's stepdown secondary goes to a spark gap in what is analogous to an internal combustion engine's cylinder. The spring-loaded piston is connected to a flywheel by friction driving it, which rotates back and forth, which is connected to an electrical generator!

If you go read William Lyne's book Pentagon Aliens... he goes into good details about this un-filed Tesla patent (along with why Tesla didn't file it) and also covers some interesting free energy methods that I have not seen covered here. He does good research and provides references for many of his plans so you can dig deeper.

I recommend everyone read William Lyne's work. He makes common sense knowledge of this occult field where so many things lead most people astray.

[SilverToGold]

and look, Bill Gates, was granted a patent that looks similar to it
Patent | Auto Green Magazine

Yeah, I'm sure he "came up" with that idea himself. He probably stole it like he does everything else from the secret government he's obviously a part of.

Gates is nothing more than a humanity hating insider.

[Aaron]

plasma ignition circuit

I may have misread things but I thought that smw1998a said that he fried some electronics that were just in proximity to his spark. So to me, that indicated enormous untapped energy release.

BTW, the method of energy collection I was curious about when using this spark method is similar to Tesla's atmospheric generator (see his Colorado Spring's book p 405 ).

Ok - you're talking about electronics external from the circuit. It can affect
meters and other equipment at a distance. Originally, I thought my IR
thermometer was registering a temp drop with each pulse but it was an
EMP from the discharge that affected it 3-5 feet away.

By the way, I fried about half a dozen little red harbor freight meters on
this circuit.

Other meters are affected as well. It scrambles the digital screens -
have seen this even on some of my meters that were not even connected
to the circuit. When connected, the digital meters screens almost always
scramble. If it is reading 160v in a cap, it will go berserk, etc...

There is a lot of RF emissions from the the plasma including possibly some
other unhealthy emissions like x-rays, etc... I think that was discussed
in the thread.

I'll look at that patent.

Is the Lyne reference you're talking about the "Free Energy Surprise"?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...on-device.html

I give reference where you can download that entire doc for free.

Anyway, there are ways to harness the emissions and it is a radiant
energy. Recovery is possible preventing it from happening to begin with
if we know what the energy is. I figured it all out from my model in The
Quantum Key and I'm sure others can figure it out with their own model.

[ashtweth]

HEY! WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY CAR??????? ... other than the fact I had to get rid of it.just kidding ... but it is gone now.

, LOL man you made me happy and sad at the same time shame on you

[SilverToGold]

Ok - you're talking about electronics external from the circuit. It can affect
meters and other equipment at a distance. Originally, I thought my IR
thermometer was registering a temp drop with each pulse but it was an
EMP from the discharge that affected it 3-5 feet away.

By the way, I fried about half a dozen little red harbor freight meters on
this circuit.

Other meters are affected as well. It scrambles the digital screens -
have seen this even on some of my meters that were not even connected
to the circuit. When connected, the digital meters screens almost always
scramble. If it is reading 160v in a cap, it will go berserk, etc...

There is a lot of RF emissions from the the plasma including possibly some
other unhealthy emissions like x-rays, etc... I think that was discussed
in the thread.

I'll look at that patent.

Is the Lyne reference you're talking about the "Free Energy Surprise"?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...on-device.html

I give reference where you can download that entire doc for free.

Anyway, there are ways to harness the emissions and it is a radiant
energy. Recovery is possible preventing it from happening to begin with
if we know what the energy is. I figured it all out from my model in The
Quantum Key and I'm sure others can figure it out with their own model.

Thanks Aaron for the details of the effects upon unconnected equipment. That is the energy release I'm interested in collecting with this sparking method using atmospheric air. I will be sure to take extra precautions with nearby equipment.

Lyne's "Free Energy Surprise" (ie FES) isn't exactly the link you provided. Lyne's FES is based on K-capture transmutation of iron to unstable cobalt and back to iron - releasing great amounts of energy. His simple setup was seen to generate a 1:1200 gain in energy.

The link you provided is the atmospheric generator. Also possibly tied to that unfiled Tesla patent.

In relation to the sparks being generated, according to Lyne - transmutations of the atmospheric air will occur and consequently - radioactivity. The radioactivity can very simply be collected with magnets and plates to directly produce currents.

I think this method if real, is the ideal method of generating energy. No moving parts. No extraneous new "science" needed. Radioactivity is just negative electrons and positive charges. Simple enough for anyone to understand.

Why use oil or even water when the very air we breath could possibly provide all the energy we ever needed?

I hope to see more of your collection method Aaron. Sounds very interesting.