Solitons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

From:
http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-by-alex=
-petty/

After you have 3dialed in4 to the resonant frequency for your circuit,
you can add C3 (for the gate timing). This allows the water capacitor
some time so it can discharge in order that it can then cycle the step
charging process over and over again. The off-time provided by the
gate also allows solitons to arise between the plates of C5.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:38:09 -0700 (PDT), email@anonym:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

From:
http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-by-alex-petty/

After you have “dialed in” to the resonant frequency for your circuit,
you can add C3 (for the gate timing). This allows the water capacitor
some time so it can discharge in order that it can then cycle the step
charging process over and over again. The off-time provided by the
gate also allows solitons to arise between the plates of C5.

Doing water electrolysis with pulsed voltages.
Is it any better than DC?

w.

On May 5, 1:200am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:38:09 -0700 (PDT), knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

>From:
>http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-b...

>After you have 3dialed in4 to the resonant frequency for your circui=
t,
>you can add C3 (for the gate timing). This allows the water capacitor
>some time so it can discharge in order that it can then cycle the step
>charging process over and over again. The off-time provided by the
>gate also allows solitons to arise between the plates of C5.

Doing water electrolysis with pulsed voltages.
Is it any better than DC?

w.

The process referred to here is NOT electrolysis.
It is called "Electrical Polarization."
It is orders of magnitude more efficient than classic electrolysis.
It uses the force of voltage and resonance which polarizes, elongates,
and vibrates the molecule into decomposition.
It is NOT current dependent.
It consumes mere milli-amps.

Subject:   Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case
From:   "Ted Zettergren" <ted.email@anonym;
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100


John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn
$email@anonym;...
For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some
equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this
legitimate work, he claimed to be able decompose water into hydrogen
and oxygen with >100% thermal efficiency, thereby inventing a
"water-powered car". He sold "marketing rights" for this technology
to unsuspecting people, one of whom is a regular reader of s.e.h.

Back a couple years, a couple of his investors got wise to his scam
and took him to court, where Meyer was found guilty of "gross and
egregious fraud" and ordered to repay those 'investors'. As far as I
know, those were the only 'investors' who ever recouped their
'investment'. Meyer died earlier this year and his followers insist
he was poisoned (all good perpetual motion inventors are stalked by
THE CONSPIRACY).

After being found guilty of fraud, Meyer sent a long rambling letter
to the remainder of his 'investors', obviously hoping to ward off a
spate of trials which would have drained him of his ill-gotten gains.
It was replete with conspiracy paranoia and claimed that a recording
device in the courtroom was turned off so the judge (obviously working
under the direction of THE CONSPIRACY) could railroad Meyer into an
unjust guilty verdict.

As far as I know, Meyer's home base was Grove City, Ohio, and the
court case took place in Shelby county, Ohio. I am going to be
passing through Ohio in a couple weeks and Grove City is but 3 miles
off my planned route. I can pass through Shelby county with only
minor adjustment of my planned route through Indiana. I figured I'd
stop in at the courthouse and see if I can pick up copies of the
records of the trial.

Does anybody know precisely where and when the trial took place?
City, county, etc., date(s)??? Possibly an official case name?

Thanks.



VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen

Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player
so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court.

The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and
Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say.


The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February
1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court,
Chillicothe, Ohio.

By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this.

AT FIRST:

You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a
nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like
to argue a lot in every NG on Internet.

In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for
making the water conductive.

In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high
voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends
on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better.

Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical
reactions.

HOW TO?

As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F.

If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that.
It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred.
Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the
step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work
with. The components must resist at least 2000V.

The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes
with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer
diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this
Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum.

The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific
frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit.

Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and
the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the
same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is
energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal
to the capacitive reactance, XL D XC.

Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen
producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make
hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current,
this experiment will really surprise you.

For even less current you can make some experiment with a
centertapped puls-transformer.

Have a nice trip to Ohio!

Ted!

And why Faraday didn't discover the process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vDJDBthFaf95k&featureDplayer_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vDsxXCkUF9fkM&featureDplayer_detailpage

On 5/5/2012 1:20 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 18:38:09 -0700 (PDT), email@anonym:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

From:
http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-by-alex-petty/

After you have “dialed in” to the resonant frequency for your circuit,
you can add C3 (for the gate timing). This allows the water capacitor
some time so it can discharge in order that it can then cycle the step
charging process over and over again. The off-time provided by the
gate also allows solitons to arise between the plates of C5.

Doing water electrolysis with pulsed voltages.
Is it any better than DC?

w.


Only the dc term of any Fourier Series pulse waveform contributes to
electrolysis.

See < http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu12.shtml#d04-29-12 > for useful links.



--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: email@anonym

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
Doing water electrolysis with pulsed voltages.
Is it any better than DC?
w.

hanson wrote:
= No, not for the H2O electrolysis itself.
That remains the same as with normal DC.
= The pulsing is done to prevent polarization
(which forms non-conductive oxide monolayers)
on the Cathode- and Anode-surfaces that need
an "overvoltage" to be broken thru, which increases
the power demand to electrolyze the water.
= In extreme cases straight, un-interrupted
DC dissolves the Anode.
= Duno what your question has to do with "solitons"

Wabie wrote:
ad 1,2,3 thanks,
ad 4
<http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-b>
That link made me think (what a rhyme) ah...of electrolysis.
The solitons occured somewhere in the original post,
I believe. (Who cares).

hanson wrote:
I see. “water fuel"... ahahaha... aka Perpetual motion.

Water is the end product of oxidation of H2 into H2O.
There are ways though to use H2O as fuel:

(a) if you split it with an external high temp source
to gain disassociation into H2 & O2, but then why
not use the high temp source directly. There have
been demo units in cogeneration situations with
that but it never gained any market share.

(b) or split H2O with the energetic radiation from Nuke
reactor plant waste products. But technical safety
issues have hindered/prevent its development.

(c) Here, they are yearning/talking/hallucinating/conning/
scheming and scamming about extracting useable
energy from the "Zero Point Energy" concept by
shifting its "goal posts". They can make any
circuit they whish, but no "juice-for-use" will come
out of it because of it.

What they are doing here is akin to get
nourishment/energy from eating Food stuff.
Then they hope to get even more energy from
it, if they drink their own urine. --- Good luck!

Nature with its 4 billions years of trial and error would
have found a way to use water as fuel under the
circumstances they envision it should. Nature didn't
find one... and neither will they. But let'em have at it.
Good luck to them....ahaha.... ahahahahanson

ahahahahaha... knock yourself out since it is such
good <email@anonym; who wrote:
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
Doing water electrolysis with pulsed voltages.
Is it any better than DC?
w.

hanson wrote:
= No, not for the H2O electrolysis itself.
That remains the same as with normal DC.
= The pulsing is done to prevent polarization
(which forms non-conductive oxide monolayers)
on the Cathode- and Anode-surfaces that need
an "overvoltage" to be broken thru, which increases
the power demand to electrolyze the water.
= In extreme cases straight, un-interrupted
DC dissolves the Anode.
= Duno what your question has to do with "solitons"

Wabie wrote:
ad 1,2,3 thanks,
ad 4
<http://www.alexpetty.com/2011/06/16/simple-wfc-energization-circuit-b>
That link made me think (what a rhyme) ah...of electrolysis.
The solitons occured somewhere in the original post,
I believe. (Who cares).

hanson wrote:
I see. “water fuel"... ahahaha... aka Perpetual motion.

Water is the end product of oxidation of H2 into H2O.
There are ways though to use H2O as fuel:

(a) if you split it with an external high temp source
to gain disassociation into H2 & O2, but then why
not use the high temp source directly. There have
been demo units in cogeneration situations with
that but it never gained any market share.

(b) or split H2O with the energetic radiation from Nuke
reactor plant waste products. But technical safety
issues have hindered/prevent its development.

(c) Here, they are yearning/talking/hallucinating/conning/
scheming and scamming about extracting useable
energy from the "Zero Point Energy" concept by
shifting its "goal posts". They can make any
circuit they whish, but no "juice-for-use" will come
out of it because of it.

What they are doing here is akin to get
nourishment/energy from eating Food stuff.
Then they hope to get even more energy from
it, if they drink their own urine. --- Good luck!

Nature with its 4 billions years of trial and error would
have found a way to use water as fuel under the
circumstances they envision it should. Nature didn't
find one... and neither will they. But let'em have at it.
Good luck to them....ahaha.... ahahahahanson

knews4u2chew wrote:
<snipped poster's silly & desperate laments>
Nature didn't create for Farady the stainless steel for a
capacitor and computer circuitry that can tune a
resonant LC circuit or timers that respond to the
changing dielectric of natural water under
decomposition in order to keep the process of
decomposition constant in a changing environment.
Nature didn't invent a bifiar coil, blocking diode,
transformer, and variac.
I have a fully built Meyer 8xa PCB being shipped
Monday thanks to: www.stansdream.com
I got a Style 21 Variac off ebay for $56 delivered.
I am getting a $7, 120v to 12 vol transformer.
My stainless 304 tubes will cost $250.
It will take a few hundred to build the exciter case
because I am making it match Meyer's test cell as
close as possible.
I expect total build to cost about $1,000 since
I have to pay for machine shop labor on exciter
array and case.
After testing and measuring independently I will
submit it for review at a very reputable university
if I can raise the money.
I have contacted the Director of an Electrical
Engineering dept at a major university and he is
sending me an estimate of costs for evaluation
and accredited publication of findings.
The only way to get a university review is for
someone to PAY for it.
This could cost a few thousand dollars.
Maybe $50,000 or more. I sure don't have that.
You have a better way of getting the results
accepted by the almighty "academic community."
Who's gonna pay for it?
I can spend much less and just build a unit on
my car and let the rest of you go to hell.
I'm not starting any big fuel cell business or anything.
I just want one unit for myself.

hanson wrote:
ROTFLMAO... AHAHAHAHAHA... yeah, yeah!
Go for it. "A sucker is born every minute" said
the man... and you are one of them... ahahaha...

The director of EE will send you a splendid
and glowing report for your findings, after he
pockets your hard earned money, takes his
cronies to the nudie bar and has fun there...

Some PhD's in our org do that as a side
line to pay for their vacation expenses.
People (like you) pay them for their beliefs....

Let me give you some more examples:
We thought that we invented Nuclear fission
ourselves. but nature did so, millions of years
ago lready, as we discovered in 1972 at Oklo,
Gabon in Africa --- We know that nature does
fusion and we (try to) duplicate it -- BUT Nature
has NOT shown that water is a fuel under your
assumed conditions -- neither will you.

But, like I said above, keep on drinking your
own piss, pay for it dearly and enjoy it like you
apparently do... Thanks for the laughs, again...
ahahahahanson