One other thing, Stan Meyers' circuit has never been duplicated.
Dan

 

Meyer's work can't be duplicated. It never existed. It's all a sham and fabrication. His descriptions are pure fiction.

If he was too ignorant of electronic terminology to properly describe the method of winding those choke coils, then confusion is bound to exist. Possibly he used the term "bifilar" because it was impressive. Scam artists like to do that. If his audience does not understand those fancy terms, they usually don't ask for explanation, as it reveals their ignorance. And if he can throw around several fancy terms, it must mean he knows what he's talking about, right?

The choke coil winding methodology and supposed circuit function are aside from the point I tried to make - the very specific wire he insisted was correct for the primary winding was much too light for the necessary current by an order of magnitude. That is what we call a giveaway. It makes it very clear that Meyer never had any of his stuff functioning. They were all props to make a show. The purpose of his rather incoherent articles was to convince people to send him money.

Anybody who is interested in this overunity stuff should note that the supporting documents are hard to read not because they are so advanced, but because they are designed to be confusing. These guys had and have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about. All they want is your money.

Meyer is reputed to have several patents. He has only the one, #5,293,857 issued in March of 1994. He makes a reference to another patent, making it sound like his, but it was not. See patent #4,936,931. Sort of a lie by misdirection.

NOTE - I caught myself in error. Meyer has one other patent, #4,398,981, issued in 1984. It covers another method of introducing oxyhydrogen gas into an IC engine. He does not appear to have patents on any of his overunity electrolysis devices. The examiners probably got the giggles and gave up.

The patent only covers a method of using a dilutent gas to render an oxyhydrogen gas mixture less explosive in an IC engine. Not particularly ground-breaking work. The following patents are refered to by the Paten Office as being directly related to Meyer's patent:
3844262 October 1974 Dieges
3980053 September 1976 Horvath
3982878 September 1976 Yamane et al.
4031865 June 1977 Dufour
4389981 June 1983 Meyer
4575383 March 1986 Lowther et al.
4773981 (oops, missed the date and inventor)

Meyer's stuff, and all other related devices are non-functional eye candy. None of these devices has ever worked, and, from the principles expressed by the inventors/adherents, none ever will. It's your money they want, not actual progress.

 

Mr Beenthere,
Are you talking to me? Because I was only trying to state that bifilar coils actually work as a generator/ charging system. They also work as a pulse motor. It is kind of cool to watch it work.
Dan

 

Hi guys,
A bifilar coil is supposed to work when each coil is independently "fired." Even for a nanosecond. As the "trigger" coil is energised, sending power to the circuit, the secondary coil gets energised moments later, capturing the collapsing bemf field.

That is not how a bifilur coil works. There is no "each coil." There certainly is no "firing independantly."

Please, please, please, PLEASE do some REAL reading, Dan!!!! We have an excellent online textbook here at AAC. You can access it via the many blue tabs at the top of your screen. Once you know what you are actually saying with these words, you'll stop sounding like a badly written space opera! You'll know what the words mean, and you'll agree with us that Meyers was full of hooey.

 

Possibly he used the term "bifilar" because it was impressive. Scam artists like to do that. If his audience does not understand those fancy terms, they usually don't ask for explanation, as it reveals their ignorance. And if he can throw around several fancy terms, it must mean he knows what he's talking about, right?

Let's not forget who invented the bifilar. If it was good enough for Nikola, it's good enough for Stan!

 

Thingmaker. you're an ignorant slut, not only did you not comprehend my earlier post, your response was nothing but petty fearfulness of the obviousness. But seriously folks, ...
I am just explaining how bifilar coils work. As a generator coil/ charging unit,they work pretty well. Attached is Bedini's
circuit.
I'm not saying this works, I'm just trying to show how bifilar coils work. Sheesh.

 

Hey now, let's please keep things civil.

This is a "G"-rated forum. Let's play nice, ok?

I hadn't seen that particular Meyers document before. I had to put on my hip boots to read as far as I did. What an absurd document.

 

If it is my bad, please forgive me, Dan Ackroyd is my favorite.
Dan

 

Floodmoggle, I do indeed owe you an apology. I confused you with Farlander.

To quote Gilda Radner: "Nevermind..."

 

The circuit shown in Floodmoogle's attachment does not contain a bifilar wound coil. The text is in error.

The Bedini patent cited does not mention any bifilar wound coil either. Said patent simply describes the use of a battery to run a motor while simultaneously charging another battery. Yawn.

 

I hadn't seen that particular Meyers document before. I had to put on my hip boots to read as far as I did. What an absurd document.

If you think that document was fun, try patent # 4936961. I'm quite frankly ashamed of the patent office for issuing this one, and I want my tax money back!

 

Much of the heat in this thread seems to be coming from a misunderstanding of the term "bifilar".

Bifilar refers to the method of winding rather than the configuration of of the wound product. All it means is that both windings are wound onto the former together using two wires which are side by side. Whether the two resulting inductances add, subtract or end up as a transformer depends on how you connect the coils

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil

 

I would have to ask if you have read any of the material that has been linked? Meyer's material is an especially good example of throwing out language that is designed to conceal the fact that the author is perfectly ignorant of electronics or chemistry or nuclear physics - although he purports to have dealt with a three areas of science.

To address the use of the term "bifilar" in Meyer's Voltage Intensifier Circuit, though, makes the case that he was misusing the term. By design or just because it sounded neat is open to debate. All you have to do is examine the "schematic" linked to on Farlander's site. You can see that the "choke" coils are wound individually on the same core as the primary and secondary. That makes no sense.

As far as Meyer's understanding of what he was describing goes, let me quote a passage from is memo WFC 425 "tri Coil Construction".

"Resonant Choke Coils (56/62) of Figure (3-23) (Memo WFC 422 DA) are composed of 430F or 430R inductance stainless steel film coated (hi dielectric value) wire (typically .004 Ga. or smaller) which are axially (spiraled) Bifilar wound about core bobbin (502), forming individual spiral-wrap (inner to outer circumfrence and being equally-length) coils (501a xx 501n) electrically connected in sequencial (sic [mine]) order to form resistive pickup coil (503).

Primary Coil (26) (typically .030 Ga.) film coated magnet wire is longitudinal wrapped in space relationship on top of and layered bidirectional (507a xxx 507n) across spiral-wrap coils (501a xxx 505n) to complete bobbin cavity (504).

Secondary pickup coil (52) of Figure (3-23) is, also composed of individual spiral wrapped coils (505a xx 505n) (typically .002 Ga. magnet wire) electrically connected in sequential order to form bobbin cavity (506) which is placed on top of and in space relationship to primary coil cavity (504)."

Let's look at a few of the specifications. 430 F stainless steel is a free-machining grade that would be ductile enough to draw into fine wire. 430R stainless is imaginary. It is not a grade of stainless steel. The term "inductance" has no meaning in the context. The film coating (deliberately vague) must have a good insulation quality. Speaking of it's having dielectric properties is a misuse of the term.

I love the "electrically connected in sequential order" phrase. "Connected in series" or "wound in series" is a term a person familiar with electronics would more likely use. If these are choke coils, why does he then describe them as forming a "resistive pickup coil"? The functions are not equivalent in any sense. This is either ignorance talking, or deliberate bafflegab. It is nonsense.

Can you follow paragraph 2? As an exercise, try to produce a hand-wound transformer with small wire by following these directions. Paragraph 3 does not quite make the task clearer.

Also note that he has no idea of how to speak of wire size. He confuses wire gauge and the measured diameter, so you can never know what the wire is. 30 ga wire mikes out at just over .010". So does he mean 30 ga wire, or wire of .030" diameter? That's one of those gotchas scammers put in to make it impossible to actually build what has been "described".

That is just the first three paragraphs of the document. Meyer has hundreds of pages of similar crud, some much more misleading and confusing than the above. This is only impressive if you are too ignorant to know better.

 

Let's look at a few of the specifications. 430 F stainless steel is a free-machining grade that would be ductile enough to draw into fine wire. 430R stainless is imaginary. It is not a grade of stainless steel. The term "inductance" has no meaning in the context.

One of the most common listed uses of series 430 is "for trims on automobiles, cameras, and other products to enhance their appearance for marketability." I submit that Ol' Stanly chose a series 430 to enhance appearance for marketability. The designation "F" after the number indicates resulpherisation for improved machinablility. There is one manufacturer (Carpenter Steel) who produces a 430FR (not 430R). The FR is a high-silicon modification, and is made to tighter tolerances for use in solenoids. The tighter control over composition gives the FR variety provides more consistancy of magnetic properties.

Someone reading quickly enough through the right text might spot "430 F" and "430 FR" in the same paragraph as "magnetic." The free energy crowd just loves the word "magnetic."

I encorage anyone wanting to purchase 430F or 430FR wire to visit the Crucible Steel website. You might want to go in together on an order - minimum quantity is measured in tons, not pounds.

 

Thingmaker,
Au cotraire, mon frere. Directly below the bicycle wheel there are two coils that are wound on the same core. The thing works as a charger, not as a motor. And yes an external initial force must be applied to get it started.
Apology accepted.
A bifilar coil is not to be confused with a toroid coil, even if wound the same way, with the same core. The separate firing is the key to making it work. I'm not much on the theory, but the practical application seems to work. Meyers has nothing to do with it. Free-energy guys usually try to combine the two. Bedini may not be a genius, but made, or used, a device in a way no one had done before.
Try one. Worked for me.
With all due respect,
Dan

 

Beenthere,
You mean there is no way I can't get more power out than is put in? Next you'll tell me there is no Easter Bunny!
You are an extremly poor moderator! I'm crying online. Overunity will hear from me!
Anyway, thanks for replying to a schmuck. I'm not anywhere near as educated in electronics as you. Nice to feel my 1970's electronic education has paid off.
Dan

 

Thingmaker,
Au cotraire, mon frere.

One thing you learn on this forum, Thingmaker is never wrong.. and you never want to start an argument with him unless you intend to finish it!

Steve

 

One thing you learn on this forum, Thingmaker is never wrong.

Steve, I need you to speak with my wife for just a moment...

 

Oh, Lest we forget the axiom of assuming incorrect during any marital or pre-marital relationship

Steve

 

In all my research on Meyers I have never heard the tri coil mentioned.

Steve, nobody is always right.

Isn't is plausible that Meyers deliberately used layman's terms to describe his setup to make it understandable to fellow uneducates?

Isn't is also plausible that he deliberately injected false information to keep his would be opponents off track?

There were clearly more than 2 patents issued by the U.S.
USP # 4,936,961 - Method for the Production of a Fuel Gas
USP # 4,826,581 - Controlled Production of Thermal Energy from Gases
USP # 4,798,661 - Gas generator voltage control circuit
USP # 4,613,779 ~ Electrical Pulse Generator
USP # 4,613,304 ~ Gas Electrical H Generator
USP # 4,465,455 ~ Start-up/Shut-down for H Gas Burner
USP # 4,421,474 ~ H Gas Burner
USP # 4,389,981 ~ H Gas Injector System for IC Engine
USP # 4,275,950 ~ Light-Guide Lense
USP # 3,970,070 ~ Solar Heating System
USP # 4,265,224 ~ Multi-Stage Solar Storage System
USP # 3,970,070 - Solar heating system
Canada Patent # 1,231,872 ~ H Injector System
CP # 1,233,379 ~ H Gas Injector System for IC Engine
CP # 1,235,669 ~ Controlled H Gas Flame
CP # 1,228,833 ~ Gas Electrical H Generator
CP # 1,227,094 ~ H/Air & Non-Combustible Gas Mixing Combustion System
CP # 1,234,774 ~ H Generator System
CP # 1,234,773 ~ Resonant Cavity H Generator...
CP # 1,213,671 ~ Electrical Particle Generator
so like I said Steven, thingmaker is wrong

students.umw.edu/~jsera9mu/wfc%20site