Stan Meiyers V1C

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by kunadude, May 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kunadude

    Thread Starter New Member

    May 28, 2009
    Many ppl keep designing his VIC choke coil incorrectly. When most ppl here the
    Term bifilar coil, they automatically assume one in which its opposing field design.
    Worst yet, is to here ppl simply say, a tesla bifilar, and saying its opposing style.
    No. A true Tesla style bifilar is one that is series connected in aiding fassion.
    Hardly opposed. This opposing bifilar wound coil keeps popping up in free energy
    Circles. Esp with Bearden circles. This coil has its usefullness but not the type
    Used by Meyers in his VIC. At least the later version wound as a tri-coil on a torroid.
    For starters an opposed bifilar is nothing more than a power resistor. So for those
    Of connecting it this way, what you have is an RC network. That coil becomes and
    Functions like an ordinary resistor. Now, Meyers briefs, the text part if you'd bother
    To read, mention and describe the bifilar precisely as a true Tesla if you wish, aiding
    Bifilar coil. Which also is why he gets the potential so high with only a few hundred turns.
    His Vic is essentially a 2stage stepup transformer when all coils share the same magnetic
    Flux in the core. After all, the whole principle behind this method of electroylsis
    Is to use voltage. The higher the better. With 40kv + potentials, the current is already
    Meaningless anyway. Why bother blocking it? The opposing bifilar isn't blocking it
    Anyway. It does restrict it simply due to its function as a resistor and that's it.
  2. Papabravo


    Feb 24, 2006
    What a load of swill, absolute codswallop. You need to run, not walk, to the nearest rehab.
  3. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    There is no evidence to support any of these claims. Inarticulate ranting is not going to make it happen. Meyer lied about everything. There is no aspect of his work that is based on anything but a scam.

    One addition to this - Meyer claimed in his original patent that he fed his Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC) with 26 volts, and that the transformer stepped the voltage up by a factor of 5. That is 130 volts. That is hard data from the master scammer himself, clearly set out in his patent.

    Any later crud that comes along seeking to reach ever higher voltages is purest bumf. The problem is that the basis for the VIC is utter nonsense. Meyer's unbuildable circuitry was always a scam - it never could have worked in any fashion. Old Stan deliberately left out critical info like component values to make sure nobody could make a working copy.

    What is irritating is these drive-by posts from true believers claiming impossible results with Meyer's circuits. Anybody with a functioning brain can see that the whole patent is nothing but lies beginning to end. Either you're a scammer trying to sell some worthless junk to the credulous, or you have chosen to be led by the nose.
    Last edited: May 29, 2009
  4. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    No figures, no valid facts. Resistors are even better than coils for current restriction.

    The fact remains that old Stan was a crook. His electrons never had little smiles on their faces. Linear accelerators have a hard time operating in air. nothing Meyer had to say makes a bit of sense. The rest of us call a step up transformer just that. Voltage Intensifier Circuit is a term to impress the credulous.

    Those "latest" developments you speak of have been turned out by the later generation of scammers that realize word may get around about how Meyer's circuits can't be made to work. The scammers keep introducing new "designs" to keep the target moving.

    No one ever has or ever will see any circuitry based on Stan Meyer's patents function. Nobody who tries to defend or promote Meyer's work has given any sign of having read his patents.

    Thank you for your judgment of us -
    Betcha if you actually learn some electronics you will no longer dare to advance such utter nonsense. Nobody, including old Stan hisself, who promotes this crud shows the least sign of electronic training. I think there is some significance to that.
  5. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    Tesla gave us a great thing in the AC electric motor and the utility of AC power over DC. I see that he is aware of the relationship of inductive reactance to frequency.

    Not all his other ideas quite worked out.

    It is also hard to discover the relationship between Tesla and Meyer. Stan never gave credit for his ideas to anyone else. Probably just as well, as that would have led to more lawsuits.

    Remember that Stan lost in court because he could not demonstrate that his "water fuel cell" actually worked. That makes it a scam. If it had worked, he would have become very wealth licensing the technology to power companies. The Saudis would be selling camels to other Arabs.

    As long as you refuse to learn about how the world actually works, and prefer to believe that an open mind alone is enough to make significant discoveries, then you are just a mark for the scammers.
  6. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    It's disturbing how the 'free' energy crowd use Tesla's name to add credibility to their own ideas, which generally have no merit. Tesla's inventions and thinking was very advanced for the times he lived in, but didn't write down many details. Misunderstood, and a man of mystery, but did many great things that can't be denied. They didn't teach us anything about Nikola Tesla in school, his name never even mentioned. Always Thomas Edison ( Labs, Inc.), as the greatest inventor. I got the Tesla bug in High School, article in Radio-Electronics magazine (and won't be using the pages for toner-transfer PCBs).

    Stan Meyers died/murdered how many years ago? And his work still hasn't been reproduce to perform as he claimed. All the books, plans, and how-to videos, and no stunning success stories. I got so sick of HHO claims and the Stan Meyer claims, almost had trouble keeping the two seperate. Shouldn't give up on HHO, but let Stan Meyer R.I.P., which is better than he deserves. There is more ways than his, to split a molecule. His was a deadend, and holding a lot of people back, from find a workable solution.
  7. AlexR

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 16, 2008
    True, but all of them require more energy input than you get out of burning the hydrogen. This is just basic physics and nothing you or anyone else can do to change it.
  8. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    The big difference, Tesla was a scientist. He kept excellent notes, describing how to reproduce many (if not all) of his ideas. The key word, reproduce, is profound, it is the cornerstone of science. People were testing Tesla's ideas a year after he puplished. How many years has Meyer been dead?

    Tesla also is a unit of measurement. This should say something about his work.
  9. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    AlexR makes the full argument against the "over-unity" crowd. That is why I keep asserting that only a person who is ignorant of electronics (and physics) can be taken in by these claims.

    We could go into the history of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., but the real point is that there is a belief that a deeply ignorant person can somehow discover things that educated people cannot, because his mind is "open" to things that persons with educations cannot, somehow, begin to approach due to their minds being "closed" because to the strictures of knowledge.

    T. A. Edison is often held up as the model for the gifted but utterly untrained inventor. We might notice that Edison only took credit for the efforts of his hundreds of employees in Menlo Park - he himself did none of the development work. More significantly, we might notice that all of Edison's inventions actually worked and could be demonstrated to work under all conditions. This is at great variance with the stuff proposed by Meyer and Boyce, which were only demonstrated under very special conditions, and cannot be duplicated at all.

    35 years of utter failure should point to a scam. Why people still buy into the failed (and utterly absurd) promise is potentially the subject of several psych papers.
  10. Ratch

    New Member

    Mar 20, 2007
    To the Ineffable All,

    Not to distract from the fact that Stan Meyer was a fraud and a cheat, but a lot of folks in this thread and elsewhere compare him to Tesla. Let's not forget Charles Steinmetz, who made General Electric what it became. My high school physics teacher told my class that GE valued his services so much that they gave Steinmetz a blank check for his salary, and allowed him to write in any amount he thought he deserved. They were probably safe in doing that because he was not greedy. Anyway, I hear a lot about the accomplishments of Steinmetz and Tesla that seem to overlap. It becomes confusing as to who did what.

    Last edited: Jul 15, 2009
  11. kunadude

    Thread Starter New Member

    May 28, 2009
    Its obvious that some posts are from ppl without any electrical engineering knowlege.
    That's ok. Its not required to perform some basic test setups in order to prove
    My point. Without getting into specifics and technical jargon, simply due the following.

    Wind a single coil with 100 turns as your secondary on a form. Then wind a second
    Primary coil with 10 turns over the secondary. Connect you primary coil to a simple
    Dc battery an relay. Measure the output secondary coils voltage. Straight forward

    Now wind another coil, only this time a bifilar coil with 50 turns giving you a total of
    100 turns. Counting both wires. Connect the end of the first wire of the bifilar to the
    Beginning of the second wire of the bifilar coil. Wind a 10 turn primary over this bifilar
    Coil and connect it to your battery and relay. Now measure the volatage from the bifilar
    Secondary coil.

    You will see that the voltage is always larger with the bifilar aiding coil even
    Though it has the same total number of wires!

    So if voltage intensification is what your goal is, this is the way too achieve that.
    There's a lot of technical info on why and how this works in boosting the voltage.
    It is not simply turns ratio related as with standard coil arrangements.
  12. blueroomelectronics

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 22, 2007
    I saw VIC and thought Stanly had a VIC 20. Imagine my disappointment that it was just another useless HHO thread.
  13. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    I still have my C128 setup myself. I loved those old computers.
  14. kunadude

    Thread Starter New Member

    May 28, 2009
    The question of the chokes wiring is the heart. Whether Stan purposely
    Wrote in very great detail in the texts of his patents and briefs of his
    Circuits and showed the schematical drawing and wiring contrary to his
    Explicit discripitions as a way to safeguard his discovery or was a deliberate
    Attempt by others to redraw the schematics is not important.

    What is important and resoundingly clear is the embodiment of the texts
    Discription of the bifilar coils is completly backwards as how the actual drawings
    Illustrate. I urge anyone even experimenting with WFC's to re read the texts
    And completly ignore his schematic drawings. The discriptions tell you how to
    Wire the circuit clearly. The drawings are at best a huge distraction of the truth.

    Knowing that 99% of people will simply skim thru all the technical info and
    Drop down straight to the pictures of how to connect it, they are easily led
    Astray. No one can read the briefs and texts and not see that they are not
    In line with the presented drawings. It really is that clear.

    The drawings are a ruse.......interstingly, that the system will still function
    However seriously handicapped at best. Even in this clearly wrong opposed
    Bifilar choke, it still splits water better than brute dc electolysis.
  15. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Therein lies the crux of the problem, you say it works, we say prove it, you say it works.
  16. kunadude

    Thread Starter New Member

    May 28, 2009
    Prove what my friend? Whether pulse dc high voltage can separate water better than
    Ordinary high current dc? Watt for Watt? Well I don't know where you have been lately
    Except maybe lounging around here rebuking while your cohorts in univesities have already
    Proven that to be a fact. It would be pointless for me too add quotes and links to top colleges
    Already doing this. Not to mention Los Alamos using pulsed high voltage high freq to split
    Water at extrodinary yields. So what exactly are you wanting to be proved?
    Its my understanding there's ppl out here continuing this nonsense to hope. And I say hope.
    That some other tinkerer will simply cease and desist. No. With such proof everywhere and live
    Working videos of even baby systems working, only shows everyone who the real fools are.
  17. Wendy


    Mar 24, 2008
    Yep, the folks that buy into the scams. Videos are easy to fake, the laws of science, not so easy. Wikipedia calls references without sources weasle words. A good name.

    So do you sell hardware?
  18. kunadude

    Thread Starter New Member

    May 28, 2009
    I replied but it seems to have been pasted on another thread by mistake.
    First off I don't normally hang around the blog pages. Only ever so many
    Months or so I may check back.

    For you I will simply go copy and paste some research from top universities and
    Government projects. Maybe if its from a source that you consider modern
    Science you'll agree. Otherwise you'll just loiter around spouting nonsense.
    Like the pope declaring the earth was flat! If your a watchdog, to hinder progress
    You only defeating your purpose. Serious tinkerers don't care what ppl say. If we
    Did we wouldn't have AC today. Need I remind you all the modern schools said
    It was scientifically impossible! The physics of the time supposedly ruled out
    Any sort of alternating current. Thanks to Tesla ignoring the nay sayers he gave
    Us the 20th century! Physics is ever changing my friend. What was once the rule
    Has been changed in science for centuries and isn't finished yet.
  19. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    How wonderful, we have real videos, now. No chance they might be somehow less than accurate. It is interesting that you state -
    I have seen a working video of a car that can travel in time. As soon as the flux capacitor can be made to function predictably, we will all be able to travel in time. The video is quite convincing. I have seen it happen. Come to think of it, I have also seen the destruction of Tokyo by a monster that came out of Tokyo Bay.

    It is quite interesting that apparently significant discoveries being made at colleges and universities, not to mention Los Alamos, have never made it to the news. Exceeding Faraday's figures for electrolysis has not happened. You still do not get more energy out than has been put in. It is also interesting that you claim a process that is in no way based on Meyer's fantasies somehow validates Meyer's claims. That is really puzzling. That does not make any case at all for Meyer.

    It is the utter lack of substantiation that makes us disregard your claims. Great things go on, apparently all over the world, but never seem to produce visible results. All there is to show off are those "baby systems", desperately seeking money to continue the vital research.

    I see you're still holding forth about Stan Meyer, the scam artist. One plausible reason for the discrepancy you note -
    is simply that old Stan was a horrible liar. It's very easy to produce page after page of bafflegab, but a lot harder to assemble a set of schematics. His original work - not the hobbyist-level crud that has appeared after his death - is empty of component values as it is of sense.

    Getting to his Voltage Intensifier Circuit (VIC), we see that it does not function as claimed. No real device can. As I have pointed out, Meyer does state that he was using a 26 volt source to drive it, and that the voltage step up was by a factor of 5. So he "got" his results with 130 volts. That is a long way from current claims.

    Following the text as you suggest -
    - only produce a worse confusion. His "descriptions" are simply lies. His schematics produce no result because he had no idea of what he was doing. Stan Meyer was a liar. Meyer was a scam artist. Claiming his stuff is important is furthering a scam. There is not one grain of truth in any part of Meyer's patents and memos.

    Face it - this is nothing but a scam. The constant tweaking of the circuitry - none of it bearing any resemblance to the scribblings in the patents - is no more than later-day scammers trying to make something that works just a little bit.

    In 36 years, nobody has found the magic resonant frequency that causes water molecules to fall apart, or the correct way to generate hugely high voltages that will do the same, only with no energy used in the reaction. That is not especially surprising, as it is all a scam. The patents are deeply flawed as to explanations of how the various devices work. They are complete nonsense.

    You may be connected to one of these scam sites that make money from credulous people who support your "research". I do not know that you are. I do know that these impossible claims are quite tiresome.Calling us fools is obnoxious. No such proof has ever been made public. Claims on a web site is not credible.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Videos shot in the garage under controlled circumstances are not proof. A video shot at a major university, witnessed by and verified by degreed scientists, would constitute proof. Funny that so many videos only get shot on the garage, out of the public and skeptical eye.

    No matter how much verbiage you throw at us, you have no means of substantiating your claims. No proof exists. That you claim it does without any credible information would truly make us fools to accept your word. We are not fools. You, however, appear to be promoting a scam.
  20. JoeJester

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 26, 2005
    If you can not support the "over unity" claim's, your arguement is for naught.

    Good luck on your endeavor.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.