Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 490854
  • *Total Topics: 14443
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 220
  • *Total: 221

Facebook

Author Topic: Meyer's WFC concept analysed  (Read 69608 times)

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« on: October 31, 2007, 04:41:08 PM »
Meyer?s WFC concept

I will assume that all SM fans and everyone either experimenting with, or seriously interested in the Meyer?s WFC will have available to them a full copy of Meyer?s ?Hydrogen Fracturing Process?.

The full title of this document is:

The Birth of New Technology
WATER FUEL CELL
Technical Brief

HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS

By Stanley A. Meyer
Inventor

Ok, I used to be a severe sceptic with regards to Meyer?s WFC. Not, so much because I simply dismissed his claims to be able to run a car on water, but because all of his documents (the one above particularly) and patents are strewn with inconsistencies, incoherent jibberish and a pitiful grasp on known science and electronics.  Add to this the video of one of his lectures to a small group of people (in his garage I think!), where he fails dismally to shed any new light on his WFC or answer any questions that his documents raise, and it all looks decidedly dodgy.   At one point in his lecture, someone asks him about ?heavy water? content.  A strange question by any account, but it nevertheless visibly throws Stan.  Meyer clearly bluffs his way forward past this ? I doubt if he even knew what heavy water is.  All in all then, old Stan was clearly out of his depth when it came to the science behind the technology and consequently seemed quite happy to make it up as he went along, hoping, I daresay, to blind people with ?science?. Of course this would work well for 90% of the general public and uneducated reporters out for a story, but anyone with the mildest background in science can pick holes out of practically every page.

That said, what if his invention did actually work, but he just didn?t have a clue why or what was actually happening.

Time then to take a closer look at Stan Meyer?s WFC. However, before I go on it would help if everyone reading this were on the same page and not side tracked by the various other WFC designs out there.  So for the purpose of this thread, forget Dingle, Archie Blue, Kanarev, Xogen, Naudin, Carl Cella, etc, etc, and let?s just focus on Meyer.

Before we can effectively analyse Meyer?s circuit designs, we really need to agree on what the it was designed to do.

Now, contrary to the thinking of many, Meyer?s WFC, his ?water capacitor?, could not use tap water. Use tap water and you don?t have a water capacitor, but a big resistor.  The water therefore, can not be tap, rain or river water, but must be deionized water. The stuff you use to top up lead acid car batteries, and hence not quite so plentiful and cheap as you might have thought. In the Uk a litre of deionized water is around a quid ? currently the same price as a litre of petrol.

Before you consider arguing this point, section 1-1 of Stan?s Hydrogen Fracturing Process, (hereafter, HFP), clearly states, quote:

The Dielectric Properties (insulator to the flow of amps) of natural water (dielectric constant being 78.54 @ 25C) between the electrical plates (E1/E2) forms the capacitor (ER). 

At this point, I?ll take a breather and wait for some input before I go further.

Regards, Farrah Day



« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 06:13:00 PM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« on: October 31, 2007, 04:41:08 PM »

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2007, 07:59:43 PM »
Also ponder the fact that if he did tell the truth in how it truly worked, he would not have been granted his patents. Bedini states this also. If the words Radiant Energy, Free Energy, or the likes, the patent will not be granted. This leaves the inventor no alternative but to craftily describe the circuit with the days standards. If he proves it works to the law of the patent office he gets his patent. I highly recommend reading all of his patents and the ones cited for references at the top of the documents. The tech breif is to scrambled to understand in my opinion but has it's good points.

Did he not know why it worked? I highly doubt that. If we compare his work to other devices such as the MEG, TPU, Bedini motors, Newman motors, Stubblefield, and so on, we can see the likenesses of all these inventions and that they all produce Radiant Energy using an LC circuit design. A Tesla Coil is a great example.

One last bit is what is it that makes it work? He explains it rather well but I am clueless as how to calculate it. The frequency wavelength or part of or multiples of, must fit in the space between the exciter plates. This "sweet spot" accelerates the molecules in motion to bounce back and forth between the plates without leaking a lot of current, regardless of the size and shape of the plates. I believe Bob Boyce uses the same tech as Stan.He uses a slightly different construction style but achieves the same results. High gas output, low power consumption, and no heat generated from the process.

Of course this is just my opinion...


Cheers!
« Last Edit: October 31, 2007, 08:20:55 PM by HeairBear »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2007, 10:58:32 PM »
Yes, Ok, right.

You see, this is where it definitely has advantages in being at least a little educated in electronics. 

Firstly, "if he did tell the truth about how it worked, he would not have been granted his patents". What does this mean, exactly? Think about it, if the designs are unworkable, then he fooled the patent office. If the designs do work, but he left out vital components in order that his designs would not be copied (by the patent office?), then that leaves anyone able to patent their own design based on Meyers if they introduce the left out components - and to show it working!!  All they have to say is that Meyers design won't work - which it won't - and show their own working.  The patent issue is quite simply bullshit. 

Sweet spot and resonance.  Well Stan certainly did talk a lot about resonant frequency. And, unless you actually have any understanding of electronic circuits you probably will just accept, without question, what he says - afterall you have no knowledge of your own in this field to make any judgement.

What, I would like to know is 'what' can resonate in the wfc circuit on page 1-13 of his HFP document?  Not sure? Answer, nothing.

Reading the HFP should ring alarm bells if you have any understanding of electronics whatsoever. Watch the Meyer's lecture video and then decide whether or not he knows what he is talking about... or not.

If the wfc uses deionized water so we have a capacitor, ok. We then have two inductors in series with the capacitor - effectively a series LC (Inductor/capacitor) circuit.  On page 1-2 of HFP, Stan provides numerous formulae to determinine resonant frequency, reactance, etc, of a series LC circuit. All looks very impressive, and indeed the formulas are correct with regards to a resonant LC circuit.  Problem is that all these formulas only apply to a circuit that can resonate. Unfortunately, Meyers circuit can't resonate because he has a blocking diode also in series with the inductors and the water capacitor which prevents this - so all the fancy formulas are pointless.  This is very basic electronics.. I might add.

If the circuit resonated, then the charges on the wfc electrodes would be continually flipping from +ve to -ve.  This can not happen with that diode there.

The other thing is that even if the diode was not there, a series resonant circuit exhibits minimum voltage at resonance and allows maximum current flow - hardly desirable I would have thought. On the other hand, if it was a parallel lc circuit, at resonance (the frequency at which the capacitive reactance matches the inductive reactance), then the voltage across the capacitor would be maximum while the current flow minimum.

The problem here is the more educated you are the less anything makes sense.  If you start to talk about radiant energy, your in 'Joe cell' world. At no point anywhere does Stan talk about zero point or radiant energy - he appears to try to explain everything with science as we know it and known formulas and equations, however illogical and misguided.

As far as I know Bob Boyce only produces very efficient electrolysis from his cells by pulsing. I don't think he uses high voltage - at least he never used to. He apparently can build apparatus that can fuel a car on demand, but nowadays he only plays with hydrogen boosters, after the dreaded 'men in black' came a-calling.  Make of that what you want - I know what I made of it!

Farrah Day


Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2007, 07:55:26 AM »
Yes, normal electrical theory does not apply in these cases and it seems to me from past experience that EE's have the hardest time trying to understand it. And your right, I am totally formally uneducated. It just may be that people like myself do not have the training ingrained in our heads which can be a hindrance in some ways.

Resonance, this seems to be a touchy subject. Out of all the materials I have read and the videos I have watched I have never found any comments or specific details of the entire VIC circuit reaching resonance. But he does several times talk of the resonance inside the cell or "Resonant Cavity". To achieve resonance in the resonant cavity the frequency (pulsed DC) wavelength has to in some way match the space between the exciter plates.

The diode is to stop the CEMF caused by the inductors. As far as I can see it, the one thing those chokes do is push the electrons back during off times to help keep from leaking to the exciter plate. Even better, the EEC gets switched on at this moment consuming a bunch of free electrons. Here is what I don't get. He adds a third choke tapped to the center of the secondary and calls it an "Amp Inhibitor Coil". If you search a little harder he states his chokes have a resistance of 11.6K. If you use copper and go the smallest wire size you can without breaking it, your coil is going to be huge. 1000's of feet of wire. This is why he chose to use stainless steel wire.

If you read his patents in chronological order, you will find in the beginning he did not use a toroid or chokes in his designs. No LC circuits at all. As he progresses he adds these components later for even better efficiency. So now we can throw out resonance and the VIC circuit and start over with what he originally used. Start with this patent, It's one of my favorites and it's what I have been basing my research on. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4798661.pdf

Here is a video which I find very interesting. It's hard to hear what he is saying but make sure you hear it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1200633625949325855&q=Stanley+Meyer&total=528&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7

OK, what if there is resonance in the VIC circuit? That still leaves the fact of the characteristics of a series LC circuit in resonance is opposite of what we want. A recent journal I tripped across from an MIT student researching wireless power for robotics found that the huge resonant coil in his device, had the characteristics of a parallel resonant circuit. I can't re-find the journal at the moment but maybe you can dig it up. Being that said, would that not change how the VIC works? Is it possible the resonance could be isolated to only part of the circuit and not as a whole?

Radiant Energy. Tesla called it RC or Radiant Current. Stubblefield used it to make wireless telephones and proximity detectors by simply putting a coil in the ground and transmitting/receiving with a simple LC circuit. Amazingly, he was just a farmer who liked to read the science journals at his local train depot. Even though all this Radiant Energy mumbo jumbo seems irrelevant to you, educating yourself with whats left out there will greatly improve your understanding of why these circuits look backwards or not making sense in a normal situation. Does this circuit make sense to you? http://peswiki.com/images/0/02/UPDATED_CIRCUIT.JPG
Notice it has no LC circuit? But it will go into resonance at the right "sweet spot/s" of rpm's. Again, here we are dealing with Radiant Energy and the circuit doesn't make sense in a normal situation. Notice it's called an SG? That stands for "School Girl". Even a school girl can make one! Try it. I did, and it's a great way to get your hands dirty and not spend a lot of cash. Well, In the beginning...... Most of the parts can be found at Radio Shack.

Gotta jet... rock on!
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 08:18:13 AM by HeairBear »


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2007, 10:25:43 AM »
HairBear, you cannot say that, 'normal electrical theory does not apply in these cases', there has to be some grounding from which to start to interpret what is happening. And that can only be from known science - you can't possibly interpret what is happening by simply assuming that unknown science and/or radiant energy is the answer and work backwards from there! 

Even radiant energy will have its laws and rules, we simply don't fully understand them yet.  Things won't just work because we want them to or can simply be explained by radiant energy. But as I said previously, Stan does not mention any such energy anyway, but attempts to explain everything from known science.

Right, HairBear, I watched the video link you provided, and, although very poor quality and without the car being scientifically evaluated is probably meaningless, is still quite interesting.  The obvious problem I have with it is, - hope you clocked it - that Stan in the video clearly states that tap, rain river or snow water will do to power his buggy WFC!  WHAT!  There goes the WFC as a capacitor then, and in comes another major inconsistency with his published documents.  Do you start to see the problem for anyone trying to analyse and sensibly evaluate Meyer's claims? Simply put, his principles of operation of his WFC are incredibly inconsistent.

So Ok, at this stage confusion is setting in. Either he uses tap water or pure water - depending on how the wfc works it can only be one or the other.  Now in the video he uses the term 'natural water' to describe his use of everyday tap, rain river water, but in hi HFP document he also uses the term 'natural water' giving the dielectric constant of pure water. I had assumed he'd meant pure or deionized water when he states 'natural water' in his HFP, but maybe he was talking about tap water. If this is the case we can forget about the water capacitor idea altogether.

At this point can you see just how confused and inconsistent he is/was with what he said and wrote? 

He was not a man of science or - as the video states - even a graduate. His backgroung in science and his knowledge was very inadequate when it cam to the theory, that is why I believe he was guessing at what was happening, literally making it up as he went.

That said, if the Dune Buggy worked as he claimed then he did indeed make a significant breakthrough.  His patents and circuit designs as they are though, are complete nonsense and will just lead you on a 'wild goose chase!'

Just while I'm thinking about it, you said that the diode is to stop the CEMF caused by the inductors. Yes but it is the very nature of the CEMF that would cause the circuit to resonate. In a simple single circuit as shown, you cant only have one part resonating!  As far as amp inhibiting goes, if you design the circuit correctly your inductors (at the right frequency) will provide current limiting (but not with the blocking diode there).

Your other link just took me to the patent site but I would like to know what you were looking at, so if you can improve on the link that would be good.

Incidentally, Andrija Puharich (I believe preceding Meyer) was apparently using ac electrolysis, and powered a mobile home with plain tap water in the 70's. I saw one of his circuit designs that was identical to Meyer's cct, but without the blocking capacitor!  His write-up is much more worthy of consideration than Meyer's ramblings and mumbo jumbo.  Looking at it I would say thay Meyer was basing his wfc on this Puharich design. If Meyer's WFC worked I'd bet money on it being based on Puharich's work. See: http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm

Regards, Farrah Day
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 03:13:37 PM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2007, 10:25:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2007, 11:36:49 AM »
Well then, with you being on the edge of skepticism and me being the uneducated optimist(kinda like Stan), I propose a test to see if it works right here in this thread. I'm willing to buy and build the device outlined in the patent I posted earlier(whether you read it or not) at my expense and post the results with pictures and video if necessary. I'm not a rich guy so don't expect any large purchases all at once. You'll have to bear with me. All you have to do is try and debunk it or go with the flow and see where we can go with it. Arguing will get us nowhere and I would like to find out what this baby can do. What do ya say? You've got nothing to lose. I'll even make it a step by step for easy reading. If you are worried of me being incompetent, I assure you,  I will be able to keep up with you and your recommendations without having to spoon feed me the fine details. Besides, I love a good challenge!


Asta!

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2007, 03:30:03 PM »
Look guys, I'm not saying that Meyer did not run his car on water.

Though we must agree that, if he did, then he was genuine... if he did not, he was a fraud.

What I am saying is that Stans circuit designs as they stand are hogwash, and his understanding of electronics extremely flawed, indeed so poor as to only complicate matters by utterly confusing the reader.

Don't waste your time on trying to replicate a Meyer wfc from his diagrams, they're incomplete and/or incorrect. Instead see look at Dave Lawtons circuit design for creating pulses and you might find you're getting somewhere.

Forget the Meyer designs and simply make something that will work, in that it will do what you want it to do. Build the cell first and then design the electronics to do what you require of it - which by all accounts will be to replicate what Meyer did to his cell. But of course to do this you must know what Meyer was doing.. and herein lies the mystery and confusion.

Farrah Day

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2007, 03:30:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline neukin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2007, 04:12:55 PM »
Are you guys saying they built circuits to apply power to the plates to match the frequency of the plates/tank?

also....

The pulse seems to just be a way to keep heat down and save power, i didnt think it helped with production?

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2007, 05:52:29 PM »
Neukin, if the pulse was just to cut down on power it would still basically be just normal electrolysis. Reducing the power by pulsing, would in reality just also reduce overall gas output. No, the pulsing must do more that, and indeed is, I believe the key.

The thing that I didn't like about the Meyer patents was that there was not a single value given to any inductor, capacitor, or other component.  He did not state the number of turns on his transformers or indeed how they were wired.  When you are not even given a rough figure to get you in the ball park, its all pretty dificult to replicate.  I find it all very uncomfortable. And, like I said, the Meyer circuit patent is just a copy of Puharich's earlier patent with a blocking diode dropped in.

If you read the Puharich link that I put up earlier you will see that he thinks that pulsing changes the state of the water molecule. Effectively altering the angle at which the hydrogen atoms sit in relation to the oxygen atom.  This makes some sense, as if this angle changes, it would no doubt alter the properties of the water molecule. It could effectively make it more 'brittle' - for want of a better word - hence allowing the covalent bonds to break more readily. Like a glass shattering at a certain frequency (its resonance frequency where it literally shakes itself apart! 

This is the area in which the studying and experimenting should be applied, particularly as many people seem to be making progress here.

So assuming that there is a frequency at which the water molecule will disassociate at a much lower input energy level than normal electrolysis, the task is then to discover the best frequency or frequencies to do this.  Of course it will depend on individual cell construction, electrodes and electrode distance, water composition, etc, but once you know what you are trying to achieve, adjustments should be easy enough to make.

Is it a modulated ac sine wave as per Puharich or dc pulses, or a combination of both. What works best, square wave, sine wave?  What is the best duty cycle, etc, etc. Puharich used a feed back loop to maintain resonance once he found it. And of course if it is all about that resonant 'sweet spot'  then once you have it you only require a fraction of your initial input power to maintain it.

Anyway boys, let's see if we can't make some headway ourselves. I'm going to build Daves pulsing circuit up and do a bit of experimenting myself as and when time allows.

Regards, Farrah Day.

 

Offline neukin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2007, 07:42:22 PM »
I thought thats what you would say ;D

Iv tried alot of combos

You can tune your cell with a TIG welder. You can use both AC or DC and you need a TIG welder with Pulse but you can turn the amps to the wanted number.. then with the foot control apply volts to the wanted level. Iv done this and you can play with it until you get a combo that works with your cell. This works great since values can change so easy. Im not sure any machine out there does the same thing. I used a Miller Dynasty 200 DX. Once you know the amps, volts and frequency you can built a circuit.

Im working on mine right now here is a pic
http://alterhonda.com/images/neukinhhocell4.jpg

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2007, 07:42:22 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2007, 08:54:13 PM »
So assuming that there is a frequency at which the water molecule will disassociate at a much lower input energy level than normal electrolysis, the task is then to discover the best frequency or frequencies to do this.  Of course it will depend on individual cell construction, electrodes and electrode distance, water composition, etc, but once you know what you are trying to achieve, adjustments should be easy enough to make.

Anyway boys, let's see if we can't make some headway ourselves. I'm going to build Daves pulsing circuit up and do a bit of experimenting myself as and when time allows.

Regards, Farrah Day.

 

Hi Farrah Day and everyone,

It seems to me that alot of people are confused about the resonance that Stanley meyer is talking about although it is clearly stated in his patent 4,798,661 what is actually resonating.......The physical motion of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms!!!

Here's a quote from that patent;

The pulsing voltage on the plate exciters applying a physical force is matched in repetition rate to the wavelength of the spacing of the plate exciters. The physical motion of the hydrogen and oxygen charged atoms being attracted to the opposite polarity zones will go into resonance. The self sustained motion of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms of the water molecule greatly enhances their diassociation from the water molecule.

So, in my interpretation he is saying that you have to resonate the atoms so they will only need limited power to break them apart. This also explains perfectly the fact that there is no resonance in the electronic circuit as such. The circuit PULSES and the pulses bring the ATOMS into physical motion resonance......

Hope this helps....

Regards

Robert

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2007, 11:40:33 PM »
I thought thats what you would say ;D

Iv tried alot of combos

You can tune your cell with a TIG welder. You can use both AC or DC and you need a TIG welder with Pulse but you can turn the amps to the wanted number.. then with the foot control apply volts to the wanted level. Iv done this and you can play with it until you get a combo that works with your cell. This works great since values can change so easy. Im not sure any machine out there does the same thing. I used a Miller Dynasty 200 DX. Once you know the amps, volts and frequency you can built a circuit.

Im working on mine right now here is a pic
http://alterhonda.com/images/neukinhhocell4.jpg


Hats off to you sir! Thank you for sharing your information. Lets see if we can't find a diagram of the circuitry in your TIG welder unit. How much does a unit cost? Or maybe I can rent one? I wonder if Harbor Freight has anything like that?

The Lawton style circuit is another great tool, It's finicky and finding a buzz350 is not that easy these days. Be prepared to buy extra components when it blows. What I don't like about the Lawton circuit is the 12v in and out. Not only do I want the variable pulses, I also would like to have a variable voltage like an old alternator or variac. For example, an alternator has the ability to produce varying frequencies just by changing the speed of the rotation, and/or input power. When the rpm's are increased the voltage, current and frequency will rise accordingly. This generated AC will be full wave rectified, and unfiltered with ripple and all resulting in DC pulses. The frequency of the full wave rectified pulsed DC will be double the AC input frequency. 60Hz AC turns to 120Hz in DC. Now I have my variable power and main frequency. Adding an SCR to gate the main frequency would be my next choice also being variable. Square waves seem to work best for me.
The harder the switching the better.

Although, now that I know about that TIG welder, I may have a different approach.

Cheers!





Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2007, 01:17:28 AM »
Farrah Day, I believe this patent will answer alot of your questions concerning specifics of certain components. After reading it again, I did find him stating the VIC does in fact go into resonance. And he specifies the diode used.... Have a look.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4936961.pdf

You must sign up(free) to view the pdf.

Have fun!

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2007, 01:25:23 AM »
Nice looking unit Neukin, but it sounds like you could be using a lot of juice to drive it.

Hairbear, the Lawton circuit will do what you should be wanting it to do. If you can't find a buzz350, use something with similar characteristics, and slightly modify the values of any resistors if necessary.

Hey, 12V is what you want. Meyers dune buggy would surely have been a 12v system to enable its use in-car.  You don't need to have to vary the voltage, 12v or any other voltage will steadily charge the water capacitor up to whatever it will accept before current flows. What is important is being able to vary the pulse frequency and duration, which Lawton's circuit does.  You'll note that Meyers designs always start after this important circuit, ie, he does not show a circuit for producing the pulses in the first place.

Reading too much into what Meyer states in his patents or otherwise - as I've already stated - is a big mistake. It all sounds impressive and very plausible until you sit down and try to work a few things out. You'll note that Meyer states that the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are resonating, but never provides this frequency (which if it were the atoms would be a fixed and constant figure).  The blanks are there simply because he does not know what figure to put there.  Again, read that Puharich document link I posted earlier if you want an insight into what's going on.

OK, now one of my main problems with Meyers wfc, and a real bug bear of mine has always been the fact that tap water readily conducts, so the wfc can not simply act as a capacitor - tap water is a crap dielectric. 

So, what if the tap water is not the dielectric - and here comes something important. Ever heard of wet electrolyte capacitors?  They are very uncommon nowadays, an old fashioned capacitor from a 100 years ago, but they are basically electrodes submerged in a liquid (electrolyte) - ring any bells?  Yes, like Meyers wfc, but... and heres the key thing, the electrodes have a layer of oxide on them!

Might be some pennies starting to drop now.  Yes! An oxide layer on the electrodes is actually the dielectric, not the tap water, this is why many people say that the cells need to be conditioned first - they need to produce oxidation on the surface of the electrodes. However, this conditioning is not commonly understood and many people simply think that this helps the bubbles not stick to the electrodes and hence produce more gas. When in fact, the conditioning actually creates the capacitor.  So in effect the wfc is a capacitor (the oxide) in series with a resistor (the water).

Things now start to make a little more sense... don't they!

Farrah Day

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline locked_in

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2007, 03:04:22 AM »
Hi FahrahDay,

I agree with a lot you say about Stanley Meyer, as he really was not using the technical terms correctly and that was counter productive to his cause as he lost a lot of credibility.
However, in I believe his last filed patent, he was quite accurate and detailed with his circuit description.
I am not sure if you have seen this patent, do a search for WO9207861A1.pdf.
Considering he was using a PLL circuit for feedback control, similar or better said more sophisticated
than the Puharich feedback loop, it appears to me that he did understand what was needed.

A simple 555 timer circuit providing space mark pulse bursts, which seems popular around the Stan
Meyer replication community, does not really work the same as the PLL circuit he described.

It does not surprise me at all, no one who is messing around with this Dave Lawton circuit and the 555 timers ever reported major gas production with low current. Not to mention the hobby scientists that
have claimed successful replication yet do not backup any of these claims with hard test data.

Anyway, I'd be very interested so as many others to see anybody be able to successful replicate
Stan's apparatus and publish the accompanying test data with it for independent verification.

just my 2 cent



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2007, 03:04:22 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: