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.

User Menu

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

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482289
  • *Total Topics: 14218
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 9
  • *Guests: 198
  • *Total: 207

Facebook

Author Topic: Meyer's WFC concept analysed  (Read 63021 times)

Offline Esotericman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2007, 05:05:09 PM »
I understand you (Farrah Day) are somewhat an electronics expert, but I wonder if there are any material, or molecular scientists out there.  I have a little education in both, so I'll add my two cents:
First of all I agree that, as stated and described, Meyer's setup just doesn't make sense.  Lots in his patent app don't make sense, yet you've latched onto one phrase in particular as basis for most of this- his reference to de-ionized water.  This seems to be what led you to this inspection of capacitance.  Well, I'm pretty sure that line was wrong.  I bet he went looking for numbers and found the values for PURE water, and assumed that (as opposed to saltwater), it was the same as TAP water, and used that in his equations which, ultimately, prove nothing anyway.  So I'm saying abandon the concept of the capacitor.  The object is not to store a charge.

There are a few red flags in particular I want to point out.  One is his devotion to Stainless Steel.  He says that stainless is used for its non-reactivity, but if that is the case, any non-reactive conductor would work equally well.  Like for instance, plastic coated copper.  A thin layer of plastic would prevent oxidation, with minimal electrical insulation.  He also indicates that Stainless allows the bubbles to form without sticking to the metal, like in conventional electrolysis cells.  Wrong!  The bubbles do stick, until you get all that brown crud to the top.  Ever wonder what that is?  Looks like rust to me.  Remember Stainless is Carbon, Chromium, and IRON.

Initially the cell wants to act just like a conventional cell, gas bubbles forming on the surface of the electrodes.  This layer of air CAUSES the system to behave like a capacitor by reducing current throughput, reducing the efficiency- because electrolysis requires electron flow (current)!  This conditioning process induces an oxidation reaction in the steel, forming a layer that the bubbles don't stick to, which is why the system works better once this is done.  So the magic is in the ability to keep bubbles off the electrodes.  Someone should do a chemical analysis on the "crud" but I'm guessing that's at least all the Iron on the electrode surface and that the actual material in contact with the water is probably just Chromium and Carbon.  And since bubbles stick to the pure carbon (graphite) in conventional cells, I bet the chromium is the key.  In any rate, the bubbles stay off.

This is why his layout works better than most under straight dc.  But the fact that pulsed works better still owes something to the concept of resonance.  And obviously his description doesn't really help there.  He implies that the molecules themselves move back and forth.  That's just vibration.  Ultrasound does that, and it's how that tiny disc at the bottom of the humidifier makes water vapor.  No, this is something else.  This is vibration at the atomic level.  It's not the molecules that move, but the atoms that form it.

The normal bond angle of hydrogen atoms in a water molecule is 104.45?.  At some critical angle, they will break loose.  The charge causes the molecule to flex, forcing the hydrogen atoms away from their 104.45? bond angle.  When the charge stops, the molecule relaxes.  But the bonds are elastic so it's more like a spring, bouncing back and forth at some given frequency.  By pulsing the charge, and stepping up the intensity (as per Meyer's waveform description), at some resonance of that frequency, you increase the amplitude of vibration.  Each pulse pushes the atoms further, until finally the critical bond angle is reached and the molecule breaks up.

Normal electrolysis works against the springback of the molecule, and therefore takes more energy.  It's kind of like tetherball.  The purpose is to wind the rope around the pole.  The un-coordinated can accomplish this by simply running around the pole while carrying the ball, or you can just stand still and slap it as it passes- which is more efficient?

*Sorry for the Length*

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2007, 05:05:09 PM »

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2007, 06:33:10 PM »
Hi Eso

No, I'm no electronics expert, but I would appear to have more of a grasp on the subject than many who post.

Lost me pretty quickly with, 'his reference to de-ionised water'. Who's reference?  Meyer as far as I can tell never mentions de-ionised water, that was me.  However, I was just trying to bring home the blatent illogic and contradictions in what Meyer writes and says as I slog through the nonsense. But I see where your coming from in that if Meyer saw any old water as having a dielectric constant of around 78 then he would automatically assume that his cell is a capacitor.  Meyer's reasoning, his theories and indeed his formula's are flawed throughout, that's why I thought a full evaluation was called for.

I don't think Meyer was using de-ionised or pure water, but just everyday tap water - he states this on numerous occasions. I don't think that the water is the dielectric, but that the oxide layer on the anode is the dielectric and the water is actually the cathode. We have a wet electrolytic capacitor.

Red flags then. Well plastic coated copper might work well, but the plastic coating would be many times thicker than the microns layer of oxide created from conditioning and hence would create a much less efficient, much less effective and lower value capacitor. In atomic terms the difference in thickness between the oxide layer and a plastic coating would be immense. Why not simply allow the copper to oxidise and forget the plastic?  Maybe copper will work in a wfc, I have no experience in this.

Someone once wrote that you don't get the brown crud if you use de-ionised water. Well, I can't comment on that, but the SS aside, there must be lots of crud-forming impurities in tap water. 

As far as polarisation of the anode is concerned, well maybe the oxide helps prevent bubbles of hydrogen sticking, or maybe the pulsing plays apart here.  There are a lot of unknowns, but I do feel that all the pieces of the puzzle are all out there, it's just a matter of putting them together correctly.

Not convinced that we are resonating the atoms - this surely falls in the microwave range range. An ultrasonic mister or humidifier is only moving water from a liquid to gaseous form, not splitting the water molecule.

Yes, I think Purarich may have had something when he suggests that pulsing adds energy to the water molecule shifting its O-H bonding angle. He thinks that this makes the bond angle more stable, and hence less able to flex. This in turn enables us to use less power to break the bond.  It's all good stuff worth bearing in mind.

Just been looking at Bifilar windings - very interesting.  Add to this to the results that Dave Lawton has had with a bifilar coil in his Meyer wfc experiments and results look very promising.

Farrah Day

« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 03:19:34 PM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline mrgalleria

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2007, 07:25:41 PM »
Aloha,
Farrah Day, please see my post at "Stanley Meyer Replication with low input power".
Esoteric man- it looks like you read alot. Good stainless will leave little or no scum. I suggest, instead of trying to find how many reasons there are that it won't work, try to find the reasons it will.
Bill

Offline mrgalleria

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2007, 07:46:26 PM »
Aloha,
by the way, I got a big piece of good stainless free at the dump. It was an old restaurant hood. Check with anyone who remodels commercial kitchens, or sells used restaurant equipment, marine supplies, harbor boat builders, steel suppliers, etc. for your stainless. High nickel will provide little or no iron scum.
Bill


Offline Esotericman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2007, 09:32:36 PM »
You misunderstand my motives.  I'm not trying to be counter-productive, just pragmatic.
Science and empiricism needs to have a place here if the scientific community, or the world for that matter, is ever to accept the notion of "free" energy.

Case in point:  "Good stainless will leave little or no scum"  What is your definition of "good"?  Shiny?  Hard?  Is an Austenitic stainless "better" than Ferritic or Martensitic?  Does it matter if it's hot or cold rolled?  What sort of heat treat is best?

See what I mean?  "Good" just doesn't cut it- We need to know what makes it good, so we can determine what's Best!  And I think the only way to do that is by figuring out what's really going on!

farrah My point about the water was in reference to the last paragraph in your initial post.  The dielectric constant quoted was not for clean or tap water, but stoichiometrically pure H2O, which is clearly not what he was using.  So basically, just what you said. 
I don't think the water is the source of the scum though- From what I've seen, the system can be used continuously by adding water and does not seem to produce an endless supply of scum.  In Meyer's original video he fills a pitcher, pours it in and throws the switch- no scum.  Plus considering Bill's post, I'm fairly certain it's only to do with the conductor material.

And yes, ultrasonic sound vaporizes water- we agree on that fact.  Simply vibrating a liquid doesn't split any atomic bonds, it just forces a phase change.  My point is, Meyer's description of molecules moving back and forth between the anode and cathode is the very definition of vibration!  So again, while I'm convinced the technology is genuine, his description just isn't quite right.  So I'm trying, like you, to correctly describe the process.

As for capacitors, I don't think a liquid capacitor can induce this molecular dissociation.  Traditional electrolysis is fairly well understood and I'm convinced Meyer's is at least fundamentally similar:
Adding an electron to the water molecule replaces one hydrogen atom (proton).  Now if you strip an electron from the leftover OH-, the Hydrogen atom falls off and joins with a liberated proton to form stable H2 gas while the Oxygen bonds with another O for O2 gas.  There is therefore a necessary flow of electrons in order to split the molecule according to known scientific laws.

But since traditional electrolysis requires the movement of molecules to facilitate electron transfer, the question is, how do electrons travel from the anode to the cathode without being carried by the molecules?  Somehow Meyer's machine accomplished this- how?

See, ultimately the technology should be reducible to single molecules- solid state.  We should be able to break a single water molecule, recombine it, and absorb that energy.  Or at the very least, create a small-scale closed system that drives itself.

So I do want to figure out how to make this work, Bill.  I just want to be able to carry it in my pocket!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2007, 09:32:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Esotericman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2007, 09:45:25 PM »
Aha!  High Nickel!  See, that means the Satinless Steel needs to be austenetic!  So now we have a better idea of the ideal.  Something like a 310 (19-22%Ni) or 904L (25% Ni) would be ideal, though not necessarily widely used and commonly available.  If we tested both and found the 310 worked better, then we can assume the Molybdenum in 904L is to blame, and rule that element out. 
Do we even need Iron?  Does pure or Carbonized Nickel work?
Once we truly know all the elements in the equation, we can determine exactly what is happening, show it to the scientific community and say "HA!  See?  It works!"  Then sit back and wait for the Nobel Prize... :p

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2007, 01:01:26 AM »
I now have the parts to build Lawtons signal generator. I have some SS tubes and plates to experiment with (not sure what SS). Just waiting on the 110mm acrylic tube to construct the body of a wfc.

When I'm set up and running I'll be doing some testing of my own. First thing I'll be investigating is the conditioning effect on the SS to try to confirm if I'm right (or not) about the dielectric oxide layer.  About time we at least had a few things sorted once and for all.

Farrah Day

Just checked my SS tubes are standard 304 grade (low Nickel)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2007, 01:01:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2007, 01:34:20 AM »
Hey guys,

One of the things I learned from researching Bedini's works, is to keep your builds as close to the diagrams and specifications as possible. The idea is to replicate it and get it working like it should and then try other things after that. Deviating from the original design will also lessen your chances of success. Not to mention, wasting hard earned money on materials that are not needed.

Your best bet today, would be to follow the Lawton document D14.pdf. Make sure you get the recently updated version also. If you would rather buy the PWM than build one, you can pick one up on eBay for $160.00. Get any old alternator, if you plan to use one, from a junk yard or somewhere cheep. You won't need or want the regulator if there is one on the alternator. T-304 annealed Stainless Steel tubes can be found at speedymetals.com. I have tested several grades including 316L, 304, 409, and others. They all seem to work the same and all of them get the oxide layer. All the other components involved should be easy to find for most people locally or online.

One question before I go. What is the purpose of the loop antenna diagram shown in the tech breif? Who compiled the tech breif? Oops, that's two questions....


God's Speed!

Offline keithturtle

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2007, 05:54:06 AM »
I built concentric tube cells out outa both 304 and 316L stainless.  Running only distilled water and KOH [low and varied concentrations all less than 0.1 normal] I observed as follows.

These was no FeO precipitate in the 316L cell, whilst the 304 cell would always leave the tell-ttale reddish crud at the bottom after a run of over 10 minutes.

I believe this to be a function of the iron content in 304, as the water was not a source in these tests.  Standardization tests are run with lab-grade deionised water.

It makes a difference, yer metals do, uh huh...

IMHO

Turtle

304 on left, 316L on right, new before testing

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2007, 11:10:58 AM »
Hi KT

Not sure why you would want to use distilled water and then effectively contaminate it with KOH, but yor cells sure look impressive.

I would honestly think that scum will come from both the tap water and the SS. However, once the SS has its oxide coating and the scum is removed after initial conditioning, then maybe the water will remain clear.  The thing is that in reality if a lot of scum comes from the water itself, as the cell has to have its water level continually replenished as it gets used up, then the cell would always scum up to some degree.  However, this might only occur with traditional electrolysis due to the high current flow and may well be less of a problem in a cell working as Meyer's apparently did.

The problem in trying to keep as close to Meyer's designs as possible is that he changes his bloody designs so often.  Every time I see a diagram of Meyer's resonant charging circuit it is different from the last one I saw.  Ok, he could have been improving his design as he went along, but this also means that the cell would have worked with a  number of different parameters just with differing efficiencies.  If this was the case it must be assumed that at least one thing must have remained constant in all these design changes. That would appear to be the pulsing.  If anything I reckon that he continually improved on his VIC to increase the voltage across his cell.

Going back to the oxide dielectric layer, this should very very easy to prove or disprove.  Simply put a capacitance meter across a cell that has been conditioned and compare it to an unconditioned cell. Or, simply test with a small battery and a multimeter. The conditioned cell should pose more opposition to the current than the unconditioned cell with a dc voltage applied.  You can then take it further to eliminate the water as a factor by swapping the water contents of each and testing again. Easy test and the first thing I'll be doing.

Incidentally I'll be using a stabilised 12 volt PC power supply as my dc power source in my initial testing.

HairBear dor you have a link to Lawton's recently updated pdf as I want to make sure I have the correct circuit. Ta.

Farrah Day
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 05:08:33 PM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2007, 11:10:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline renaud67

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2007, 11:24:36 AM »
Hello Farrah Day,
go there http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
and check D9.pdf and D14.pdf files
good "luck"

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2007, 12:12:47 PM »
Thanks R67

Yes, good, thats the one I have. It's the pdf.14 cct that I'm building. Just wanted to make sure that I had the latest circuit design and was not looking at an earlier flawed version.

Farrah Day


Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2007, 05:53:15 PM »
Yes, you are correct. The fundamental of Stan"s process was the PWM and his invention or copy of Puharich's, which he references in his patents, evolved as he learned. Instead of the alternator he used a step-up transformer. Instead of a resistive cathode, he used chokes. The EEC also came later to consume the free electrons coming not from the incoming current but the extra ones produced from each molecule that disassociates. Earlier on, he demonstrates in his home buggy video we discussed earlier, how to use the gasses in an automobile without having to change the timing. He basically uses an EGR valve, but it's ingenious.

Here is a simple test any one can do. you will need 2 or 3 AA batteries, two plates or tubes (the smaller the better), and 1 or 2 multimeters. Without having the plates in the water, connect the positive and negative wires to the plates and battery. now connect a meter to the circuit before you put the plates into the water and measure for a voltage drop when you drop the plates in the water. With a little dinkin around you will see a point where there is no voltage drop, very, very lttle current if not any at all, and a small production of gas. As soon as the current starts to flow, the voltage starts to drop, and that is what we are trying to avoid.

Let's look at how voltage drops work a bit more closely. With just a simple battery and a volt meter we can measure the voltage before and after the resistor or any load really. The voltage will be as high as the incoming voltage on one side of the load and less on the other side. If we don't have any current, we wont have an oxide layer and we want it to work regardless of having to condition the plates. If we make the cathode much more resistive than the water and anode before it. The voltage will remain higher before the resistance and the voltage drop after the resistance.

outta time, gotta go....

Cheers!

Offline keithturtle

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2007, 01:43:57 AM »
Yo, Farrah Day;

The whole KOH thang is fer comparison.   I wanna run one cell in conventional Faraday electrolysis, and the matching mate in Meyer, Lawton, Boyce... whatever non-conventional HHO extraction scheme-du jour...

That way I be comparin' apples to apples.

Side by side, meter to meter... show it works.

Ain't done it yet...

Turtle

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2007, 09:31:16 AM »
Sounds good to me KT.

I think that's exactly what's called for. Not just blind experimenting, but controlled experiments in order, as you say, to compare 'like to like' under different power applications. Hope I'll be able to add a little hands-on experience soon.

Just waiting on my acrylic tube for my cell body now.  Keep us posted on results.

HairBear, regarding your simple little experiment. You have aroused my curiosity. I'll give it a try later.

This however, is what logic tells me will - or should - happen.

OK, straight dc from a battery connected to two ss plates that I then lower into a glass of tap water.  Voltage across plates is the same as voltage of battery before I lower the plates into water as I effectively have an open circuit. On touching the water, my open circuit now becomes a resistive circuit and current will start to flow. The more I lower the electrodes into the water, the less resistance between the plates and so the more current flows and conversely the voltage will drop in direct proportion to this current flow. Hence, the higher I lift the electrodes out of the water the greater resistance I create between the plates, the higher the voltage goes. That is what I expect to happen.  Will try it today.

However, I'm unfamiliar with the scientific term 'dinkin around'... is it Meyer jargon?!?

Farrah Day
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 10:48:37 AM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2007, 09:31:16 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: