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: 489595
  • *Total Topics: 14406
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 128
  • *Total: 132

Facebook

Author Topic: Meyer's WFC concept analysed  (Read 68036 times)

Offline aussepom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2007, 01:42:24 PM »
hi for those of you that want to follow the Meyer tube units have a look at this  this is my improvement.
Ravi said to look into the BEMF so I have installed protection diodes and diodes to direct the BEMF
aussepom

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2007, 01:42:24 PM »

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2007, 02:30:31 PM »
The Buz350 does not, but many other MOSFET'S  have that zener protection built-in, which is worth noting if you can't get hold of Buz350s.

I have a few RFP40N10 Mosfets knocking about, which I will use. They have the built-in zener. They are rated at 40 amp, but only 100V (compared to the Buz350's 200V), so only time will tell if the lower voltage rating becomes an issue.

I don't see anything wrong with the diode 1N1007.  It is actually the one you want to use, it has a 1000V reverse voltage rating. What value are the zeners? And why two?

Farrah Day

Just did your simple test Hairbear. Spent 1/2 hour puting together the simple cct you mentioned using a 6 volt battery.  I didn't feel so much disappointed as rather foolish for wasting time on this when the results were just as I predicted they would be. How can there be no voltage drop and no current flowing?? Guess the it's all in the 'dinkin'! 

Do this test yourself again and see if you can achieve what you said you could. If you can, please let us know how to 'dink'.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 08:08:45 PM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline aussepom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2007, 08:03:01 PM »
Hi I missed a couple of thing of the last drawing
Faraday asked a question
 You could use one zener or even three depending on the rating two 75v in series will give you 150v  that means any voltage above 150v will be by pass the mosfet providing you rat the wattage high enough. You could use one at 150v.
Do no rely on any protection in the mosfet, the higher voltage you use the better 400v is safer  you may look at the 12 v  but when the mosfet turns of the collapsing coils can put out a high voltage if you are not using the coils don't bother.
The IN4007 in the position that it was is not good it will direct the collapsing coils voltage into your timing circuits; it may not be rated enough for taking all the power to your cells.
The other diodes will direct the collapsing voltage and current back around through the cell.
Make sure that the coils are connected with the starts as shown, as one will boost the other.  I said to try them on a toroidal as I believe it would be better that the ferrite rod, make sure that the windings are evenly spaced over the coil even if you have two layers or more.
aussepom     

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2007, 05:49:53 AM »
I apologize for my hasty explanation. The test requires a voltage of 2.5v or so. Since tap water is different for everyone, the exact voltage will vary. With my tap water, I could go up to about 2.7v before current would flow. Just before that point where the circuit remains open, the plates still have a voltage potential across them. Even though there is no current, you will still make a tiny amount of gas. If your tubes or plates have an oxide coating, the voltage may be a bit higher before it starts to draw current. With a pulsed current, the voltage should go even a little higher.

I also forgot to mention that I used a 2k variable resistor for a wider voltage range to test. 2 to 3 AA's are all I have that will do that low of a voltage so thats why I said to use those. 6v is a little high, but I think we can get up to that easily without any current if we try a little harder. How much current did Stan's device/s use? I thought I read 500ma. Can anyone confirm this? I also wonder if the initial startup current is higher and then it lowers after the balance is found.

Cheers!


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2007, 09:46:39 AM »
Hairbear, as it takes between 1.5 and 2 volts to initiate normal electrolysis, is all that is happening you would be 'hovering' around this point. Just below it and no current will flow, just above it and current will flow. A bit of a balancing act then.  Any small abount of bubbles on the plates will be created by free oxygen in the water reacting with the plates.  If you put a ss plate in tap water you will find that you do get some bubbles formed on the metal surface even without any power supply.

At no point will the voltage drop to zero. That is, unless you had a short circuit across the plates, which would obviously cause high current flow.  Low voltage electrolysis is more Kanarev's field and does not really apply to Meyer, which I think everyone accepts was based on high voltages.

If you can recreate this experiment, and at any point achieve no voltage drop across the electrodes (without them being shorted), I would be very interested to know how you did it. All due respect, but I won't be holding my breath!

Farrah Day

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2007, 09:46:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline keithturtle

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2007, 05:38:45 AM »
Farrah Day, with respect to the Kanarev process, I've read the patents and his papers, but still, I cain't seem to git my haid wrapped around his process. 

How does he git 600% efficiency?   I'm missin' sumthin' thar, and I don't know what it is.

Gots any pointers?

Thanks,
Turtle

Offline albert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2007, 10:57:00 AM »
Hello,
I've been following your discussion with much interest. Let me mention some things:
In the water cell discussions on h2earth they come now to the point where they say that one of meyers electrodes was effectively insulated by a plastic coating. (Delrin) On the panacea university site there is a patent by Eccles showing a WFC type cell with the electrodes OUTSIDE the glass container, not in contact with the water at all.
I have experimented with the electrolysis process and found out that your negative electrode gets a coating that seems to be a deposit of calcium oxide, the stuff you get in your water kettle when the tap water is "hard"- from a mountainous area. And the normal electrolysis really works a lot better once the coating is there.
Now to the Meyer process- I agree with all of you that the original patents read as a lot of obscure stuff. Some inventors get obsessed with the idea of having a patent - they will reformulate their claims until the examiner will grant the patent. Then it has nothing to do with the original idea anymore. I have been thru this, so I know what I am talking about....
ALBERTS FIRST LAW: Never ask a (free energy) inventor how his/her invention works-he will be the last one to know it. Or if he knows it he can't explain it coherently. That does not mean the invention is worthless though.
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that Meyer was working on different processes at the same time. As far as I understodd it, the final version of the Dune buggy had an injector system where the water dissociated in the cylinder- being sprayed in form of a fine mist while it  was electrically charged. This is entirely different from the WFC process.
I can't help it- the Meyer WFC seems to me to be much closer to a laser process than to a normal electrolysis process. You pump energy into a system- step charge the water- at a certain point the molecules will break up. This would indeed NEED a diode in the input.
The ROTOVERTER guys say that radiant energy is a form of electricity where you create a standing wave. Resonance in an LC circuit will mean that voltage and current are out of phase with each other. If one could run the water cell in a standing wave "node" where the current is zero or almost zero and the voltage is maximized, this would mean you could break apart the water molecule with extremely low current. Does that make sense to you electronically versed guys?
Last thing: I am using a high powered bedini SSG with 5 coils for powering the test cell. I get lots of gas at 36 Volts 400 mA input. (That is on the primary side of the bedini motor. On the secondary side I cannot measure the amps because of the highly pulsed nature of the signal. No extra choke coils.
But it is not the almost explosive hho production that can be seen in some of the videos on the web. The "normal" electrolysis on my cell will draw 3.5 Amps out of a 12 v battery. I get lots of very fine bubbles that fog up the water in seconds. On the Bedini the gas bubbles are completely different-much larger ones come off the plates. Food for thought perhaps. We have to find the common points in all these processes. The circuit Meyer seems to have used also has a lot of similarity to Beardens MEG. On the newest version of D9 Patrick Kelly explains in more detail the Bob Boyce process. Here the key component is this specially wound toroid transformer system. I'll be damned if this is not the thing the Steven Marks TPU guys are fiddling with.
Stan Meyer and others at the time did not have the internet, or they would have seen the similarities of the processes themselves. Lets try to get this working soon, here we are suffocating under the oil prices.....
Please keep up the good work!

Albert

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2007, 10:57:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2007, 11:16:33 AM »
Hi KT

I've only really skipped through the Kanarev stuff myself, as he seems to be experimenting with only very small quantities.

The other thing of course is that Kanarev's experiments are at the opposite end of the spectrum compared with Meyer's High Voltage stuff.  What I tend to do is go through all the various designs and theories and try to see where there could be some overlap. I.e. something that all the concepts have in common, some underlying connection that, perhaps not immediately obvious, produces similar results in each case.

The problem is, it can get confusing if you try to follow or integrate too many concepts all at the same time. Hence, I've decided to focus on Meyer's design at this point. I feel that if we can explain one concept, then others, like the 'Joe cell' might also become clear.  The Joe cell incidentally has just got to be the most mysterious of all, and my gut feeling is that somewhere along the line the Meyer wfc and the Joe cell tap into the same energy.

I know there has been little or no interest in what I said about the oxide layer on the SS actually being the dielectric, but something I read on another forum by 'Ravi', has made me even more convinced by this now. He stated that it took months for his cells to be conditioned and working at the efficiency they were currently working at.

This is what I think is happening:

Stainless steel is 'stainless' because of the chromuim in it. The chromium oxidises when it comes into contact with oxygen. This creates an invisible, extremely thin film of chromuim oxide (Cr2O3). This film of chromium oxide self-heals like galvanised steel, but unlike galvanised steel the layer is only atoms thick. Chromium oxide is an insulator, with a dielectric constant of around 13, but at literally only atoms thick, simply touching it will break through this insulation.

Now, the interesting thin about stainless steel is that it will actually corrode badlly in an OXYGEN FREE environment. It is the continual pressence of oxygen in the air or water that allows the oxide film to self-heal and maintain itself.  Now, think about what we do when we use ss as an anode.  We immerse the ss in water containing free oxygen which maintains its protective oxide layer, but then we attract lots of pure oxygen directly onto it's surface.  I believe we are enhancing the oxide layer, thickening the oxide layer and so creating a more formidable dielectric layer. Hence we have a better water capacitor that will hold a charge for longer

I know some of you boys will again poo-poo this, but it should not be so readily discounted.

If this is the case, there must be more efficient and faster methods to enhance this oxide layer (which I'll be experimenting with), like using a blowtorch on the ss plate.

Farrah Day

 

Offline albert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2007, 06:17:45 PM »
I also happen to think that this oxide question is one of the keys to the story. This is why there have been so many failures in replicating this. You can't change nature's course, some processes are slow and have to be carried out with patience.
Albert

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2007, 07:41:56 PM »
Hi Albert

I somehow missed your first post above, and so have only just read it.

I suppose it's limescale depositing on the cathode, effectively another insulating material - does everyone get this, or is it just hard water areas?

I have given thought to, and mentioned a couple of times the possibility of using glass as the dielectric for wfc, with the anode perhaps foil around the outside as in a 'Leyden Jar', and I think it would be worth doing some experimenting in this area. But this is assuming that water is NOT the dielectric, which most people seem quite happy and unwaveringly content to think it is.

However, my initial thoughts are that a very thin layer of chromuim oxide with a dielectric constant of around 13 will produce a capacitor which can store a lot more energy than a Leyden Jar.  Glass has dielectric constant of around half that of the chromium oxide, and of course as the capacitance is inversely proportional to the distance between the plates, a glass jar being many millions of times thicker than the oxide layer, will consequently hold far less energy.

When Lawton adds more cells in parallel to his existing setup and finds that the current is reducing, it's because he is increasing the capacitance of his wfc. This enables the cell configuration to hold more charge, hence potential difference of his wfc increases, so the current decreases.

This dielectric issue is the key, and those people who prefer to dismiss or ignore this will be 'chasing their tails' for ever and a day and getting nowhere, when the rest of us will have moved on!

This will also mean that the design of the wfc can be made very much more efficient by creating a more complex anode that exhibits many times more surface area than simple plates and concentric tubes.

Farrah Day

« Last Edit: November 11, 2007, 10:21:39 AM by Farrah Day »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2007, 07:41:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2007, 11:28:57 PM »
I've just watched a Meyer lecture video that I'd forgotten about. What a joke. This video lecture, if you've not already seen it, is viewable (top right) on the waterfuelcell forum http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2

This really confirms all my previous statements about Meyers total lack of understanding of science and electronics.  He truly does spout some claptrap in this video. Worth a look just to see the man himself at work, trying to convince his audience he knows what he's talking about.  In this video he talks about the dielectric properties of tap (natural) water and it's action as the dielectric in his water capacitor - which of course is complete and utter nonsense. Open your eyes and don't fall into the trap of thinking this guy knew what he was talking about; it's there on video for everyone to see... he didn't have a clue!

Farrah Day

Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2007, 07:25:28 AM »
EDIT:  Sorry, the following (original) post is my bad/ignorance.  I was not understanding yet about how inductance is being used to suppress current flow in the PWM method.  I am not deleting this however, as it may have some other merit(?), if only to alert some other hapless soul to be paying attention to the inductance application.  I am still interested, however, in what it would be like to use insulated plates... wouldn't that get around all the mucky-muck generated and having to deal with so much annealing in order for the cells to begin to run at higher efficiency? As well as not having to worry so much about inductors for limiting current?  Does anyone find that potentially interesting?
Cheers,
TwoHawks

====original post======
What if....

I am intrigued by everyone's effort, thank you for what you are sharing. Many people's results look impressive (where is Ravi's stuff on this site btw ?)

I am posting to you pioneers (as it were) whom I am grateful to be learning from/with, as I have some notions and questions I would like you to consider that I wonder may be helpful (for us all) to this persuit...

Please forgive my newness to this and limited grasp.  If something I bring up is discussed elsewhere, please point me there.

1. The classic claim seems to indicate the "dielectric" is the water...

2. ...it occurs to me to ponder... if the HHO liberation process is triggered by harmonic frequency resonance applied in/via an inductive field (i.e, thus no reason to run current directly through the water, ever, or so it would readily seem), where such process is accommodated by the H2O molecules naturally aligning due to the presence of a magnetic field [of x?, and does that mean 'in fluxuation" (pun intended)], and then reacting within the/this resonating magnetic field, then it seems to me, well, a couple of things...

a) the way to reduce or null current flow would be to totally insulate all the electrode plates from the water,

b) thus these 'capacitor' plates would have to be able to demonstrate their (electro-)magnetic potential to one another without being actually connected together in a closed electronic circuit (i.e., the plate connections being shorted via their contact in same water). Kind of like how a transformer coupling typically appears, I am wondering.(?)

c) thus, a challenge would be how to hookup insulated plates to a simple PWM (resonator) such that the interaction is kept to soley a magnetic-inductive field that is resonating upon the h2o dialectric, or 'medium' (since this may or may not actually resemble a 'capacitor ...anyone?), that is trapped (and thus aligned also) inbetween the plates?

 - Is this making any sense at all?
 - I have not seen this being attempted in this way... is anyone attempting this approach method/approach yet?

 - Is it possible to setup this type of experiment?,
 - and if so, what would the plans look like for such a thing?
Like, How does one go about creating a circuit where there are two (electro-)magnetic resonant plates, insulated from one another (and submerged)? What 'circuit' would each plate be connected to so that they could interact in this proposed fashion?

I hope these questions and thoughts may be helpful to anyone, if there's a truth in there anywhere. I am very inspired by what you all are sharing - thank you.

Please let me know what you think about this. If this is possible, I think I would like to try to mockup an experiment for it. I am looking for direction and some technical enlightenment (on the electronic principles involved) on the notion proposed. 

cheers,
TwoHawks (yes, its my name)
Nevada, USA
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 06:01:22 AM by twohawks »


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2007, 10:52:54 PM »
Hi TH,

Firstly, 'classic claims' are wrong. Classic claims don't make sense and never did to anyone that understands that tap water is a very 'good' conductor. Classic claims are a continued hindrance to progress. Water is not the dielectric, the oxide layer, Chromuim Oxide to be exact, is.

I could well be wrong, but I'm not at all convinced by the 'harmonic resonance' or 'acoustic resonance' theories.

This is my post from another forum.

Its strange how you can read endless amounts on wfcs, many with conflicting details and non-sensical theories and mindless assumptions, until you become completely overwhelmed by it all.

Then just occasionally you read something (perhaps even something you had read many times before) that suddenly registers and unlocks a door. Something else 'clicks' into place.

Water as the dielectric was always a bug-bear of mine, as I never really thought this possible, or likely... tap water conducts. Then the importance of conditioning of the plates came to light more and more, and with it realisation that the conditioning was actually forming an insulating dielectric layer. Water is not the dielectric.

We have the capacitor now, with water being simply an all encompassing extension of the cathode. Next question then is, how exactly are we getting the water molecule to split and release its component gases?

If the oxide layer is an insulator, forming the capacitor, then it should opposed DC. AC, on the other, hand would pass to a lesser or greater degree, with the capacitor allowing far more current flow at higher frequencies than lower frequencies.

The thing is, we are not providing an AC signal to our capacitor (which is polarised), but rather DC pulses. The capacitor will charge from the DC pulses, so there will be a standing voltage across the dielectric, and as this leaks the pulses will keep topping the capacitor up.

However, this leakage current, will prevent the voltage reaching the 'stress' level needed to physically pull the water apart, unless we can top it up faster than it can leak.

I think that the small current flowing through the wfc is simply the natural dc leakage current of a 'wet electrolytic capacitor', and will likely happen all the time because of the pd across the dielectric. No amount of so-called 'amp consumimg devices' before the wfc will stop this. Only improving the dielectric layer will reduce this.

However, getting the right LC combination and pulse frequency will be critical in restricting current flow through the circuit.

Then, something I read here 'clicked'. http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell

If and when a DC pulse attains a certain level of potential difference across the oxide layer dielectric, then this dielectric layer (not the water) briefly, but catastrophically breaks down. The highly charged plates effectively short out across this dielectric layer. However, the current restricting LC combination won't allow this to happen fast enough. The electrical charges on the plates are unable to form an equilibrium and hence balance the plate charges from within the electrical circuit. Instead, other options are looked for. This being the water. The water molecule is literally pulled apart as it rapidly ionises into OH- and H+ in order to meet or reduce the massive charge deficit on the plates.

When this happens, current through the circuit is not affected much, but a lot is happening to the water within the wfc.

That at least is how I'm rationalising the workings of a wfc ... so far.

Oh one thing about the water you use. Bear in mind that if you use deionised water in a wfc and don't use it regularly, the ss plates will corrode as the protecting oxide layer needs oxygen to be maintained. As it is, the cathode plate might corrode even in use with no free oxygen in the water. Possibly why Rav gets his cathodes corroding so badly, they're oxygen defficient due to hydrogen attraction.

Also, we are relying on the self-healing properties of the dielectric oxide layer to continually repair itself after breakdown. I don't think a plastic coated ss anode will fulfill this criteria.

Worth thinking about.

Farrah Day
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 06:31:49 PM by Farrah Day »

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #58 on: November 16, 2007, 12:26:52 AM »
I've just watched a Meyer lecture video that I'd forgotten about. What a joke. This video lecture, if you've not already seen it, is viewable (top right) on the waterfuelcell forum http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2

This really confirms all my previous statements

haha? You mean your prejudgements right?

Quote
about Meyers total lack of understanding of science and electronics.

Mah what nonsense, if you would have done your homework you would have known the big joke was that Stan didn't have a clue what he was doing. A crackpot with working results, yes, what a bad day you are having?

The science of calling assassinated inventors cracpots hummmmmmmm. You mean some one who is weird in your world view? Like a person who is the opposite of ordinary to you? And you expect inventors to be more ordinary right? To me this means you have the galaxy upside down in your head. Anyway, his twin brother is a chemist and even he laughed at him. Not in his face of course. But when he got the buggy to work his brother had to revisit his prejudgement.

Quote
trying to convince his audience he knows what he's talking about.

He is explaining it in his own words. For all I care he can jump up and down in a banana costume.  The buggy worked, the patents where granted under 101 after a working model was shown then they where classified. There is no way out and you cant win.

Quote
Open your eyes and don't fall into the trap

It's cute that you are so worried about us but you don't have to worry. Stan is dead, he is not dangerous being all dead the way he is. You are in the trap where you are still researching but made your conclusions last week?  The technology was screamed to death by the public. The public misbehaved so magnificently that those who wanted him dead had all the time in the world to kill him. That's what happened. Just like the public whined and whined until Yull Brown was dead. And like they whined and whined when Paul Pantone discovered something. Neither Paul nor Yull had any idea what they where doing. But who cares about that when you drive 200 mpg? Carl Diesel was trying to build the same thing then he committed suicide by jumping off the boat to England.  Yeah right! 

In business change can be bad. So business people may opt to kill it. You are a big boy now, you should know about the life of grownups. People get killed for owning a hamburger joint it's not an exotic event.

The effect of this tech should be a rapid decrease in dependency on our monopolists. They want it slowly so that they can raise the rent and other expenses in order to keep us all poor.

The main goal of the industrial revolution was to make peoples garden small enough to keep them enslaved.

It's not hard to see if you are honest.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2007, 01:47:53 AM »
Thanks for your response F Day.  Yes I read that in the other thread.

What you are thinking about and what is proposed there I find interesting and worth looking into.  I would imagine it could be somewhat tested by comparing the 'long-term conditioned' cell-type generator to one that is indeed constructed with laminated (protected from the water somehow)  plates.  I mean, wouldn't that tell?

-------------------
I am also having thoughts about the necessity of the tubular design (questioning that). I.e., if breaking the water bonds is due to either the method FD suggests, or the 'more classical understanding' that electro-magnetic-resonation of magnetically aligned water molecules, effectively shrinking and stretching them along their <-- axis until they break, using some resonant frequency... nothing there implies the need for a tubular column of water.  It would seem that plates cut at the relative tetrahedral ratio of the water molecule dimension would suffice well for delivering/sustaining harmonic hi-freq magnetic field resonance. (ref: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hbond.html )

...Although I think I could figure it out after a while, I do not know how to assemble the equation for making the suggested ratio determinations.   If anyone looks into that and figures it out would you please post that here?
   More to the point about what I mean... first let me say that there may be a couple of different ratios to work with...  There is a ratio of the lengths of the bonds from center to point both laterally and longetudinally (sp), then there is the ratio of lengths of the height to the width of the entire tetrahedral structure (I think that might be the interesting one), then there is the consideration of the ratio of lengths taken from the one base side line and one vertical side line.  The professor there only gives us a few measurements to work with, but it should be enough to dissect the whole thing.  (I wonder if there's a golden mean ratio expressed there?)

The ring consideration...
I did however read somewhere, and maybe someone here will know what I am referring to... it was something about how an affected "ring" of a responsive element (in this case water) around a neutrally reactive tube under these conditions ...may hold another causal effect during the reaction.  I.e., a ringed formation of the element under load in this type of cell (the water in this case) not only has a 180 degree (across) (re)action, but also a 90degree (upward) (re)action occuring simulteneously (there is also a toroidal reaction).  I don't know enough about this physics to know what I am talking about, but I bet there's a few here who recognize what I am referring to.  Anyone?

(and I promise to post if/when I run across what provoked that!)

Cheers,
TwoHawks
« Last Edit: November 16, 2007, 02:23:37 AM by twohawks »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2007, 01:47:53 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: