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 63022 times)

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2007, 02:23:50 AM »
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TPZGMA6Bp5o&feature=related

Looks like a single choke VIC to me. What do you think?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2007, 02:23:50 AM »

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2007, 05:50:32 PM »
Yes he surely does have the components of a VIC assembly.  But he's actually applying a pulse that's then rectified with a fullwave bridge rectifier, which is then being smoothed by the blue cap to give dc.

Problem is that he will get very false readings without any load. I think he needs to put a big resistor where he has the multimeter and then look at the readings.

With only the multimeter used as shown, he is relying on the multimeter internal components to load the circuit. The current load will be different to the voltage load, so figures for each will be misleading. In reality, with a load he will have much less power as the voltage and current figures will be very different.

Farrah Day

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline starcruiser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 690
    • Starcruiser's Place
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2007, 06:57:07 PM »
He needs to scope it to see what the output looks like. using the cap he is filtering the ripple but by how much? I concur about using a real load and measuring across that to see what his real output is with the load.

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2007, 08:19:15 PM »
TH

Apparently Bob Boyce sees the same 300% Faraday success as those using tubes. He uses conditioned plates rather than tubes. Simply an alternative design of capacitor. Personally I don't think it will matter which design you employ as long as the anode has its dielectric oxide layer and you follow good construction procedure.

I will at some point soon be testing a wfc that has a very small SS 'cathode'. The ss 'cathode' being a connection there solely to make contact with the water (my liquid cathode) and hence serving just to electrically connect the electrical circuit to the water.  I will be constructing an anode with a very large surface area, possibly made up of a SS threaded bar, loaded with ss plates along its length.  The anode will take up nearly all of the space within the cell container. Now, this will need to be conditioned well initially as it will make for a poor electrode set up for conventional electrolysis. However, once the anode is oxidised, in theory at least, I expect it to work very well under pulsing. Furthermore, as I'm not wasting the space others are with their large, and I think possibly unrequired ss 'cathodes', I should have a far more efficient wfc.  Looking forward now to putting my theory to the test.

Will provide photos as soon as fabricated.

Farrah Day


Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2007, 11:24:39 PM »
Edited  Nov 16 @2:50pm pst...
@FD   I can really appreciate where you are coming from and eagerly look forward to your results.

   With regard to your theory, I am wondering if there still is something to the idea that magnetism is useful for aligning the molecules of the water (which it does with staggered +/- plates, such as   +>>>>- where + are the h2 component and - is the O component), in effect assisting the reaction taking place, ...then wouldn't you consider this an important consideration somewhere in your experiments?
    I know the alignment aspect is discussed with regard to the classicly discussed understanding of stretching/elongating the bond laterally (where water is discussed as a dialectric), and then it is more prone to breaking with the forces applied,
  ...but I wonder how it still may be significant in your alternative approach?  (I.e., I wonder if you will end up needing a negative plate across from each anode plate so the water may be held in orientation?)
 I expect your's will be a significant test indeed.  Good luck with that.
-------------------------------
BTW, I somewhat expected that you might have pondered and replied to Esotericman's post (on page2) where he comments..
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?

(Of course, I expect he meant 'electrons travelling from the cathode to the anode, as that is the technically correct understanding...)
I would be interested in your, and other's here, take on those thoughts and questions.

Cheers,
TwoHawks
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 12:10:25 AM by twohawks »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2007, 11:24:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2007, 11:30:22 PM »
Also, I am trying to gain a little more clarity on where the stripped off electrons go.  I would imagine they travel to and then through the anode, yes?  So the idea is they punch through the oxide layer on the anode, which repairs itself (yes?);
however, I did see a demonstration where it was said that the excess electrons were being collected and they were lighting a light bulb while producing HHO...
...can anyone comment on this and explain your thoughts and ideas on this a bit please?  (and/or direct me to where I can/should read more about it.)

Thanks,
Cheers,
TwoHawks

Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2007, 12:06:06 AM »
Edited  Nov 16 @2:50pm pst...
@FD    (I.e., I wonder if you will end up needing a negative plate across from each anode plate so the water may be held in orientation?)

  As I think about this more, if your theory and the postulated need for magnetic alignment of the water both hold true, then  using tubes begins to make a lot more sense to me...
   ...i.e., as compared to using plates, cylindrical anodes with a rod or smaller tube in the center requires less materials because of the smaller surface area of the negative tubes/rods in the center of the anode.  Then the question would be, if your (FD's) theory is correct, then why would close spacing between the negative center tube/rod and the anode matter?  In this scenario, why would one expect a better reaction?

Does this make sense?  What do you think about this?

...oh wait a minute...  however, if you use alternating pos/neg plates, then the reaction should be taking place on both sides of the anode plate, which would make that the more efficient model (in terms of needed materials), wouldn't it?

   As an aside, I remember recently seeing someone created a model having 3 tubes instead of two per cell, i.e., one inside the other inside the other.  There were questions about just what the individual's thoughts behind that were, but I did not yet see it resolved. (cannot remember where offhand, but I am sure folks following this have run across that, and will again).

Cheers,
HTH
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 12:30:01 AM by twohawks »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #66 on: November 17, 2007, 12:06:06 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #67 on: November 17, 2007, 01:50:17 AM »
TwoHawks, The free electrons lighting a light bulb from the cell is referred to as the EEC or Electron Extraction Circuit. You can find a description in the tech breif. The EEC is connected to the anode or positive plate. During off pulse times the EEC switches on while the bulb consumes the free electrons liberated from the process. All the circuit consists of is a switch and a light bulb. Another one of Stans ingenious ideas.

Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #68 on: November 17, 2007, 04:27:38 AM »
Thanks HeairBear!

Hey Farrah Day... would you do me the favor of tapping on the admin's shoulder (chris) over at oupower and asking him to consider validating my registration?  I have been waiting days for an authorization, or even a response to any of my emails, so I may participate over there.  Maybe his email isn't working, or my emails are being spam-trapped...  Is it possible and acceptable for you to do this for me?

Thanks,
HTH
(hth is my full name, horustwohawks, so I am not trying to be weird or anything with those initials ;^P )

Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2007, 05:05:46 AM »
EDITED (again, #3): Conditioning and Oxide coatings...  I am a bit confused...

1) the calcium hydroxide coating that builds up on the outside of the inner cathode tube ...is not the dialectric FD is referring to...

...can somenoe explain why it would not be considered a dialectric, or would it be?  (I really need to re-study my basic electroincs...)  If #2 ahead is correct, what would be the importance of this coating calcium hydoxide on the cathode face?

2) deleted - it was an ignorant question, sorry

I am sorry if this has been answered elsewhere (maybe everyone reported it?)... please forgive my mushed brain at the moment (over-saturation).  Direction would be aprecated.

Thanks,
HTH
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 06:38:00 AM by twohawks »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #69 on: November 17, 2007, 05:05:46 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2007, 07:00:31 PM »
My apologies TH

After reading your post asking where do the ?stripped off? electrons go, I realised that I may have confused you with an earlier post, which was not very clear (I was rushing at the time). I will amend that post.

Incidentally, I didn't respond to Eso's post as I did not understand what he was talking about. No offence intended Eso. Just to say that you are wrong to think that there are 'free' electrons mooching about in the solution.

There are no free electrons in the electrolyte (our water). In liquids (electrolytes), unlike solid conductors, electrons are not the charge carriers. In an electrolyte, ions carry the charge, not electrons. Ion?s being charged molecules or charged atoms.

Normal tap water is made to ionise when we apply a voltage potential across it above this ionisation threshold ? just a couple of volts.  It ionises into OH- and H+, with the H+ being attracted to the cathode and OH- to the anode.  Water does not ionise very readily, but we can help it along by applying more voltage.

To increase efficiency of normal electrolysis of water, a compound (such as sodium sulphate) is added. This compound makes for a good electrolytic solution because, unlike the water molecule it readily dissociates into charged ions within the water. Hence there are a lot more charges carriers, which so require far less voltage potential to do work. Basically we lower the resistance of the electrolyte. Now, although with a compound such as sodium sulphate the ion concentration is greatly increased, it does not itself take part in the reaction on the electrodes, but remains in the solution. We just still get our oxygen and hydrogen, but far more efficiently. This is due to reaction preferences that I?ll not go into here, but you can always research yourself.

Anyway, that is to say that electrons, themselves do not take part in carrying charges in ionic solutions but play their part by adding or reducing the charge of an atom or molecule so producing an ion.

I think that the water molecules will initially be aligned (polarised) by the electrostatic field.

If the cell is a capacitor with the oxide layer the dielectric, and the water simply an extension of the cathode, then I?m not sure plate spacing is important. This is because the negative plate is essentially the water and is spaced only microns from the anode (the thickness of the dielectric).  Usually, the simplest explanation (that makes scientific sense) is the one to go with, but there might well be more going on than I?ve considered, so don?t hold me to anything.

Now, I know I?m throwing a lot of ideas and theories about on this thread, but sometimes its good to ?air? your thoughts. I find that my thoughts don?t always make quite as much sense as they did in my head once that I?ve written them down and read through them.

One thing for sure though, if your going to assume or theorise on a subject, you do really need to be able to explain what reaction or reactions you think are actually occurring, and why.  It helps therefore if you have some scientific background or experience on which to ground your ideas and explanations. Many people seem to fall into this trap by simply assuming or accepting that something happens without questioning if it is actually possible or not. I try to work through all of my theories in order not to fall into this trap, but no doubt there are times when I get my science wrong.

In an attempt to research all avenues on this subject, I noted something of interest. Water, with a molecular weight of just 18, is actually lighter than many gases. Why is it not a gas?  Apparently it is because it ?clumps? together. Not as in covalent bonding, but simply the attraction between water molecules due to their bipolar nature. A little like how magnets would clump together when you throw them all in a bag.

This lead me to think that perhaps we are breaking the clumping bond at some point and actually getting water gas (not steam) produced.  Then I remembered reading something about Brown?s gas and how bubbles were emerging from between the plates (not on them).  There was also talk of ?expanded? water.  There could well be something important in this, though I?m not sure what the properties of water gas would be? would it ignite?  And what would stop it from immediately clumping?

More questions needing answers.

Now, I once read somewhere that Meyer was saying to use one type of ss over another, as most produced an oxide layer, which was unwelcome.  However, I?m fairly convinced we really do need that oxide dielectric layer ? so there?s another area of contention.  The high voltage across the dielectric will no doubt cause the water molecule to become polarised, but it is not until the dielectric oxide layer breaks down that the water becomes ionised and hence gas is produced.

Now Meyer suggested that the high electrostatic field on the plates broke the covalent bonds of the water molecule, but not into OH- and H+ as in electrolysis, but O-- and 2 x H+, hence, instead of one atomic ion and one molecular ion there are 3 atomic ions.  I?m no chemist and I?m not sure that this is even possible (there are laws to obey), but Meyer never seemed to let little things like that, spoil his conclusions.

Another thing I?m asking myself is what is the white deposit some people seem to be getting on their cathodes?  In hard water areas you can expect to get calcium carbonate or scale - essentially limestone - deposited on the elements of kettles, inside water carrying pipe work, on taps, etc. But on the cathode it would be a reduction reaction, which I think would be detrimental to the efficiency of our cells.

You say calcium hydroxide. I?m not sure at this point what it is (I need to research this further). However, I?m betting the ss is corroding in this way due to lack of oxygen, which is required to maintain the ?stainless?, in stainless steel.  It might be that this effect can be countered by swapping around the polarity of the electrodes from time to time ? that said, this would no doubt bring with it a whole new set of problems.  I?ll perhaps know more when I?ve got my cell up and running.

Sorry TH, I?m not on first name terms or anything like that with the moderator on the other forum, so can?t help you there. Just keep trying.

Farrah Day
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 11:25:25 PM by Farrah Day »

Offline twohawks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #71 on: November 20, 2007, 12:46:46 AM »
Thanks much, FD.  Your explanations appear very informative and useful... I am on the road right now so I need more time to digest, so no comments for now.

One thing, per 'contacting the admin' thing... I was only thinking that because you were a member, and members can always contact the admin at a bbs, that maybe it wouldn't be too much to ask you to simply ask him to check his registration submissions... or something? 

Cheers all,
HTH


Offline Garfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #72 on: November 20, 2007, 06:55:26 AM »
 :)
I've been following these posts which I find most interesting and would just like to help out with some important facts.
   I think one of the key items is the series resonant circuit itself. You can check the theory behind it by doing a search in google. But you will find that although the thing has zero impedance across the outer terminals, the voltage across the capacitor only can get exceedingly high.(this also  applies to the inductor only as well)
This effect becomes much greater with a high LC (high inductance and low capacitance) circuit.
The voltage is infinite and limited only by circuit resistance. The greater the current the greater the voltage.
    I think this is why Stan winds the resonant coils with resistance wire to limit the current.
He also uses a bunch of small cell electrodes rather than one large one. This is to take advantage of  the high LC effect.
  Some confusion also regarding the dc driving pulse. As the switching diode (fig.1) is wired to pass only the positive portion of the ac signal it still remains an ac signal which varies from ground potential to a high plus voltage. If there was a filtering network to smooth out these pulses and produce a pure dc voltage, then the resonant circuit would'nt work. You will notice in Fig.1 that one end of the resonant    coil goes to ground to ensure that the pulse never goes negative.
Also for what it's worth, in one of my electronic books there is a chart giving the dielectric constants of mant different materials. It says "Water (distilled) 34-78"
Hope all this helps and just don't add to the confusion.

Garfield




















 

Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2007, 04:48:08 PM »
Rav

if you're looking in can you please contact me on:

farrahday13@googlemail.com

Thanks
Farrah Day

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2007, 12:41:26 PM »
The problem with water.

Water does indeed have some very strange properties, and it would appear that though water is a very simple molecule, there are still things about it that science has not yet fathomed. Indeed there are things that scientists are at odds with and still can not agree on.

Now most people trust that Meyer is pulling water apart by creating a large electrostatic force between the electrodes and that no current conducts in the wfc itself. Simply assuming that the H2O molecules is 'pulled apart' into O and H, H. If this were the case, then designing a wfc around a glass jar, with the anode being aluminuim foil wrapped around the outside, and a cathode inside the jar immersed in water should work well.  It doesn't.

Then there is the 'pulling the H2O molecule apart' into its component parts of O and H, H.  Does this really make scientific sense?  If you managed to 'pull' one hydrogen atom off the oxygen atom, wouldn't the existing OH bond be now stronger due to the increased charge differential. The problem with this idea is that the charges are not taken into consideration... too much is assumed without proper scientific consideration.

No, the fact that both electrodes need to be in contact with the water, points to the same ionisation reaction you get from normal electrolysis. However, to become gases the ions MUST collect or dump a charge, which they can only get from the electrodes.

The interesting part is that even normal electrolysis is widely misunderstood, usually given as a simplistic equation for the reaction at the electrodes.  Now pure water contains very few OH- and H+ ions. That is why it makes for a very poor conductor; there are hardly any charge carriers.  Now the few ions that there are in pure water react at the electrodes in the simplistic way that is always shown, i.e. the H+ ions collect an electron at the cathode, bonds with another hydrogen atom which has just done the same and then is released as H2 gas. At the anode, the OH- ion drops off an electron, the OH splits and the O joins with another oxygen atom to be released as O2.

But, what happens to the hydrogen atom that has just been jilted at the anode by the oxygen atom?  You know, I'm not sure. I know it should have a neutral charge, i.e. be an atom rather than an ion, I also know its not given off at the anode as a gas, so doesn't bond with another hydrogen atom to become H2... so what happens to it?  This atom just seems to be forgotten about, but it must do something. Note to myself - look into that later.

Now, this is where things get a little more complicated. If we add a small amount of Sodium Sulphate to pure water, the Sodium Sulphate (Na2SO4), nearly all dissociates into ions, 2Na+ and SO4--. These ions carry charges to the electrodes once a small voltage is applied, but when they get there, they do not react. This is because these ions are less electrochemically reactive than the H2O water molecule itself. So instead of the 2Na+ ion collecting two electrons from the cathode, the favoured reaction is the water ionising into H+ and OH-, with the hydrogen reacting to be given off as H2.  At the anode, instead of the SO4-- reacting, again because the water molecule is more electrochemically reactive, it is the H2O that ionises into H+ and OH-, with the OH- breaking up to give oxygen when the ion deposits an electron.

So, that is what happens, but it?s still hard to get your head around why the Sodium Sulphate ions induce the water molecule to ionise, by being simply there and seemingly doing nothing other than provide competition. 

Now it occurs to me that if the sodium sulphate can induce the water molecule to ionise but not actually take part in the oxidation and reduction reaction, then there must be other ways of also inducing the water to ionise.

It would seem to me that once we have conditioned our wfc electrodes in order to form a better dielectric oxide layer, that we can do a very simple test with de-ionised water.

We know de-ionised water will hardly conduct with normal dc electrolysis, and very little, if any, gas will be seen to be rising from the electrodes.  Now using the dc voltage pulsing method, if we find that gas is given off to any great degree, we know that we must be ionising the water at the electrodes, without the help of any foreign compound ions.  This would then clearly indicate that, pulsing, high voltage or both would be instrumental in this process.  Also, comparing an unconditioned cell against a conditioned one should provide further insight.

All good stuff.

Would really appreciate some thoughtful feedback here.

Farrah Day 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2007, 12:41:26 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: