Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: Farrah Day on October 31, 2007, 04:41:08 PM

Title: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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



Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: neukin 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?
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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.

 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: neukin 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!



Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: locked_in 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


Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: neukin on November 02, 2007, 03:30:49 AM
I tested on a open unit as the arc scared me.. didnt know if it would arc at anytime but it didnt. That tig welder can be looked at here http://www.millerwelds.com/products/tig/ they do cost alot but when you use one sitting around after hours at a shop its nice to use ::)   Iv tried 60v 3a and it was really rocking in a open unit, the pulse i cant remember right now but iv messed around and didnt notice any major increase with frequency changing...

The oxide on the plates is interesting, ill have to try on my test unit and see how gas goes. I have a lpm meter on the way so i can better test gas produced rather then looks off mass bubbles  ;D

I use 12v about 12amp with a battery charger and it works good but not near the rate needed. i use 36v and maybe 20amp? for fast production for torch use. I have had my tank produce up to 40psi  :o in about 1 min at 32.2C a good temp as it seems when its warm i make more hho. I turned off at that point as things can get dangerous and i like my body parts.  I have a permanent magnet  perm132 motor that makes about 30v and not sure of the amp right now (need more dc tools here) but i can spin the motor with a belt on a car and make plenty of power. I spun the motor with a Edrill and read that 30v etc... the motor is from http://www.perm-motor.de/index_e.html  If you look at the generators they sell they make alot more power. i cant afford a generator from them yet. You only have to spin at like 2000rpm for the 30v

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: aussepom on November 02, 2007, 01:36:31 PM
Hi guys stumble across this, I am talking at a forum on some of theses cells yes old Stan did not make much sense I will be pulling it all apart in a very similar way.
His circuits do not make sense when you redraw them and analyse them.
These cells are just big very 'leaky capacitors' well that how I refer to them none of these types of circuit can use resonance, you can only have resonance in an 'AC circuit'
The 'transformers' and chokes' all on the same piece of ion well that ok if you were trying  to build a 'mag amp'  well done nice reading.
aussepom
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 02, 2007, 04:03:51 PM
The 'eureka' moment really is the oxide on the plates which is in essence the dielectric.  Don't take this too lightly as this really is crucial to the operation of the cell as a capacitor.

I had heated arguments with Bob Boyce regarding his cell and the fact that he insisted that his cells worked better when his plates sealed his container, thereby effectively having each cell in its own electrolyte. Bob said it stopped the current bypassing the plates. But this made no sense to me as charged ions would not readily bypass the plates and go the long way around to a more distant plate, they would always be drawn to the nearest plate of opposite charge.

This had me puzzled. Now however, I see now that Bob conditions his electrodes, and whether he realises it or not, what he is doing is creating the dielectric oxide layer.

Now it makes more sense. By sealing each cell, he has in fact a lot of capacitors (oxidised electrodes) and a resistors (electrolyte) in series. If the plates were not sealed he would effectively have another low value resistor in parallel with the series RC cells, which would drastically lower the overall impeadance of his wfc, and hence, greatly affecting the value of any resonant frequencies.

You will not that a Joe cell requires similar conditioning before they allegedly work.  Basically then, you have to create your capacitor!

Hairbear, I had a look at that patent link. Yes Meyer does state an actual diode, but this is about the only thing that it would be hard to get wrong.  As long as it is a high power rectifier diode capable of handling a few amps and decent reverse voltage, then just about anything will do.  I think the 1N1198 can withstand a reverse voltage of around 600V before it would disintegrate. Notice however, that the more complicated circuits, ie pulse generator, etc, are just a labelled box.

The Buz350, mentioned earlier with reference to Lawtons pulse circuit design can handle a maximum continuous current drain of 22 amps, handle voltages up to 200V and dissipate 125 Watts of power. A fairly meaty little beast, but there are many similar power transistors and mosfets that will do the job. The thing is to know what parameters are important in your design. I daresay a lower voltage and current handling device would be ok in most cases, afterall 22 amps is a lot of juice.  It may just be that Lawton had this particular component to hand and so utilised it.

Farrah Day
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: aussepom on November 02, 2007, 08:27:08 PM
Hi yes you make sense but I do differ on the so called coating, electrolysis is an 'oxidising process' any way so in MY opinion by 'roughing up the surface' with sand paper etc' will only expose the ion particles to the electrolyte, SS has a unique quality it will 'self seal' its surface, some grade more than others this is well know in the foundry industry when you are 'casting SS'.
There will be a build up of that 'red stuff' as part of the oxidising process; this will react with any impurities in you 'electrolyte mixture' and this will tend to coat the SS.
I used titanium in my water treatment process that is based on electrolysis.
Archie Blue  had the right approach but is different to my set up as I use different plates one titanium and one titanium coated, all the positives are connected to each other and the same for the negatives as per AB he used a vertical cell I used a horizontal cell, one extra negative plate just like a battery.
AB used all the same material.
Because of my set up for wastewater treatment my electrolyte was 'raw sewage'
With out any power I would get a 0.5volt across one positive and one negative just like a battery.
Using dissimilar metals so the one has a more positive galvo metric electrical charge than the other, and a highly negative galvo metric electrolyte to me helps.
Every metal has a 'charge'.
Oh dear I did go on a bit well I hope that helps .
STANDARD ELECTRODE POTENTIALS
Half-Reaction                                E V
         
Li+ + e-  Li                                            -3.04
K+ + e-  K                                              -2.92
Ba2+ + 2e-  Ba                                      -2.90
Ca2+ + 2e-  Ca                                       -2.87
Na+ + e-  Na                                           -2.71
Mg2+ + 2e-  Mg                                      -2.37
Al3+ + 3e-  Al                                       -1.66
Mn2+ + 2e-  Mn                                     -1.18
2H2O + 2e-  H2 (g) + 2 OH-                     -0.83
Zn2+ + 2e-  Zn                                       -0.76
Cr2+ + 2e-  Cr                                        -0.74
Fe2+ + 2e-  Fe                                      -0.44
Cr3+ + 3e-  Cr                                        -0.41
Cd2+ + 2e-  Cd                                       -0.40
Co2+ + 2e-  Co                                        -0.28
Ni2+ + 2e-  Ni                                            -0.25
Sn2+ + 2e-  Sn                                        -0.14
Pb2+ + 2e-  Pb                                        -0.13
Fe3+ + 3e-  Fe                                        -0.04
2H+ + 2e-  H2 (g)                                   0.00
S + 2H+ + 2e-  H2S (g)                           0.14
Sn4+ + 2e-  Sn2+                                   0.15
Cu2+ + e-  Cu+                                       0.16
SO42+ + 4H+ + 2e-  SO2 (g) + 2H2O    0.17
Cu2+ + 2e-  Cu                                     0.34
2H2O + O2 + 4e-  4OH-                         0.40
Cu+ + e-  Cu                                          0.52
I2 + 2e-  2I-                                            0.54
O2 (g) + 2H+ + 2e-  H2O2                      0.68
Fe3+ + e-  Fe2+                                    0.77
NO3- + 2H+ + e-  NO2 (g) + H2O          0.78
Hg2+ + 2e-  Hg (l)                                0.78
Ag+ + e-  Ag                                       0.80
NO3- + 4H+ +3 e-  NO (g) + 2H2O      0.96
Br2 + 2e-  2Br-                                   1.06
O2 (g) + 4H+ + 4e-  2H2O                  1.23
MnO2 + 4H+ + 2e-  Mn2+ + 2H2O        1.28
Cr2O72- + 14H+ + 6e-  2Cr3+ + 7H2O  1.33
Cl2 + 2e-  2Cl-                                      1.36
Au3+ + 3e-  Au                                        1.50
MnO4- + 8H+ + 5e-  Mn2+ + 4H2O          1.52
Co3+ + e-  Co2+                                  1.82
F2 + 2e-  2F-                                         2.87
          there are some for SS  use the biggest difference depending on your process to get maximum reaction 
 but this will depend on what you are trying to achieve                             

aussepom
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: hansvonlieven on November 02, 2007, 09:38:04 PM


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


G'day Farrah and all,

Excellent post, thank you.

I remember the old wet electrolytics quite well. We were still using them in the 1950's in valve circuits. They were interesting things who had a tendency to leak. Some of the older ones used actually sulfuric acid as the electrolyte. They were usually made from aluminium though copper was not unknown either. The dielectric (oxide) was formed using an electrolytic process.

Which brings me to my point. If the watercells rely on that oxide layer (conditioning layer) stainless steel seems to be a poor choice for cell construction because it is difficult to oxidise. After all stainless steel is specifically designed to resist this.

Maybe we should experiment with aluminium or copper instead. Food for thought.

Hans von Lieven



Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: paulshroom on November 02, 2007, 11:03:05 PM
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Stanley_Meyer_Harmonics
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 03, 2007, 12:27:02 AM
I think that the stainless steel is just fine as electrodes, as it's as 'unreactive' as we need it to be, easy to get hold of and not too expensive. I guess we would all be using titanium if it didn't cost an 'arm and a leg'.

The important thing is that SS won't itself play a chemically active part in the electrolysis, unlike other metals where electrodes can quickly decompose.  Most metals do actually oxidise to some degree after time in oxygen, but unlike the aggressive nature of rust on metals with high iron content, metals like copper, aluminium, silver, zinc and stainless steel, etc, only develop a thin oxide layer which then effectively protects the metal underneath - that tarnished look.

However, this would probably explain why some SS is better than others. I'm not sure SS is particularly difficult to oxidise, a couple of hours in a standard electrolyser configuration is likely all it takes - maybe only minutes under heavy current.  I recall someone playing with a Joe cell and talking about conditioning - but not knowing why it worked - saying that this was achieved by drawing a heavy current through the cell one way, then reversing the terminals and doing the other way. Well this would mean that both the sides of the electrodes that face each other would be oxidised, doubling the electrical capacity of the cell.

Aussepom, isn't that SS self healing effect you talk about actually oxidation - just like the way zinc self heals on a galvanized mop bucket?

There are only a couple of reasons I see to roughing up the electrodes. One is to clean any unwanted crap (grease, oil contaminants) off the surface prior to conditioning and the other is to vastly increase the surface area of the electrodes. At a microscopic level, even a light sandpaper will create enormous mountains and valleys on the electrode surface.

I can see that using dissimilar metals to take advantage of their natural electropositive or electronegative charges might help in standard electrolysis and electroplating, but I don't see a place for it in trying to replicate Meyers wfc. After all we don't want a battery, we wan't as little current flowing as possible.

Locked-in, I had a look at that patent you listed. In my opinion it's just the same old dribble as everything else he put down on paper - basically incoherent twaddle. In fact, give me an cartload of scientific patents and documents and I would be able to pick out the ones Stan had produced just by skimming through them - Stans would be the ones spouting all the technical jargon but actually saying very little and explaining even less! There's a report online somewhere by a scientist who went to see a Meyer cell in action. His comment was 'the demonstartion of Meyers working cell was far more impressive than the pseudo-technical jargon that he used to explain it', or words to that effect. And that really summed up Meyer for me. No, the circuits, though more elaborate, again do not give any detail whatsover on component values. Ask yourself, 'why would he draw the circuit out, but leave out the crucial component values?'  Better still, try to construct one.  No... really, don't waste your time there.

Farrah Day
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear on November 03, 2007, 12:41:03 AM
This guy has a lot of good info...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5124443346685900742&q=qiman13&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
In Stan's earlier designs before the use of the VIC, he utilized a resistive material sandwiched between two plates and a variable resistor in series after that. Think of a set of three tubes with the gap of the inner and middle tubes filled with resistive material. This may have been used before he discovered the coating or it could be that a coating will never happen if there is no current or at most, very little current.

As far as trying different electrode materials, just about anything will work as long as it wont corrode or add a lot of impurities and gunk in the water. A  durable plastic would even work. All we need to do is just get the high voltage potential around and in the plates. As easy as it sounds, at first I thought, why not use a Van DeGraph device? It doesn't work because the water acts like a ground. It basically is ground, so the charge would never hold or rise. So now we have a big leaky capacitor, that acts as ground. Until the coating shows up. Then things start to change. Why are we calling it a capacitor? It is a capacitor, not a good one but still a capacitor. It's also a resonant cavity which is the main process doing the work. Our microwave ovens use resonant cavities much in the same way,

If we can easily figure out a suitable diode then all thats left to figure out is the torroid and the chokes. That last patent I posted stated these parameters.

In th Example of a fuel cell circuit of FIG. 1, a water capacitor is included. The step-up coil is formed on a conventional torroidal core formed of a compressed ferromagnetic powdered material that will not itself become permanently magnetized, such as the trademarked "ferramic 06# "Permag" powder as described in Siemens Ferrites Catalog, CG-2000-002-121, No. F626-1205. The core is 1.5 inch in diameter and 0.25 inch in thickness. A primary coil of 200 turns of 24 gauge copper wire is provided and a coil of 600 turns of 36 gauge wire comprises the secondary winding.

In the circuit of FIG. 1, the diode is a 1N1198 diode which acts as a blocking diode and an electric switch that allows voltage flow in one direction only. Thus the capacitor is never subjected to a pulse of reverse polarity.

The primary coil of the torroid is subject to a 50% duty cycle pulse. The torroidal pulsing coil provides a voltage step-up from the pulse generator in excess of five times, although the relative amount of step-up is determined by pre-selected criteria for a particular application. As the stepped-up pulse enters the first inductor (formed from 100 turns of 24 gauge wire 1 inch in diameter), an electromagnetic field is formed around the inductor, voltage is switched off when the pulse ends, and the field collapses and produces another pulse of the same polarity; i.e., another positive pusle is formed where the 50% duty cycle was terminated. Thus a double pulse frequency is produced; however, in a pulse train of unipolar pulses, there is a breif time when pulses are not present.

In an example of the circuit of FIG. 1 (in which other circuit element specifications are provided above), two concentric cylinders 4 inches long formed the water capacitor of the fuel cell in the volume of water. The outside cylinder was 0.75 inch OD; the inner cylinder was 0.5 inch OD. Spacing from the outside of the inner cylinder to the inner surface of the outer cylinder was 0.0625 inch. Resonance in the circuit was achieved at a 26 volt applied pulse to the primary coil of the torroid at 0KHz, and the water molecules disassociated into elemental hydrogen and oxygen...

That 0KHz must be an OCR error. but at least we know there is a zero in the number. Basically, here is a starting point to his device. Build it and add a Lawton device to the primary and you are set. It almost seems to easy doesn't it?

Gotta jet! cya!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: aussepom on November 03, 2007, 04:27:35 AM
Hi just a quick one  it's my understanding that the square looking core in SM's fig one IT WAS CONSTRUCTED USING A STANDARD 'O' CORE TRANSFORMER MATERIAL AND NOT AS SOME WOULD ASSUME A TORIODAL CORE.
  In my opinion he was trying to use the 'mag amp' theory but got it wrong. he also states that ALL THE WINDINGS WE WOUND IN THE SAME DIRECTION. I will not go into any further debate over this as every one has a different opinion but some basic electrical and and electronic principals can not be ignored.
aussepom 
 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: hansvonlieven on November 03, 2007, 06:04:15 AM
Sorry Farrah,

I don't agree with your take on electrodes. If, and I say if, you are after a condenser effect then the underlying metal is of no importance since the oxide layer makes it inert to electrolysis.

In this case you will not have a current running through the water but you are relying on resonance with the electric field instead. Perhaps you could have a look at Keely, he supposedly crated the same effects without electricity and used sonic vibrations instead.

There is good reason to believe that Stan was aware of Keely and tried to use an electric field instead for his introductory impulses. His use of compound frequencies is typically Keely.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 03, 2007, 10:32:45 AM
Hi Hans, feel free to use whatever metals you want as electrodes, but bear in mind that metals like aluminium and copper are very electrically conductive in the first place and have a lot of floating electrons just dying to make a run for it when dipped in a conductive electrolyte.  It is in effect the very thin coat (tarnish) on aluminium that protects the metal underneath. Why complicate matters when stainless steel would appear to have the properties we require.  The last thing we want, surely, is a 'battery'.

I know many of you are simply unwilling to let go and dismiss the Meyer patents, but unless you can get past this you will find it hard to progress.  Meyer had no background in science, that is why his electonic and atomic theories are laughable.  In Meyer's 'Hydrogen Fracturing Process' he states clearly that the dielectric constant of water of 78.54 @ 25C is why his wfc is a water capacitor works and bases the principle of operation around this (later incidentally he gives this figure as 78.54 @ 20C).  And yes he would have an extremely good capacitor if this was the case. But, we've all seen his Dune Buggy video, where he clearly states that just about any source of water is ok. Come on, think, why is it so dangerous to use a mains hair dryer whilst sitting in a bath tub of water? Because of the impurities, everyday water is a very, very good conductor even with an applied voltage of just tens of volts. Meyer was saying that many thousands of volts were going across his wfc, whilst almost no current was flowing. It simply does not make sense. Furthermore, I can find no mention of him conditioning his plates.

So Meyer introduces, what he calls his 'amp consuming device'. Problem now is that any highly resistive device, though reducing the current, would also cause the voltage to drop across itself, and not across the wfc where we want it!

Meyer might have planted the seed in your heads, and that's good. But now its time to move on and investigate the wfc in it's own right and forget Meyer's uneducated, contradictory and misguided inerpretations of what was happening.  Forget trying to recreate Meyer's circuits and simply use a known working circuit that will achieve the same thing. Modern components are better and easily available. It is very easy and practical to recreate Meyer's pulses and wave forms with modern circuits. Dave Lawton's circuit is there for everyone - I don't see a problem.

As I see it, the only thing Meyer has got going for him is the fact (if indeed it was a 'fact') that he did actually run a car on a home built wfc.  Meyers jargon and circuits are just an elaborate variation of Puharich's work.

Moving on, then. Another thing occured to me and that is, if we are simply using high intensity static fields to pull apart the water molecule, then in theory at least, the electrodes wouldn't even need to be indirect contact with the electrolyte. Like a Leyden Jar.

Eg. A glass jar filled with electrolyte (water in our case), with an electrode immersed in the electrolyte in the jar, but with the other electrode on the outside of the jar. So the outer electrode could simply be a metal foil wrapped around the jar. We would then have glass as an insulator between the two electrodes. Due to the insulation properties of glass this would surely make for a relatively low loss capacitor. But then I have never seen this tried, so maybe there is a need for both electrodes to be in the electrolyte. Hence, the science is not quite as straight forward or obvious as many people would like to think.

More food for thought.

Farrah Day
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria on November 04, 2007, 10:48:18 AM
Aloha,
I happened to be observing the Meyers videos and saw something very interesting. The new video of Meyers, in what may be the first video of the buggy running on water, is a rear view. In clear view is a very large alternator on the left side of the motor (belt driven) while the stock generator sits in it's original position above the motor. And the news video of Meyer running the table top demonstration distinctly and openly shows Meyer first switching on an electric motor which spins an alternator by belt drive. No one has mentioned this anywhere that I have seen, though HeairBear did touch on the advantages and versatility of using an alternator.
Bill
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 04, 2007, 12:24:55 PM
That link that Hairbear put up above somewhere, showing the guy who has coated his cathodes with an oxide is a very good illustration of what we need to form a capacitor. If you haven't seen it, then check it out.  It does look a hefty coating though and probably unnecessarily thick. Also, I'm not sure it is the cathode that should have the coating, as surely the in the initial oxide formation during electrolysis would have the hydrogen ions going to the cathode and the oxidation occuring at the anode. 

As I mentioned, this oxide layer on the electrodes is key. 

OK, so what in effect we would have then is a SS anode, coated in an insulating dielectric, sitting in highly conductive tap water that is effectively electrically connected to the anode.

I put it to you all now then, that the cathode is actually the water itself, the SS plate (without the oxide coating) acts merely as the electrical connection to the water.

It might all sound a little strange, but it really is all starting to fall into place as far as the workings of cell itself is concerned.

The dielectric on the anode is an oxide only microns thick. Now here is some interesting points:

Some oxides have extremely high dielectric constants, and can infact handle many thousands of volts per square cm, before dielectric breakdown occurs. Very nice.

Add to this the fact that the thinner the dielectric between the anode and cathode, the greater the capacitance (capacitance is inversely proportional to the thickness of the dielectric, ie. the distance between the electrodes) and again things start to make sense. If the cathode was the uncoated SS plate, the capacity of the cell would be very low, because the physical distance between the two SS electrodes is (even at 1.5 mm) relatively great.

But, if the cathode is simply providing electrical connection to the water, (water being the real cathode), then the distance between the the two is only the microns thickness of the oxide. And we now have a capacitor capable of holding a really decent charge.

Capacity is also proportional to the surface area of the electrodes, and hence doubling the surface area of the coated anode will double the the capacitance of the cell. The great thing now is that with the water being the cathode, the size of the connecting SS plate (old cathode), becomes uniportant as far as area is concerned. This can really just be a SS rod.  As the water will naturally immerse the anode, we can concentrate on making the surface area of the anode as great as possible, and be quite happy that our old cathode only needs to be a physically electrical connection to the water.

Without knowing the exact nature of the oxide (and it will no doubt depend on the electrolyte and/or impurities in the water used to create it), its dielectric constant can only be guessed at, which makes calculating the actual capacitance of the cell difficult. However, electronic equipment might well be able to give this figure.

So we have a real electrolytic water capacitor. Now the thing about electrolytic capacitors is that they have a polarity (hence my concern that the guy in the video was connecting his cells up wrong way around) and can be damaged if wired the wrong way around, so this is most likely why only positive pulses are depicted being applied to the wfc.  Though the dielectric oxide layer can be damaged by reverse polarity, the advantage of a wet electrolytic capacitor is that it should be capable of self-healing once the voltage polarity is corrected.

Pieces of the puzzle falling into place a bit at a time.

You might note that I am ignoring the fact that some people think that there is some kind of cavity resonance occuring between the SS electrodes, which my new design of wfc would not be very conducive to. However, a lot has been theorised without any conclusive facts forthcoming, so, taking one step at a time, I'll come to that bridge if or when it needs crossing. Just to say, I'm not convinced by cavity resonance at this point.

Incidentally, I've just ordered the components I need from Maplins in order to build a Dave Lawton pulse circuit. Less than ?30 for everything.  If your serious about this stuff then build Daves cct. I'm used to having to design the veroboard layout myself, from schematics, but Dave has even done this for us. It doesn't get any more detailed or easy than this.

Does Dave Lawton ever look in this forum, or has anyone got an email/contact address for this guy?

Regards
Farrah Day





 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: neukin on November 06, 2007, 01:11:06 AM
I thought that was how anyone would use and make the system... with a generator or alternator type unit pumping the power into the hho cell. I just tested a good perm mag motor called the perm132.. its just a motor and it pumps out alot of power. I dont have the money to buy one of their generators but im sure its more efficient. I mounted the perm 132 on a honda motor in the car and ran at given rpms to build a chart. I started at about 1500 and upped 500rpm until 4k. The unit was putting out more then enough power for my cell. I was looking at high powered alternators but they usually supply less volts and more amps.

I plan on putting the complete system on the car soon, so ill let you know how it goes. We have a fully programable ECU so ill be messing with fuel and timing making sure to take full advantage of the hho gas being produced. It will be variable by controlling the power to the cell via the TPS sensor which also makes for a more efficient hho system on a automobile. thus supply more gas for more throttle etc, extra power will be sent to a 48v battery pack so power can be used as needed.
(http://www.alterhonda.com/images/perm132generator_zcca.jpg)
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 06, 2007, 09:48:02 AM
Mr G

Are you saying that the Meyer video shows an additional small petrol driven generator to drive his WFC?

Can you provide a link to this video, as I don't think I've seen that.

Mind you, even if he was using a small generator or a lawnmower/moped engine of sorts, it could still be a very efficient system as many of those 50cc engines will do upward of 200 mpg.  Thinking logically, even if Meyers gas production was super efficient, there must come a point at which it can not keep up with the demands of a car engine unless extra power (more than can be supplied by the onboard alternator) is available.

I've read that many of the Meyer patents expired in June this year and so are now available to the public, but I can't say that I've seen anything that hasn't been around for years.

Farrah Day
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Esotericman 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*
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Esotericman 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Esotericman 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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)
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: keithturtle 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: renaud67 on November 07, 2007, 11:24:36 AM
Hello Farrah Day,
go there http://www.panaceauniversity.org/ (http://www.panaceauniversity.org/)
and check D9.pdf and D14.pdf files
good "luck"
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: keithturtle 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: aussepom 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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'.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: aussepom 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     
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: keithturtle 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: albert 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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

 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: albert 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: gaby de wilde 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.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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?
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: starcruiser 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.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear 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.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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 )
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: twohawks 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Garfield 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




















 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day 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 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear on November 22, 2007, 07:58:31 PM
Excellent post! Your tests will confirm most of what you describe as mine did. Using distilled water, I found that even at 120v, I was getting very little gas and low current consumption. To me, that confirms the ionization process you describe. No catalyst = no electrolysis.

Since we can only go so far with conventional electrolysis, we must find another form of energy transfer to the water such as sound or light. Viktor Schauberger wrote some great volumes about water. His work is invaluable to this field of research.
http://www.cast.uni-linz.ac.at/Department/Publications/Pubs2001/Engl_Haydu.doc

Stan claims to use a frequency range of 20Khz to 50Khz stated here.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:B5jACr0Eob4J:www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/2067735.htm+This+frequency+will+typically+lie+within+the+range+of+from+about+20+KHz+to+about+50+KHz,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

These frequencies are in the ultrasonic range, which is relevant to this document...
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/suslick/britannica.html

Further research will show that 20Khz is a common frequency used in devices such as foggers and water purification. You can even buy ultrasonic spark plugs for you car.

When I was a kid, a friend showed me a neat trick using a 5 gallon bucket of water, a stick, and a compass. He would agitate the water with the stick very rapidly causing the compass to go all wacky. He said it was from the water being ionized by the agitation. I never fully understood that till recently.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria on November 22, 2007, 08:57:24 PM
Aloha,
I also have been reading over Meyers patents and have come to this understanding.
In normal electrolisis, electricity (in many forms) is added to the water to split it apart.
In the Meyers method, he takes the electricity already binding the hydrogen and oxygen, and takes it away, causing the hydro-oxy to explode in runaway division, as the binding agent has been removed. He capitalizes on the natural law of electrical saturation.
Everything, according to it's nature, has electrical saturation. Meyers found a way to make the electrodes unsaturated, thusly forcing the electricity to release from the water into the electrodes, and maybe also into the air (where it came from in the first place).
Bill
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on November 23, 2007, 11:10:51 PM
OK

Just to fit the final bit of the water ionisation issue that I was puzzling over above somewhere.

It's strange that this information is not to be found if you look up electrolysis of water, but can be found if you google water ionisation. Apparently when water self-ionises (ie, there is no additional electrolyte compound added), you get the Hydroxyl ion (OH-) and a hydronium ion (H3O+). Obviously this involves a reaction between 2 water molecules so the balanced equation is

2H2O  ----  H3O+ and OH-

As water molecules collide water can self-ionise, so it would follow that self-ionisation can be encouraged by creating movement within the water. This is a reversible reaction, with ions continually reforming as water molecules.

And here's an interesting snippet of info.  When water ionises it is an endothermic reaction (ie, it takes energy from the environment - in the form of heat).  Does this explain why Meyer-type wfc's remain cool whilst still giving of a lot of gas!!  Definitely worthy of further consideration.

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farrah Day on December 05, 2007, 09:56:53 PM
Further thoughts.

From some tests I'm undertaking and detailing on my, 'Meyer type WFC - From design and fabrication to test and development' thread, I would like to compound some of my thinking on the processes I believe to be involved.

First thing I can say is that my ss concentric tube design certainly charges up and holds that charge for a certain time when a voltage is applied. This it does whether submerged in water... or not, so I do indeed have a capacitor.  In de-ionised water, and using 31v straight dc with a very small 70mA current flow still provides a voltage of 3.6 volts across the tubes 2 minutes after the power supply has been disconnected.

Even in de-ionised water, at 31 volts, after a time I could visibly see some gases coming off the tubes. When the power supply was disconnected, the cell still appeared to be actively producing gas for a couple of minutes. This I found somewhat surprising as my cell consists of 3 concentic tubes with a solid centre ss cathode spaced 1/4 inch apart, meaning that at 3.6 volts, I only effectively had 1.2 volts across each tube.

I'm now wondering just how much charge my cell will hold, and what will happen once it's limit is reached!

So, if my tubes are steadily charging, the next question has to be: how do I initiate rapid ionisation of the water molecule and hence make use of all these charges?

Will try to keep both threads updated as my testing progresses.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria on December 11, 2007, 04:18:23 AM
Aloha,
Farrah Day wrote "how do I initiate rapid ionisation of the water molecule"?
It is my understanding that the inductors and the transformer typically used in the Meyers circuit
perform that function when the current stops, the field colapses, pulling a drain of -0 volts, and the reaction I described earlier occurs. That is, the electrodes are desaturated, pulling electrons from the water, causing the water to decompose to hydrogen-oxygen.
Bill
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Esotericman on January 24, 2008, 07:13:24 AM
In regards to the idea that water self-ionizes as H2O molecules collide...
As mentioned above, the frequencies we are dealing with is in the ultrasonic range.  Is it possible this is vaporizing the water, as in an ultrasonic humidifier?  Perhaps water ionizes more readily in its gaseous state?  Maybe the bubbles just create sufficient movement within the water to induce self-ionization?

Seems like a stretch I know, but is it possible the effect has no single cause, but merely a convenient combination of several conditions?


Has anyone checked to see if the output from a cell contains water vapor in addition to H and O? 

The other important test is to check the pH of the water in a cell before and after priming the plates.  I'd be curious to see how pure the water really is after this process- maybe the metal gives up some electrolytes to the water during oxidation
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: firsthydroman on May 31, 2008, 05:11:50 AM
Hi, so where did everybody go?
I really enjoyed reading all these posts but they ended in Jan of 08!
Nothing since.
Has anyone gotten the results they were shooting for or did everybody give up?
Did the thread move elsewhere?
If so, please advise.

I too am working on my own version of the WFC and PWM.
I think mine might be better than the lawton circuit.
Doesn't use 555's which are simple timers and are not really made for this kind of application.
Yet another reason many may not be having much success.

Let me know where yall are.

Thanks
Hydroman
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: powercat on May 31, 2008, 11:32:52 AM
Hi firsthydroman Welcome to the forum

HeairBear is here    http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4810.msg101111/topicseen.html#msg101111 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4810.msg101111/topicseen.html#msg101111)
Iam looking to buy a Dave Lawton style PWM. 2 sites selling the PWM    http://www.pwmpower.com/ (http://www.pwmpower.com/)  thay all so do a Bob Boyce [PWM
  http://www.vptechno.com/d14PWM.html        (http://www.vptechno.com/d14PWM.html) But which is the best for my car.?


pc
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: firsthydroman on May 31, 2008, 05:54:13 PM
Thanks Powercat!
Cool links.

I can probably come up with any design you have in mind.

From what I've seen, unless it has been quite improved, the pwmpower guy doesn't know what he's doing. Pulses all over the place, not square, AC coupled ect. Not impressed with that at all.

Haven't looked at the others yet but I have found some real nice bench top type pulse generators out there. Very pricey but good stuff none the less. Not made for automotive use of course.

An automotive setup, if you are using standard electrolysis, would need to be automated for control of current to the cells and also to turn it on and off automatically. PWM is all that is needed. No need for the other fancy features and flexibility that the so called Lawton circuit provides as it is primarily for research purposes.

I can provide what you need, no problem.
I had developed a system for a different application that is ironically similar to one of Meyer's drivers that uses different chips.

Feel free to have a look at the results of my latest design.
http://hydrogencollective.com/packetpulser1.mpg
You may have to right click and select 'save target as' to view in locally on your PC.
Let me know what you think and feel free to pass it on to others.
I may post it on youtube at some point.

Let me know if I can be of help.

Thanks
Hydroman

P.S. Where did Farrah Day go off to? Did he fall into the abyss? ;-)
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: 22350 on May 31, 2008, 06:48:29 PM
Hey guys,

This is my first post. Glad to be here.

I have just started researching this subject, so pardon if some of my questions have already been addressed.  I will read and try to find what I can.

I have seen a lot of talk about Stan Meyer's concept .  In the course of these discussions, there has been mention of that dune buggy, which was running on Brown's Gas.  It seems that people are having trouble figuring out how to reproduce Meyer's results, as he is not with us anymore.  My question is:  Wasn't there two guys in that video?  Where are the people where were working with Stan?  Don't they have info to fill in some of the grey areas?

Second,  When you create a vehicle to run exclusively on the HHO gas, is it set up similarly to a vehicle that runs on Natural Gas?

Last,  Is there any guidelines that give us required volumes of gas to run a vehicle?  For example:  3 litre engine needs X amount of HHO gas to operate.  Or, litres of gas per cubic centimeter.

Thanks, guys.

Paul

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: powercat on May 31, 2008, 07:42:24 PM
HI Hydroman


Quote
Thanks Powercat!
Cool links.

I can probably come up with any design you have in mind
.

my car is a 1995 ford escort 1.9 TD the cell iam looking at is SS cups    http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4302.msg101240/topicseen.html#msg101240 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4302.msg101240/topicseen.html#msg101240)

Quote
From what I've seen, unless it has been quite improved, the pwmpower guy doesn't know what he's doing. Pulses all over the place, not square, AC coupled ect. Not impressed with that at all
.

No answer to my email from him. hmmm

Quote
Haven't looked at the others yet but I have found some real nice bench top type pulse generators out there. Very pricey but good stuff none the less. Not made for automotive use of course
.

Very pricey not good my car was only ? 200. not for automotive use no problem for me

Quote
An automotive setup, if you are using standard electrolysis, would need to be automated for control of current to the cells and also to turn it on and off automatically. PWM is all that is needed. No need for the other fancy features and flexibility that the so called Lawton circuit provides as it is primarily for research purposes.

That sounds great for me and many others on the forum with crippling full cost

Quote
I can provide what you need, no problem.
I had developed a system for a different application that is ironically similar to one of Meyer's drivers that uses different chips
.

A friend is helping me with the electronics and i am doing the rest

Quote
Feel free to have a look at the results of my latest design.
http://hydrogencollective.com/packetpulser1.mpg
You may have to right click and select 'save target as' to view in locally on your PC.
Let me know what you think and feel free to pass it on to others.
I may post it on youtube at some point.

Yes right click and select 'save target as . One for the others on the forum (and my friend)

Quote
Let me know if I can be of help.

Yes please   (for all us beginners)

Quote
Thanks
Hydroman

P.S. Where did Farrah Day go off to? Did he fall into the abyss? ;-)

Last seen here on: February 29, 2008   http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg79556.html#msg79556 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3641.msg79556.html#msg79556)


all the best
pc
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: mrgalleria on June 30, 2008, 08:44:11 PM
Aloha,
Sorry, I spend most of my time at oupower.com. You may want to see my project folder there, some good photos and info on cell design and plasma cell upgrades.
Bill
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: tulook on July 08, 2008, 05:09:00 AM
these are posts from a former member who has had some success with this thing and may have gone underground
ravzz
Regular Poster


Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 75

 Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:57 am    Post subject: Ravi's Meyer Replication- Tap Water to H2   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The input to the Water Fuel Cell (WFC) was 0.51 Amps only. Just made the videos and uploaded. Its totally Pulse Voltage and Frequency based...


Video 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vzTzqpp-Uk

This video shows the innards of the WFC without water.


Video 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNJ_vjuO_ME

This video shows Freshly filled Tap Water. No other impurities (Read no Salts or Acids or anything at all...just plain tap water and not distilled water) added.


Video 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1lScTsHBkQ

This video is after the top is sealed and with an input of 0.5 Amps
from the Frequency Generator.


Enjoy the videos.. 
 
Back to top       
 
 
ravzz
Regular Poster


Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 75

 Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:21 am    Post subject: Outputs   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NOW THE OUTPUTS:


Presently the approximate volumetric gas discharge by an inverted
measuring flask is given below:


INPUT--H2+O2 cc/sec---H2 only cc/sec---H2 Lit/hr

0.5 A-----7.00--------------4.66-------------16.776
1.0 A-----8.66--------------5.78-------------20.808
1.5 A-----11.66-------------7.78-------------28.008
2.0 A-----14.00-------------9.33-------------33.588
3.0 A-----16.36------------10.91-------------39.276
4.0 A-----18.00------------12.00-------------43.200

*H2+O2 was calculated on an average basis for collection time of 30
secs. I'm not very sure of H2 and O2 volumes as I've calculated H2 as
2/3rd the volume of the total and O2 as 1/3rd the volume. Incase im wrong please do let me know how to calculate these.
 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: tulook on July 08, 2008, 05:16:40 AM
some more on conditioning...
ravzz
Regular Poster


Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 75

 Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:31 am    Post subject: Hi again   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
For Kumaran:

I'm not very sure if you are well versed with Stanley Meyer Technology.

I would be for one thing very impressed if you could generate anywhere close to the outputs mentioned with pulsed 12 Volts and HALF an AMP!!

Please donot confuse this with the regular high ampearage electrolysis. This is low ampearage high volage pulsed electrolysis!! wherein you use the voltage potential to break down the covalent bonds and by the way the water doesnt heat up as in the regular electrolysis. The temperature rise is at the most 3 - 4 deg above ambient after about half hour of working!!

If you take a closer look at the third video you would see large bubbles of the range of 4mmto 10mm+leaving the tubes, so dont go by the more visible slow moving smaller bubbles.





To SeaMonkey and MarkinAustralia :


I initially started off with Dave's circuit.....was in touch with him to sort out a few issues with the circuits the went on to make a few improvements. You could say that Dave's circuit was the skeleton where i started off but had to make some changes. Of the original circuit i had a few burnt/blown out components and low gas generation as my setup is with 9 tubes of 9 inch lengths and his was 6 tubes of 5 inch lengths so the exposed surface areas are comparitively higher. From what I presumed Stan used tubes of 18 inches so I went for half his length but the same number as in his video.

Material used is 316L seamless pipes. Annealed for 3 hours in inert amosphere of Argon to remove all residual magnetism and cold work stresses before they are assemled. Leads used are 316L 1.2mm dia wires to all 18 pipes individually spot welded. The inner pipe is 1/2 inch longer than the outer at the bottom for the setup for connections.

You need to be very patient with the conditioning of the pipes.....it took me months to get the generation you see.

Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts the generation is around 7 cc/sec


which coverts to 16.776 Lits / hour

16.776 x 2.4 watts (Faraday/lit/hour generation) = 40.262 Watts


Well I seem to be generating the equivalent of 40.2 watts as per Faraday with just 6.12 Watts.........I hope this answers Kumaran's question aswell.

I dont know if im right but I seem to be generating 550% excess

as the above works out to 40.2/6.12 x 100 = 656.86%

656.86 - 100 (Faraday) = 556.86% OU !!

Correct me if im wrong with the calculations.



Alright now to the crux of the situ... I dont know how long i'll be allowed to post this stuff over the net as initialy when I was in touch with Dave I had sent some pics to him and my place was raided within a few hours after the mail to him. I was kind of helped out during this time by Dave and Patrick Kelly.Though ive had success a few months ago I had not come out in the open but now Ashtweth of Panaces Bocaf has convinced me to go public as this could save me any more future harassment.....Im taking a huge chance by posting this right now.... you can see more details of the problem at

http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/EngineerinIndia.htm

The above writeup is on a few other sites aswell. This had happened some time in Jan this year.

I'll try and post a few more videos using 12 Volts 1 amp 1.5 amp.... at the earliest and post the links. Try and save the vids incase theyre removed.
 
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: tulook on July 08, 2008, 05:24:06 AM
and this bit...
ravzz
Regular Poster


Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 75

 Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:46 am    Post subject: CONDITIONING OF TUBES!!!!!   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Alright guys make a note of this and save it some place

The conditioning process below was given to me by Dave Lawton and its what I followed religiously for months to reach the outputs. Consider this as the holy grail like I did and still do...

1. Donot use any resistance on the negative side when conditioning the pipes.

2. Start at 0.5 Amps on freq gen and switch off after 25 mins for 30 mins

3. Goto 1.0 Amps for 20 min and stop for 30 min

4. Goto 1.5 Amps for 15 min and stop for 20 min

5. Goto 2.0 Amps for 10 min and stop for 20 min

6. Goto 2.5 Amps for 5 min and stop for 15 min

7. Goto 3.0 Amps for 120 to 150 secs. need to check if WFC getting hot...if it does you need to reduce the time.

AFTER THE 7 STEPS ABOVE LET THE WFC STAND FOR ATLEAST AN HOUR BEFORE YOU START ALL OVER AGAIN. I used tap water for conditioning and no vinegar or any additives.... I donot know if adding something might work or not.

You would hardly see any gas generation at the beginning but it makes a lot of brown muck.....change the water after every cycle initially. DONOT touch the tubes with bare hands if the tube ends need to be cleaned of muck use a brush but donot touch!! As per my experience the brown muck if left in water for the next cycle heats up the water and you need to avoid this.

Then you see the reduction in generation of the brown stuff over a period of time and at a point the pipes dont make any brown stuff atall. You would have had very good generation of gas by now. You get a whitish powdery coat on the surfaces. Never touch the pipes with bare hands once this comes on.

DO THE CONDITIONING IN A WELL VENTILATED AREA OR PREFERRABLY CLOSE THE TOP AND VENT THE GAS OUT IN THE OPEN.

AS THE WFC IS LEFT ON FOR QUITE SOMETIME EVEN SMALL AMOUNT OF GENERATION CAN GET ACCUMULATED IN A CONSTRICTED SPACE AND COULD BE A HAZARD.



The above process to be done after annealing the pipes....see to it that no oxide formation is left on the pipes...use a detergent to wash off the pipes and rinse them thoroughly with fresh water.....assemble the setup including the leads and base.....finally flush the pipes with lots of fresh water......donot touch the pipes with bare hands after this.......


Good Luck and happy conditioning......RAVI 



I'll be away for a day or two....will get to more explaining after that.

Of course this is not the whole story but i hope this helps :-X
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: tulook on July 08, 2008, 05:48:27 AM
albert
Jr. Member
where is Ravi's stuff on this site btw ? ???

http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1602&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: HeairBear on July 08, 2008, 06:43:24 AM
I am still researching Stan Meyer's tech but I haven't found anything to write about yet that hasn't been already achieved. I'm going to try something other than the Lawton/Ravi style which isn't producing what I need. My opinion at the moment is that it doesn't work as well as Stan's, plus, the designs are not even close to what Stan's circuits show. I'm going to try the alternator version next. Every time he has been documented running this version, he always had it set for 5V 2A input, so, that will be my goal.

(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/136/meyeraltno2.jpg)

(http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3358/sany0242qs2.jpg)

(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1945/stansrotaryyb5.jpg)

The Lawton compared to Stan. Lawton's is a mix of two different devices Stan used. You be the judge.

(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6185/stansvicfw6.jpg)

(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1162/stanspwmtq6.jpg)


Lawton's original...
(http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/8316/lawtonbq4.jpg)
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farlander on July 09, 2008, 01:28:51 AM
Hi guys,

I was wondering Hydroman, where are your circuitry schematics?  You're device does seem to be superior in it's waveform generation and I'm about to purchase components so finding the best design is important.

Would you be willing to share?  I'm hoping to power my auto, heating, cooking with hydro.

Here is my latest plan, which needs verification by more educated members.  I will change the lawton circuit if I can find a better one!
(http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-snc1/v265/124/102/26004137/n26004137_31760433_990.jpg)
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: Farlander on July 12, 2008, 01:45:00 AM
HYDROMAN WHERE ARE YOU??

KISS

That oscope readout is the KEY
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: cleanfuture on July 16, 2008, 03:23:32 AM
Stan Meyer experimenters kits for sale on ebay. Item# 130239169501   
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: slider1 on July 16, 2008, 10:00:57 PM
HYDROMAN WHERE ARE YOU??

KISS

That oscope readout is the KEY

I agree. I think that no matter how you get there you need the step charge, High voltage is most important. One way to get there is with your PWM into a step up transformer output that signal into a full wave bridge. Now you have the pulse train that Meyer uses. When you take that signal and feed it to a capacitor or your WFC now you will get the STEP CHARGE effect this will keep charging until you have "catastrophic failure of the dielectric, (cap shorts out) then the pulse train starts again.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: canufi on June 02, 2012, 01:06:33 PM
Eg. A glass jar filled with electrolyte (water in our case), with an electrode immersed in the electrolyte in the jar, but with the other electrode on the outside of the jar. So the outer electrode could simply be a metal foil wrapped around the jar. We would then have glass as an insulator between the two electrodes. Due to the insulation properties of glass this would surely make for a relatively low loss capacitor. But then I have never seen this tried, so maybe there is a need for both electrodes to be in the electrolyte. Hence, the science is not quite as straight forward or obvious as many people would like to think.

This is impractical because Air has a dielectric breakdown. If you put the electrode outside the jar, you have to get rid of all the air since it will breakdown.  Think about it, why don't they make capacitors with the electrode outside the capacitor? Come on, don't be ridiculous.. they soak the electrode inside the capacitor.  Just because the capacitor has some impurities in it, doesn't mean it isn't a capacitor.. it's just a crappy capacitor which will break down easier, which may or may not benefit the entire process. We literally WANT the capacitor to break down to cause hydrogen production.   Water is a POOR conductor even with impurities in it, compared to something like copper.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: canufi on June 02, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
And here's an interesting snippet of info.  When water ionises it is an endothermic reaction (ie, it takes energy from the environment - in the form of heat).  Does this explain why Meyer-type wfc's remain cool whilst still giving of a lot of gas!!  Definitely worthy of further consideration.

The reason Stan's device runs cool is because he is turning water into a highly conductive plasma near the electrodes, whereas in regular electrolysis the water functions as a Resistor. A conductor, is much more efficient than a resistor. Light bulbs that have more resistance, are less efficient and produce more heat.  As you heat up water, you also increase Brownian Motion which Stan may be taking advantage of which means that the free electrons get bopped around in the water due to brownian motion. 

Stan may in fact be tapping into brownian motion and making a special Brownian Ratchet that functions on random movement instead of requiring specific movement. The brownian ratchet was considered a failure of perpetual motion because it doesn't perform useful work, it is random work. The idea that brownian motion is not perpetual since it is not useful work is a complete lie told by physicists to cover up the fact that brownian motion violates the thermodynamics laws.  Whether or not the motion is random or not has NOTHING to do with whether it is perpetual motion.  You can trap random movement and turn it into useful work, scientists are just too arrogant and stupid to realize how to trap the random movement so they build over simplistic devices like the Feynman Brownian Ratchet which is a straw man device.

The whole point of dielectric breakdown is to form a plasma which is ionic - spark plugs conduct electricity through air... and yes if there were minerals floating around in the air the spark plug would still work! Just because water has minerals in it doesn't mean the process is now regular electrolysis. Are you saying if air has mineral impurities in it all of a sudden spark plugs no longer function? Don't be silly - they just breakdown the air easier.

Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: canufi on June 02, 2012, 01:21:52 PM
Classic claims don't make sense and never did to anyone that understands that tap water is a very 'good' conductor.

Tap Water is a resistor, it's not a good conductor. A good conductor is Copper.

Water is a poor conductor.

Just because you can get electrocuted in a bath tub, doesn't mean water is a good conductor.  You can get electrocuted with a resistor.. Duh!

Resistors are not great conductors.  Good conductors are plasma and copper wire.

Before criticizing Stan, you should educate yourself a bit first. 

So how do you turn water into a good conductor to reduce heat? High voltage causing plasma!  Regular electrolysis did not cause plasma or good conduction using no salts or little salts as possible.  You can still form a plasma if there are impurities in the water - do you have evidence that you can't turn water into plasma if there are impurities? So if a spark plug arcs across air that has impurities or calcium particles.. the spark plug no longer works and no plasma is created? I doubt this very much.  It just means the spark plug breaks down the air easier since it finds a conductive path quicker than with pure air.
Title: Re: Meyer's WFC concept analysed
Post by: tejthemaverick on October 08, 2015, 12:05:14 PM
In order to build a wfc that works we need to understand the self ionization of water. its is a process occuring spontaneously and dissociated species soon recombine. this is a random process occurring all the time. now the energy required for this self dissociation of water comes from the vacuum inside the water molecule. allow me to explain the various states of water that exist in nature, of which hydrino is very important:
1. Covalent water==Steam
2. polar water==aqueous form
3. Ionised water== H2O-->(H+) + (OH)-

Now to understand the source of energy for the spontaneous dissociation of water into its ions, we have to understand the structure of the water. The bonds betwwen the oxygen atom and hydrogen atoms is covalent in nature, slightly polar. Now one of these hydrogen atoms drops to lower state below the ground state, effectively falling closer to the oxygen atom. This energy is utilised to dissociate the water. Thus an OH- ion contains oxygen atom and a hydrino atom.
Hydrino does not exist in nature, it only exists as a combined form in water. Therefore when a water molecule self ionises, one hydrogen drops below its current state and allows the dissociation of the other hydrogen atom.
Consider an electrolysis cell where one electrode, preferably anode is coated with a dielectric. Now this cell becomes a capacitor, with the water acting as a extension of the cathode
Now when the electric voltage is applied to the cell, hydrogen is produced at the cathode and the hydroxy ions pile up at the anode dielectric layer. When the voltage is removed the hydroxyl ions move towards the cathode much like a spring, releasing the electrons at the cathode, much like a typical capacitor, producing oxygen and H+ ions.

For conventional electrolysis to take place 2 electrons are required for every water molecule to be split. But what happens when only 1 electron is supplied? a hydroxyl radical will be produced(OH.). So in a water fuel cell only the cathode conducts, electrons enter the cell through the cathode and leave the cell at the cathode only. Thus the same number of electron which were supplied during charging are removed during disharge. since every electron supplied at charging produces one hydroxyl ion, same electron when discharged produces hydroxyl radical. Now since a thin layer of hydrogen seems to be adsorbed onto the cathode during charging, it reacts with the hydroxyl ions when the reach the cathode during disharge.

So overall reaction is like this:
Self ionisation
H2O---> (H+)+(OH-) (oh- is the hydrino-oxygen ion)

cATHODE
charging:
(H2O)+(1e-) ---->( H) + (OH-)
discharge
(OH-) - (1e-)---->(OH.) hydrino radical

total
(H)+(OH)---->HHO