Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.  (Read 71829 times)

Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2007, 09:30:35 PM »
Did a couple of initial tests today. It was getting late so I really just wanted to test my transistor output stage to ascertain that it worked.

I'll write up some actual figures from the test when I do it again tomorrow, but I was quite surprised by something that occured so I thought I'd give it a quick mention beforehand.

I placed my ss test cell in de-ionised water and applied 10v olt straight dc. As expected there were no visible signs of gas and the current draw was just 1 milliamp.  I upped the voltage to 31 vdc and again, no visible signs of gas. Ammeter read 3 milliamps @ 31 vdc.

Used my newly built transistor output stage (which works fine) and pulsed at various voltages (unmodulated) between 8kHz and 28khz. Again no visible signs of gas given off, though current drawn seemed considerably higher at 10v than straight dc- will record results doing retest tomorrow.

So, everything as expected to this point.  Then I had a surprise. I switched off the power and saw that a voltage was maintained across my test cell. It dropped immediately from 10 volts to around 5.5volts, then steadily dropped a little at a time.  I stood there for a good five minutes while the test cell held the voltage, by this time it had dropped to around 2 volts, but as it was getting late I decided that would do for now and I'd retest properly next time. 

So it would appear that my test cell does indeed exhibit capacitance and is capable of holding a charge. Before I left I decided to short out the cell plates in oder to confirm that it was charges on the plates that were providing the voltage.  This I did, the voltmeter promptly dropped to 0 volts, however.... and this is the bit that surprised me, when I took away the shorting wire, I was gobsmacked to see the voltmeter reading a steady rise in voltage.  I looked on amazed as the voltage steadily rose from 0 v to just under the 2 volts it had been at before I shorted the plates. I then shorted out the plates a lot more times, each time the voltmeter zeroed, only to charge back up when I took the short away.  I could not seem to deplete the charge as would happen instantly with a normal capacitor.

Very interesting.

My test cell as you will have seen has a couple of floating plates, so tomorrow I'll short them out to the cathode and redo the test again to see if charges held on the floating plates were the reason, Though I did consider this at the time and attempted to short them all out, but still the voltage reappeared and rose.

Tomorrow I intend to log voltage, current, times on, off, how long to discharge, etc.

That's all for now.

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2007, 08:39:47 PM »
Hello Farrah Day,

your observation is based on the ohms-law. Using the figures of your measurement the formula
U = R * I  deliveres a value of 10,33 KiloOhm inner resistance of your de-ionisised water. Now you put into yout water-volume  93 millitwatt Power a second at a voltage level of 31 Volt.

Upon disconnecting the supply and waiting  until voltage dropped to 2 Volt you shorted the cell. But this time you have a discharge-current of 2Volt/10.33 Kilo-Ohm -> I = 193 *10 exp -6 ( myko-Ampere ).
This of course takes much more time to remove the stored charge, depending mainly of the time you have charged up your watercell

Indeed water can be charged up a lot as Dr. Stiffler has experience himself getting a heavy schock after charging 150 ml of water with 3 000 Volt.

Keep up your systematic work. I like your approach especially your scepticism concerning the claims of S.Meyer

Regards

Kator


Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2007, 11:41:04 PM »
Hi Kator

I'm not sure I fully follow what you're saying, as though I understand that it will have took a time to charge up the plates of my cell with a very small current flow, surely when I short them, the current flow can surge largely unrestricted and deplete the charges within the blink of an eye.  This it did as my voltmeter immediately zeroed.

If I charge up a large electrolytic capacitor over a given time, by shorting the terminals it will discharge fast and completely with a very high current. Thats what I was expecting my cell to do.

For the plates to charge back up, yes surely this implies that the water holds a charge, but how can this be, it's deionised water... there are no ions in it, so no charge carriers.  And what would make charges in the water then attracted to uncharged plates again?  Always in the same polarity.

I find that 10 volts applied for 2 minutes drawing a current of 0.009 amps or 9 milliamps, leaves me with 0.5 of a volt across the cell after 5 minutes with the power off. After 12 minutes I still had 0.35 of a volt.  I disconnected the power supply and the voltmeter and left the cell.  About an hour later I put the voltmeter across the cell and found that it now read 2 volts.

* Furthermore, if I had my voltmeter probe connected to the central cathode and placed my probe directly in the water about an inch away from my cell I had a reading of 1.4 volts. If I now connected my positive probe to the outer tube of my cell (the anode) and placed my -ve probe in the water about an inch away from the anode, my meter read -1.2 volts (note the -ve polarity there).  Could the cell have been discharging through my voltmeter, maybe. I'll have to do the test again and this time not check with my meter until after a set time. *Correction, this measurement was taken with tap water, which obviously contains ions. Doing this test with de-ionised water gave me no voltage drop from cathode to water.

Need to give this all some thought as I would not have expected to get a voltage drop from the water itself without power.  Exactly how can de-ionised water hold a charge??

OK, to add further to my dilemma, once out of the water and dry, in the air, my cell has a reading of 1.5 volts across it.
 
It's funny how the simplest of little experiments already has me scratching my head.

I find this all extremely interesting though.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 04:42:36 PM by Farrah Day »

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2007, 12:32:03 PM »
Hey Farrah Day,

unfortunately I have to confine my comments to some basics because of a lack of time :

1 ) you understood that the inner resistance of your water-reservoir is 10 333 Ohm ?
2) If you short the plates the current flowing out of the cell  is limited by this inner resistance->
    I = U / R = 193 *10 exp -6 ( myko-Ampere ).
3) Any given amount of charge you have pumped in at 31 V discharges much slower a 2 Volt. In order to get a correct estimation :
   You first have to feed in a definite charge - lets say for 5 miniutes at 31 Volt and measuring at the same
    time the current. Then you have the total charge ( of 5 min ) in Watt-seconds
    Pin = u*I*time = 31 V * 3 milliamps * 300 sec  = 0.093 Watt * 300 sec = 27.9 Watt-sec = Joule

4) this very same calculation done at a level of 2 Volt and I = 193 *10 exp -6 ( myko-Ampere )
   gives you powerout per second of : 0.386 milliwatt/sec
5) 27.9 Wattsec pumped in devided by 0.386 milliwatt/sec = 72 279 sec / 3600 sec = 20.07 Hours
   Suprise, eh ?
   I am suprised myself because I myself have not done this calculation before.
  This means you would need 20 Hours to take all the charge out you have put in in 5 minutes.
  No surprise that the voltage builds up again after shorting a few seconds ( even minutes). And if you take
  out the cell an dry it a rest charge from the water-reservoir is transfered to the plates.

  Have you tried to discharge the dry cell-plates and measure voltage after that ?

6 ) But there is a mistake in this calc because the charge flowing out is much lower because of the
    fact that the voltage upon shorting the cell is almost Zero.The cell has a dynamic behaviour. So my calculation is the most optimistic case of a dicharge current at 2 Volt.

6) Now upon discharging the inner cell resistance will increase because conducting charge-carriers are
    removed and so the discharge process even goes much slower then.

7) Even if you use destilled water ( inner resistance is about 2 Meg-ohm ) water will hold charge. I have
    not done experiments on this but i will in the near future.

8) water is a complex thing and I really would like to introduce you into some scientific work of a
   german scientist ( biology) who discovered the dense water ( 1.3 to 1.5 gramm/cm exp3 specific
   weight)   which coexists with normal water at a certain percentage. But his work is only available in
   german language and I do not have the time to translate all this.
   Even in destilled water you have a fluctuation amount of H+ atoms which gives the ph-value ( about
   6 to 6.3 is for example is a normal low acidic value in fresh made reversed-osmosis-water )

So as you see this is a very complex system. But please do not get mentally blocked by the above statements. It is necessary to just go on and do systematic work. I just try to give you all of what I have learned from this scientist and from some good friend who is an electroic professional.

I even dare to say that de-ionisised water which ist pumped full of a certain amout of charge might be a good object for water-splitting studies because the charges remain and increase the voltage-level which aids to the necessary water-splitting energy.But this is just an unprooven idea.

Regards

Kator


Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2007, 01:11:01 PM »
Thanks for that Kator, you're info is very thoughtful and I'm really finding this all very intriguing.

Water surely does seem to exhibit some strange properties.

Will be doing a few more tests again today.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 05:26:08 PM by Farrah Day »

Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2007, 05:24:39 PM »
Kator

Just trying to get my head around things at present.

I found out today that my PSU, once switched off creates a discharge path for my test cell. If instead of simply switching it off, I remove it from the cct altogether my test cell holds more charge for longer.

Today, with my test cell in de-ionised water, I applied 31 volts for just 1 minute. Current reading was fairly stable at 70 mA. With PSU off (but still connected), I recorded the following voltages across my test cell:

Voltage after discharging for 1 min = 1.7v, after 2 min = 1.3v

Now if I do the same test but remove my PSU from the cct, so just leaving my multimeter across the cell, I get:

Voltage after discharging for 1 min = 4.2v, after 2 min = 3.7v. After 5 mins I still have a reading of 2.7v across my cell.

Ok, here's something interesting again.  I repeated the 2nd test, but this time immediately lifted my test cell out of the de-ionised water, only to find this made no significant difference to the voltages.  Hence, my test cell is standing on my work top, out of the water, the PSU disconnected and reading 4.1v after 1 min, 3.6v after 2 min and curiously 3.1 after 5 min. At 10 minutes it still had 2.5 volts across it.

Nothing I could do would discharge it faster than it wanted to go. I short out the plates and watched the voltage rise to the previous level and then continue to drop very slowly at it's predetermined rate.

This is where I'm struggling Kator.  If my capacitor has a voltage across it of 3.5 volts, charged plates shorted via a thick piece of copper wire would surely re-address the charge imbalance almost instantly. But this does not happen...Why?

The danger with large capacitors holding there charge is well known, but the danger comes from the fact that they can discharge through us very quickly at high current. My cell doesn't seem to be co-operating in this way.

I know that charge and voltage are two different things, in that I can have two capacitors reading identical voltages, with very different amounts of charge, but shorting them out means that one will discharge at a higher current than the other. But they will both discharge. Why won't my bloody cell discharge?

For my voltmeter to show a reading again, it must mean there is a difference in potential between the tubes. If this is caused by charges on my tubes, as you say, I must not have depleted them when I shorted the cell. But what makes my cell different to a normal capacitor that would discharge completely?

Could the charges be sitting on the other side of the chromium oxide layer, so somewhat insulated from my attempts a shorting the cell?  If so, how did they get there as this would mean that they have come from the de-ionised water?

At present I'm more than a little baffled by all this... what am I missing?

Tomorrow I'm going to experiment with the cell dry and see if it will charge up the same in air.



« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 11:56:11 PM by Farrah Day »

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2007, 12:35:00 AM »
Hey Farrah Day,

Ah I had this feeling, that your systematic approach will pay off even if the results are confusing.
Please tell me ( I am a bloody german missing some words in english ) what is this term cct ?

What you describe here from your experiments clearly shows that part of the charge
is stored in a thin layer on the surface of the cell-plates and the other is in the water-reservoir.

I don`t think you are missing something. Very intersting thing. I always had the idea that the key is the
surface since there the splitting-process occurs.

Now as a next step I would suggest to meassure with one neutral plate against ground what voltage there is in the water after you have removed the active cell-plates. Or if you have a new cell-plates-set - immerge this and measure across the plates  ( in this case I would not expect any voltage ).

What you have found is a clear indication that the remaining charge is concentrated in a very thin layer
on the plate-surface.

What voltage is there across the plates if they are dry after 30 or 60 minutes ( let them dry and do not short them) ?

There must be something happening in this thin layer. I simply do not know. I will ask the scientist I mentioned in my last post.

As a next step I would use destilled water and step up with the voltage until there is a small current in order to find out if there is the same thing happening.

I remember a conversation with this scientist ( Dr. Augustin : http://www.dichtes-wasser.de/ )
where we discussed the purity of destilled water. He said : you want pure destilled water which does not contain any remaining elements - ultrapure water ? You have to destill it 6 times in very special cleaned vessels !

Now, you see, even with one time destilled water you have about 1 to 2 Meg-Ohm inner resistance. This means a lot of remaining impurities.

I would give it a try with 1 time destilled water and try to condition the plates in order to find out if there is forming a layer on the surface. This takes time - maybe weeks.

Another thought : transmutation ?  or a semiconductor-layer forming ?

I will come back soon when I have reached this guy. You can count on this.

Suggestion : write about your findings to Aarons page here http://www.hydrogentap.com/hydrogentap_001.htm

He has a lot of experience  and discovered  a long standing voltage after he shut the cell-power off.
Ask him.

Regards

Kator








clane121

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2007, 01:00:51 AM »
Photons? Anyone?

UncleFester

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2007, 01:12:12 AM »
Hi guys,

Low voltage only repeats the age old process of electrolysis, and thus results in line with Faraday will be seen to this end. Meyer process is high voltage at nearly no current. Took me 6 months of testing to figure this out since I was thinking along the lines of straight DC high current electrolysis. When I had talked with Stan while he was alive he didn't give much information out, although it was clear he was not the main engineer behind the process, but rather his brother Steve was.

My results in a small cell using 1200VDC (Pulsed square wave - or as close to square as you can get at that potential = ). .010 to .015 Amperes of current. Input bounced between 12-18 watts total. Frequency of this particular cell was 42.8Khz, but it has become apparent that frequency does not matter, only that the cell appears to have a particular frequency it will produce gas at. Going above or below this frequency the gas production would stop entirely. This made more sense later as I began to understand that endothermic reactions differ greatly compared to exothermic, and this process is endothermic. The cell always cooled down by at least 2 degrees F when running for 30 minutes or more. This also became frustrating in that when the cell temperature would change, it would stop producing gas. If the frequency was raised it would produce gas again. Which then lead me to believe that it would only work with a feedback loop control to the frequency generator, microprocessor, etc.

My small cell consisted of 6 tubes with 1mm gap, your gap is too large for this process! I tried 3/8 gap since this cell was using that size gap when I used it for standard electrolysis before attempting this replication, and it didn't work.

My results were 200 LPH (Liter per hour) for 12-18 watts, or 16 LPH per watt
Ravi's results were 2.74 LPH per watt

Either result is amazing when compared to high current electrolysis, and even the fact that I was using no electrolyte, but only single pass steam distilled water it should not by standard law have produced ANY gas at all!

I don't have much time to discuss this but I figured this might help you in your understanding of the process. I will try and answer your questions as time permits me.

Tad

Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2007, 11:04:35 AM »
Thanks for that Tad,

I'll bear what you said in mind, but at this stage I'm not worried about pulsing or gas production. I'm currently simply trying to understand how and why my cell is holding the charge the way it is.  Working from the foundations upward I hope to gain a better understanding of the processes involved as I progress.

I'm eager to get pulsing and upping the voltage, etc, but I want to learn to walk before I run.

Kator, 'cct' is just an abreviation we use for 'circuit'. And, your English is much better than many first language English speakers on both this and other forums.

Will do some more tests today an come back later.

Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2007, 03:00:36 PM »
Ok Kator

Overnight on my workbench in air, my test cell completely discharged... '0 volts' at last!

Bone dry, I tried to charge it up in air. Nothing happened. Left my PSU set at 31 volts across the cell for 5 mins, still no charge whatsoever. 

Put it back into my de-ionised water and it read 0.30 volt. This incidentally is the reading I get if I put my meter probes into the de-ionised water without the cell.

At least then, I know that my test cell is fully discharged and nothing in the water is causing it to recharge.

Now I apply 31 volts for 10 minutes @ 62 mA.

At 10 minutes I disconnect PSU. 1 minute after PSU disconnection, test cell shows 4.2 volts, after 2 mins = 3.7 volts, after 5 mins = 3.1 volts, and after 10 minutes = 2.5 volts. 4 hours later test cell still shows 1.5 volts.

If I take the test cell out of the de-ionised water, it still holds it's charge, and while wet, it will charge up again from the PSU.  As I am using pieces of laboratory rubber test tube stoppers to space the tubes, I assume that this must be due to the physical contact surface water is creating between the tubes, via these rubber spacers. Once these rubber spacers dry out, then I can not recharge my test cell.

Now, here's something else. I can rechage my cell out of the water whilst the rubber spacers are still wet, but this drastically reduces the current flow. If I recharge the wet cell on my workbench and apply 31 volts for just 1 minute just drawing a current of only 2 mA, then I get the following discharge rates:

With the PSU disconnected. after 1 minute, cell = 3.8 volts, after 2 mins = 3.5 volts, after 5 mins = 3.1 volts and after 10 minutes = 2.5 volts.

It appears then that I can obtain nearly the same discharge voltages from applying 31 volts for 10 minutes at 62  milliamps, as I get from 31 volts for just 1 minute at only 2 milliamps. Now, I have to assume that the amount of charges on the tubes will be vastly different, but it shows that it does not take a long charging period to obtain equal discharge voltages.

From an observation point, my test cell back in the de-ionised water, with 31v @ 62ma, I find that I can see no gas being given off initially. Then after about half a minute, there is noticeable reaction at my centre cathode - nothing at the floating tubes or anode. After about 5 mins, there is relatively vigorous gas production at the cathode, and some discernable gas production on floating plates and anode. This action I would expect to increase daily as my de-ionised water is exposed to the air and so will gradually become more contaminated. That said, current drain is remaining steady @ 62mA, which is the same as day one.

Again today, I found that once charged, nothing I could do would discharge the test cell faster than it wanted to go. Which is a bit of a pain as it means if I want to do tests from '0 volts' I have to wait for the cell to discharge overnight, and then just have one shot at it until the next day!

Crazy! But, totally fascinating stuff!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:10:07 AM by Farrah Day »

clane121

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2007, 04:10:37 PM »
Hi Farrah Day,

To elaborate on my earlier comment, do you suppose that your charge is coming from photons, or a photoelectric effect?

Basically, your cell is a capacitor. The outer tubes predominant exposure to visible light, miniscule -x-ray radiation and/or other forms of electromagnetic radiation, causing a small charge on your cell. This would seem to make sense in view of the fact that you inner tubes are somewhat shielded from this by the outer tube, which may cause the potential difference between the plates.

This does seem to be somewhat in line with the "Hertz Effect" or photoelectric effect. By the same token, I'm no scientist, nor educated in that field. So, my observation is a guess at best. 

BTW, this observation was only in reference to your returning charge after the cell had been shorted and gained a charge seemingly out of nowhere.   

It's nice to see your systematic approach and I'll look forward to seeing your progress.

I am new on this forum and it's nice to see a community this dedicated and willing to share knowledge.

CLane121

Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2007, 05:24:31 PM »
Hi Clane

I'm not attributing anything to photons, as the test cell does eventually discharge.  If it were photons charging it then it would never totally discharge, and indeed recharge in daylight... it doesn't.  No, its due to the electric current, I just can't explain why I can't instantly discharge it.

Thinking about it, I don't think that the cell was necessarily charging back up once I'd shorted it.  The voltmeter would instantly zero because I'm effectively shorting its terminals too, but would then take a few moments to re-establish its reading once I removed the short.  The charges are obviously not in direct contact with the surface of the tubes, but must be sitting on the other side of the chromuim oxide layer.  As this is an insulator, my shorting the cell has no effect on these charges.  At least that's my current theory.

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2007, 10:57:47 PM »
Hi Farrah Day,

you are really making progress. Your results give a indication to what I mentioned in an  earlier post of mine : charge might be stored in the thin water-layer covering the plate-surface. It has to to with the dense-water-finding of Dr. Augustin. Now it becomes necessary for me to prepare a short intro to this subject. It will take some time. It seems this thin dense - water - layer ( can be as thin as one atom diameter ) is the conductive path for both effects ( recharging the wet cell outside of the cell via rubber-bridge and keeping up the voltage although decreasing in time)

Although there seems to be no connecting line to what Tad said- but there is a phaenomenon which occurs if a high-voltage-charge is applied to a water-volume ( in this case it was tap-water )
You can read it here at Dr.Stiffler website :

http://www.stifflerscientific.com/

Please go to :

Water and High Voltage Effects #2

If you scroll down the page to the last picture you can see a vertical water-membrane moving along the acryl-tube. When I showed this picture to Dr. Augustin he said : this is a water-membrane consisting of the dense water ( 1.5 gramm / cm exp^3 ). High charge-density seems to influence the dense to normal-water - ratio and if there is a potential between the water-surface and the acryl-tube-surface one membrane-layer  lifts of the watersurface and thus a new water-membrane is building on the surface. But this again needs additional energy. He said that this is another proof of his theory.

In order to increase this dense-water-to normal-water-ratio one can either boil water for 20 minutes or degas the water which is best done via a supersonic-transducer immersed in the water or a glas of water resting in a supersonic-cleaner-device.

But this is just a secondary step in the future.

Now concerning increasing contamination : Do you have the money to buy a device which is measuring the ppm in water ? These instruments are build by Hanna-Instruments and are designed for different ppm-levels.

Here are the two type in question :

Dist-Series HI 98 311 which is for normal water measuring in myco-siemens and ppm
Dist-Series PWT HI 98 308 for pure-water ( destilled water)  ( 1- 99 myko-siemens )

You may find these instruments in shops for aquaristic-equipment and the price is about 60 Dollar each.

Mykosiemens = inverse of R ( Ohm ) so 2 Megohm  eq 0.5 mykosiemens

It depends which way you choose : Using destilled water for future basic tests  or tap-water and de-ionisied water which still holds a lot of minerals depending on the reversed-osmosis-process used.

If you buy this kind of water some information must be given on the tag of the bottle.

Any questions ?

Hope I have not made this too complex but I am almost sure it has to do with thin  dense-membran.

Regards

Kator





Farrah Day

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2007, 12:08:49 AM »
Some interesting stuff on that link Kator.

Water and high voltage effects #1 seemed to produce very similar effects to that which I'm seeing.  Will study it further, while I consider my next experiment.