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 November 22, 2007, 05:55:54 PM
-
Ok folks,
I'm getting very close to being able to put some of my theories to the test, and thought that some of you might be interested in following my wfc design and build.
My acrylic tube has just arrived, however, I've decided now that I need more SS tubing to realise my design, so that's been ordered today.
On this thread I intend to do as others have done and record various phases of my wfc build, detailing my procedures and findings as applicable.
However, unlike many I won't just be throwing it all together and hoping to get lots of gas. What I intend to do is methodically work through the build, doing various tests and measurements as I go in order to try and determine what really is occuring. With the aid of various electronic test equipment at my disposal I intend to apply all manner of voltages, waveforms, pulses, etc, as well as using tap and de-ionised water in the cell, monitoring results as I go.
My first step will be the design and construction of the cell itself. This will consist of the 110mm clear acrylic tube and 110mm pvc waste pipe fittings and so be similar in external appearance to Dave Lawtons and Rav's. That however is where the similarities end. I am designing a cell that should be far more efficient in terms of size than any I have seen, to date.
I am using a total of 20 x 16" ss tubes, with 9 x 16" ss threaded bars as cathodes. In order to make the most of the available space within the acrylic tube I will be using concentric floating tubes with solid cathodes at the centre. Initially I will do some straight dc, normal electrolysis measurements to give me a control figure. I'll be using a high quality Farnell PSU in order to get the best dc I can and hence the most accurate resulting figures in terms of voltage, current and power dissipated.
I have attached a diagram of this design for your viewing.
I'll take pics as I go and attach them when applicable.
Farrah Day
-
Cool, I was hesitant to build one of these myself, I can't wait to see your results! Good luck!
-
OK, the project now begins in earnest.
I have all my materials, and plenty of test equipment to keep me very occupied for awhile.
-
Prototype wfc housing is taller than it needs to be in order to allow me to see the gas production, which would otherwise be hidden by the grey top section.
Now just a matter of putting it all together!
-
Decent regulated and stabilised Farnell TSV70 Mk2 PSU, will provide up to 35V @ 10A or 70V @ 5A.
-
For anyone that's interested, I've converted an old greenhouse, removed the roofing glass and replaced it with a solid wooden roof
For safety I have fitted a dedicated extractor fan in the apex. I also have a greenhouse fan heater fitted high on the opposite wall; this not only provides heat to keep me warm, but also has an open electric filament along with another fan option. Hopefully then, I won't get any hydrogen build-ups if I'm experimenting without containing the gas.
The equipment shown are:
Goldstar 20MHz dual trace scope
Racal-Dana 9905 Universal Counter Timer
Coultant LC60 PSU
Hewlett-Packard 5316B 2 channel Universal Counter
Dana-Exact Function Generator Model 7271
E-H Research Laboratories Pulse Generator Model 139L
Compton-Parkinson 30 Amp adjustable range Ammeter
Also, not shown:
Farnell DM131 Digital Bench Multimeter
Farnell DM141 Digital Bench Multimeter
Electrostatic Locator
Griffiin HT 400v supply
Advance Audio Frequency Generator
Ex-RAF Geiger Counter
-
Just remember the basics of the patent.
A minimal of five pulses of a single polarity increasing voltage, followed by an equal timed dead zone, followed by the same previous wave.
Doing armchair research is not really productive but I have found that no one seems to be doing this. Everyone appears to be using double polarity or single polarity with a full duty cycle.
Also, his pipe clearances were around .060".
Rich
-
Hi Outhere
I'm afraid I don't trust a single thing that Meyer said or wrote, either in his patents or his technical briefs, so I'll be doing things my own way right from the start. Why a minimal of 5 pulses? What's happening in the 'dead time'? Why does the duty rate need to be 50%? Meyer said a lot of things, but explained very little.
I don't now what you mean by double polarity?
I do know that Meyer's rising pulses were probably just a figment of his imagination as I can't see how this would happen in his resonant charging cct.
Anyway, for everyones interest I'll be detailing my experiments, observations and results as I go.
-
Does/did Meyer then think he has negative resistance in his design? Just a comment.
-
If you'd asked Meyer that question, I'm sure you would have received a very blank look, followed by a lot of on-the-spot waffle!
-
Nice setup you have there! So what are you going to drive the cell with to begin with?
-
Hi SG
While I have the materials to construct my full prototype, I've actually built a small test cell for some initial experiments.
The first thing I will be doing is a contolled experiment. I'll be dropping the test cell (unconditioned) into de-ioised water and comparing dc electrolysis against pulsed under the same conditions.
I expect dc electrolysis to produce next to nothing in terms of gas. If I get any amount of gas production from dc pulsed then I will hope to find out why, with my test equipment at my aid.
-
Test cell from the top.
-
As I'll be using a function generator to provide my pulses during testing, I don't need the 555 timer chips, just the transistor output stage to switch the power.
To this end I've attached a schematic of the output stage I'll be using. Power will be provided by my Farnell stabilised PSU set at 10 volts.
-
My power transitor output stage built and ready. This output stage should be able to take the inductive load of a car ignition coil if I want to experiment with some high voltage pulses... but that's later.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (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
-
Photons? Anyone?
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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/ (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
-
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.
-
Left my test cell in the de-ionised water overnight and it still read 0.7 volts this morning.
Took my test cell apart today.
I roughed it up, inside and out with a fine sandpaper, cleaned all the residues off and put it back together.
Now, under the same conditions as previously, in de-ionised water with 31 volts, I draw a current of 120mA from the PSU. Twice that I did before.
Discharge times/voltages remain unaltered.
I assume that I have increased the surface area of my tubes by around double by my etching action, and hence the cells capacitance too. So I would now expect my cell to be capable of holding twice the charge it did previously.
I also made up a smaller test cell, 5" long with a 3/4" dia tube inside a 1" dia tube. This cell has only 1/16th inch space between the tubes.
When placed in my de-ionised water, and fed 31 volts, it draws 0.5 Amp, and produces a considerable amount of gas from the deionised water.
With PSU removed, my discharge voltages are much lower than the larger test cell, but it still holds its charge.
After 1 min = 1.4 volts, 2 mins = 1.1 volts and 5 mins = 0.7 volts
What I am thinking now is, if the potential required to initiate electrolysis of my small test cell is, let's say, 2 volts, then I will only need to apply a dc pulse periodically to keep the voltage topped up. If after 1 minute my cell still exhibits a voltage of 1.4 volts, then I only need to effectively add 0.6 of a volt to initiate electrolysis, rather than the full 2 volts.
Of course, ideally we would not want it to drop below the 2 volts at all, in order that electrolysis was continually taking place. So the most efficient scenario would be to find the correct pulse frequency to maintain this 2 volts continually, but no more than necessary.
Now, although there is no relationship between the size of my larger test cell or the smaller one, one thing immediately strikes me. After I minute of discharging, my small 2 tube test cell still shows a voltage of 1.4 volts. My much larger test cell, with its 2 floating plates shows 4.2 volts after 1 minute of discharge. If I divide 4.2 volts by the number of cells (3) I have exactly 1.4 volts... the same as my small test cell! I can not see this as being a coincidence.
I need to make a large 2 tube cell to see if I can corroborate this 1.4 volts per cell pd after 1 minute. I also want to make a copper test cell up to see if it too exhibits this charge retention capability.
Incidentally, I find that if, for example I'm discharging my large test cell and leave it for an hour, I only have to momentarily touch the PSU power leads to the test cell to get the discharge voltage way back up.
Basic stuff, I know, but nevertheless very intriguing.
-
Not yet had chance to do any tests with a copper tube cell, hopefully do this tomorrow.
Today I upped the voltage across my large test cell to 70 volts, which drew approximately 200 mA from the supply.
Even in the de-ionised water, at this voltage, it was giving off gas considerably.
However, it is clear that upping the voltage does not effect the discharge time/voltage, as the results were the same as for 31 volt tests.
It would appear then that my test cells will hold the same amount of charge irrelevant of how much voltage I apply or for how long, once this charge threshold for my cell is reached. The extra charge of the higher voltages and respective current flow is actively used up in electrolysis, so that once I remove the PSU, the same remaining amount of charge is left every time, to discharge at its own pace.
Why?
Of course... I'm below the electrolysis threshold voltage! How did I not see this??
So, once I remove my PSU, electrolysis takes place for a finite amount of time, but then the voltage rapidly drops below the voltage level that is needed to maintain electrolysis. However, there are still charges within the electrodes (-ve electrons and +ve holes), and -ve and +ve ions waiting on the surface. From this point on, only very slow leakage of charges occurs, and as the cell slowly discharges, the lower the voltage drops, so the slower and slower discharges, etc, etc. Makes sense now.
That is of course why it doesn't matter what size or shape my electrodes/tubes are. Now I always give the figure for the cell discharging against time, but if I look at the voltage across my large test cell at the instant I disconnect the PSU from the cell, then it momentarily reads 5.8/5.9 volts. This will be just under the electrolysis threshold voltage, which for my large test cell will then be around 6 volts, or 2 volts per cell. All sounds right now, doesn't it.
So, now I'm thinking that the ss chromuim oxide layer at this point is doing absolutely nothing. When I etched my tubes with sandpaper, I had not increased the capacitance, but I had indeed increased the tube surface area, and hence the increase in current.
Why cant I discharge my cell instantly? Well, quite simply, I cannot remove the ions off the electrodes in the water, so shorting my cell does nothing!
Time to reconsider things, methinks.
-
Having now realised how stupid I've been above, I think it's time to try to develop the oxide layer on my large test cell to see what can be gleamed from this.
I have placed the large test cell in tap water for this, otherwise I can't draw enough current from the PSU. 31 volts @ 768 mA when I left it.
So, at this point I must assume that the ss protective oxide layer on my test cells to be far too thin to realistically act as a dielectric or insulator of any kind, and hence it is effectively doing nothing in terms of capacitance.
I read that Ravi states that big bubbles were achieved once he had conditioned his electrodes. He no longer had the small bubbles forming on the electrodes, just big bubbles occuring. Now this would lead me to think that the oxide layer is now too thick for the ions in the water to easily exchange charges with the electrodes through this insulation, hence no small bubble formation. However every now and then, as the charges build up, a voltage spike will cause a weak area in the oxide layer to break down. The causes localised and rapid ionisation due to large charge build up occurs, and hence the big bubble formation.
Will periodically check my test cell to see what is happening and report back. In the meantime I'm going to finish boxing my D14 cct.
-
ravi said he used dish detergent. 8)
-
Curiosity got the better of me and I decided to make up yet another small test cell.
I managed to find some alloy tube of 1 and 3/4 inch outside diameter to use as an anode, and cut some ss tube to use as a cathode inside this.
The cell is 6 inches long, with the space between the outer alloy (primarily aluminium) electrode, and the inner ss electrode just over 1 mm.
Placed this test cell in normal tap water and ran it for about half hour under normal dc electrolysis, with 10 volts at around 1.5 A.
Quite surprised then when I disconnected the PSU as in previous tests with my ss test cells to find that the voltage immediately drops to just a fraction of a volt (0.3v). Tried this a few times always with the same result; unlike ss cells, this electrode configuration holds next to no charge for any discernable period of time!
As I was using fresh tap water, and in case there was some unknown or unnoticed difference in my method, I immediately repeated the test with my small ss test cell. After only a few minutes, my small ss test cell behaved just as it always did and held the charge as detailed in posts above.
So, what is this test telling me?
Well, apart from not getting the results I expected, I'm not quite sure yet.
It could be due to the electrochemical difference between the ss and alloy electrodes, but nevertheless I had expected the protective aluminium oxide layer to act as some form of dielectric barrier, and hence hold a charge.
I need to try this test again now, but using alloy for both anode and cathode to eliminate the electrochemical potential difference, and so see if I get a different result.
Whatever the outcome of another alloy test, clearly ss at least, has the desirable property of holding a charge.
-
Not yet been able to get another ali tube with which to test a full ali only cell.
But I am now wondering if the fact that my ss/ali test cell would not hold a charge is due to the ali being a very good conducter whereas ss is not. Ali is at least 20 times better at conducting than ss, so it would have more free electrons. Could it be that a lack of free electrons in my full ss test cell is what causes the voltage to remain?
I.e., I have ions on the plates from the water but not enough free electrons within the plates to react with once the power is turned off!
More food for thought.
-
Farrah Day.
You might want to check my last post http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3742.new.html#new when using aluminum tubes. Aluminum will be sacrificed if there is any other metal in your process.
Jack
-
Hi,
w.r.t. using water as dielectric medium
Remember that water molecule is a dipole. This means that water molecules between charged plates will allign themselves with layers of dipoles between the plates, forming themselves small capacitors.
So in effect you will have a series of water "molecule layer" capacitors between the electrodes.
This is partly I think why it will take some time to drain the capacitor when shorting the "outer" electrodes....
-
Further to our discusions on other threads, I thought it more appropriate to continue this experiment here.
As I write I have my large test cell sitting in tap water with an added 1/2 teaspoon of calcium hydroxide (approx 1/2 teaspoon per 2 litre of tap water)
This calcium hydroxide is otherwise known as 'slaked lime' or 'hydrated lime', and is readily available from local builders merchants. Note: It is an alkaline and an irritant so some care is needed when using it.
I only wanted a cupful of the stuff, but it was not available in any smaller amount than 25Kg bags. Anyhow, as it only cost ?8.50 for the 25Kg bag this was not a problem.
I've mixed in the calcuim hydroxide which immediately makes the water look milky. Current through my test cell also immediately went up, so some of it obviously ionises.
Time will tell, but I'm not yet convinced doing it this way will work as the chemistry might be wrong. What I mean is that simply adding the calcium hydroxide to the water may not create the right reaction to cause it to deposit on my electrodes, as the stuff normally deposited on my electrodes is a product of a reaction, probably with calcium carbonate. What I think that I really want to do is increase the amount of calcium carbonate in the water. Perhaps some limestone and a pestle and mortar are the way to go... But hey, I'm getting ahead of myself, my test cell has only been operating in the solution for 2 hours!
-
Ok, just a quick update.
After 5 hours at around 8 volts and .26 amp, my test cell does not appear to be showing any signs of getting the required coating after being immersed in the calcium hydroxide solution. Took it out and let it dry, but it actually looks cleaner than it did before I started, suggesting as I suspected, that this is not the way to proceed.
Anyone want to buy 25kgs of hydrated lime? (minus 1/2 teaspoon, that is)
Tomorrow I'm going to try again, this time by grinding up some blackboard chalk to see if things improve.
I really think it's possible to speed up the conditioning process, it's just a matter of getting the chemistry right.
-
Farrah Day,
Scale (calcium carbonate) is the undesirable consequence of water becoming super-saturated with dissolved minerals, pH, temperature, and pressure. Temperature might be the easiest factor to try for WFC tube conditioning.
It is common for chemicals to be added to achieve a chemical/mineral effect, so increasing the scaling tendency. Scaling deposits are very common in water subject to changes in pressure or temperature.
Super Saturation Effect on Scale Formation
Aqueous solutions can become supersaturated. Such solutions are not stable and are easily triggered into dropping back to saturation level, forcing the dissolved compound to precipitate. Even when a bulk solution is less than fully saturated, scale formation can occur spontaneously due to localized super saturation, at a surface for example.
pH Effect on Scale Formation
The pH of the water solution is directly related to its acid content (typically carbonic acid). The higher the acid content, the lower the pH number. The solubility of calcium carbonate is directly affected by the pH of the water. If the pH of the water is decreased, more calcium carbonate solid can be dissolved. Conversely, if the pH of the water rises, it will force calcium carbonate out of solution and hence scale deposits will form.
Temperature Effect on Scale Formation
Gases in general, and specifically carbon dioxide, are less soluble in water at high temperatures.
Therefore, as the temperature rises, the dissolved carbon dioxide decreases. This increases the pH of the fluid, reducing the solubility of the calcium carbonate and forcing the mineral to deposit.
Pressure Effects on Scale Formation
Carbon dioxide and gases in general are more soluble under higher pressure. Therefore, as the pressure drops, carbon dioxide gas will be forced out of solution, lowering the carbonic acid concentration. The rise in pH is associated with a drop in calcium carbonate solubility, leading to the formation of mineral scale deposits.
tak
-
Thanks for that Tak.
Agreed, our hot water systems suffer much more from scale than our cold water systems.
Calcium carbonate is the stuff I really want to get hold of as it's only in our tap water in relatively small quantities - so it would be nice to give it a boost. My test cell did not have to get hot to produce the white coating (which at this point I'm assuming is calcium hydroxide), so the electrolysis action itself must play a part - particularly the ionic reaction at the cathode.
I've just ground some blackboard chalk up into a fine dust and added this to fresh tap water in which my test cell is now submerged and running However, I understand that this is actually gypsum (calcium sulphate) and not a carbonate, so we'll see if this provides any favourable results.
I know again that some of the chalk is ionising as the current through my cell immediately started to climb, but I'm not sure the chalk (or for that matter the hydrated lime) actually disolves very much, but rather tends to remain in the water as a suspension.
-
@Farah Day,
You look very well geared up for your experiment. I think one of the key points is how pulses are applied to the cells. I believe every one takes the easy route of applying a certain square wave to the cell. I blame this on people who propagate non working designs and then disappearing.
Meyer specifically stated stepped charging. To me that means a stair case type of voltage pulses.
He also did not say anything about adding anything to water. His process was not electrolysis.
I am still wondering about the use of the alternator in his demo.
A documnt that you may already have:
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/P8.pdf
Wishing you success
AM
-
Hi Farrah,
For increased Calcium Carbonate, you may want to try bottled water.
Some of the trendier mineral waters have elevated Calcium Carbonate.
This may help in conditioning your cells.
NTB
-
Agreed AM, I never saw any mention in a Meyer technical brief or patent about cell conditioning - I have however read a lot of nonsense and misinfo he has written over the years, so have no faith in him whatsoever. But don't forget we're not adding anything to enhance current flow specifically here, but just to encourage faster cell conditioning. Once this is achieved I would go back to normal tap water.
I think if you're going to blame anyone for not being able to replicate Meyer's wfc, then the blame should lie with Meyer himself - too many obscurities, too many inconsistencies and blatant errors.
Take for example Meyer's stair case step charging. Is there any specific purpose to the step charging, or is it just the natural charging cycle of capacitor charged via a pulse rather than dc?
Dog's, seems to have achieved this recently and infact at very high voltages (1MV +), but produced very little gas if any in some cases. Yet Lawton and Ravi are having much more success with conditioned cells at much lower voltages. The thing is that this conditioning will happen naturally over a given time using tap water or water containing minerals, so Meyer's cells must have at some point become conditioned similarly, whether he recognised this fact or not.
What I've said all along is that we need to know what we want to achieve. Once we know that it will be easier to figure out how to do it. The problem is that no one currently seems to know for sure just how the water is broken down into it's components if it's not through normal electrolysis. Is it simply ionising as in normal electrolysis or is it doing something more mysterious?
If so what?
It is common knowledge that the water molecule is lighter than many other gas molecules, so by rights should not be a liquid at all, but is because the molecules 'clump' together. One theory is that using HV will break down the intermolecular bonding that 'clump' water together, by energising the contained atoms to higher energy levels. This then infact creates 'water gas', rather than O2 and H2. This is what I believe is known as 'Brown's Gas' - again very unsure science. A lot of 'theories' not enough 'provens'.
There are still too many very basic unknowns to figure out before major advances can be made, that's where sometimes taking things one step at a time and analysing every step can prove rewarding.
For me the key is learning the balanced reaction equation. We know the reaction equation for ionisation, but if it's not ionisation, what is involved in the reaction and henced balanced equation for what is occuring? This is something Meyer never elaborates on.
-
@Farah Day
Meyer said WFC would work with tap water, snow and see water etc. This makes me believe his technique worked on water molecules alone. With all the variations involved, Intuitively, would think this coating would become an integral part of the system. This being the case, why couldn't we start our experiments with anodized aluminum tubes? I don't think 12 volts is enough for this operation but although I admire Dogs attempts, I don't think we need to go more that 1000 - 1500 V.
In one of my attempts I had the inner tube in a condom in order provide galvanic separation.
With regards the step charging, there are several more unknowns. What are the widths and heights of the steps?
I guess with each step of the pulse the molecules are some how pushed into a different "state" so, it would be self defeating to have pulses that went back to 0.
I agree with you on H2 O2 but again I am guessing.
I believe the down fall of Meyer was greed. The same as any other inventors who want to monopolize a commodity which in effect is like water or air. Free energy would never be brought to market by any one because it would not be then free!
AM
-
this may or may not help any one out there but i thought i would share it any way :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM
-
Andy, got to say that U-tube link provides the best Meyer wfc analysis that I've ever come across. Everyone should take a look at it.
AM, I'm not convinced that salt water would be a good idea... think chlorine! Perhaps Meyer was just indicating the fact that the ocean was a limitless source of water for a wfc (once the salt was removed).
The guy on that video link provided by Andy, agrees with what I've said all along about the cct not being able to resonate because of that blocking diode, but what puzzles me is that he seems to think that tap water is dielectric enough to form a capacitor. At low voltages maybe yes, but Meyer was supposedly pulsing at kilovolts!
So, if we use a transformer to up the voltage, you would expect our wfc to instantly conduct a high current. One thing tho', this guy was talking about the gas being produced by nothing more mysterious than rapid ionisation, for which we already know the reaction equation.
Nice to see what appears to be an educated person discussing Meyer responsibly, but to my mind there are still questions that need answering. Still some things niggling me about all this.
Incidentally, my test cell overnight in the calcium sulphate, provided me with no visible coating on the electrodes after drying, and the water had turned to really brown gunk.
Having cleaned everything up, I now have my large test cell purring away in water with a teaspoon of calcium carbonate in it, so we'll see how this progresses. I actually found a bag of this stuff at hand. Another name for it is 'Whiting', and it's used to make glazes for pottery - good thing I remembered about the old kiln shed!
-
Peter Lindemann has quite a following. The above video is part of a larger seminar. He casually tells every one how all these technologies work but after 40 years of doing this,
to my knowledge he does not seem to be any closer than the rest of us into tapping into ZPE. ( Sorry Peter ).
Many people have tried subjecting water to extremely high voltage oh high current but I have not heard of any unusual results.
-
Agreed AM - that is one of my niggles!
Lindemann made it all sound so simple, but in that clip he never actually gave any true comparisons by relating figures in efficiency to normal electrolysis. To my mind it's still only Lawton and his colleagues that are actually making any real progress after all this time.
The main problem is that we are not dealing with straight electronics here - there is the element of chemistry to consider - so we can't simply theorise on exactly what is happening from purely an electronics perspective with any real conviction.
It would seem that the interaction between the chemistry and electronics is what is creating the 'unknowns' and hence the gaps in understanding the principles involved.
Which leads me to believe that there is only so much that you can achieve from the theory unless you combine it with practical observations. Dogs' recent experiments are very useful in this respect.
I still find it all very intriguing.
-
Farrah Day,
While I am at it, I don't hold much credibility for Dave Lawton and Ravi's work. I rather go straight to the source: Meyer.
Even with him I ask myself if he was a fraud but there were quite a number of witnesses and too many patents for him to
have been a fraud.
I still think using the alternator in his demo should give us a clue. That would have given him an instant 3 phase supply.
Why did he need 3 phase?
AM
-
have used watched the Meyers lecture videos ?
-
AM, Puzzled that you find Lawton less credible than Meyer. Lawton at least has a detailed PWM schematic, various PWM ccts built, tested and working, with corresponding details of results along with available scope photos of pulses and video clips. All seemingly very open and honest, with no invented techno-babble to muddy the waters and, it would appear, no hidden agenda.
Meyer had little to offer in this respect. Patents are only worth anything if they work - all Meyer's are extremely suspect. Add to this Meyer's videos where he clearly lacks the science knowledge to explain anything properly, but nevertheless bungles through with invented mumbo-jumbo, and I know who I find more credible. I'm not even sure Meyer is the true 'source' as it seems some of his patent diagrams are copies of Purarich's earlier work.
I'm not saying Meyer was an outright fraud, but I believe he had dug himself into a hole he could not get out of, and so was at least bordering on it. One thing the patents do indicate (whether they worked or not), was that Meyer was looking to make a lot of money from it all, one way or another.
So I guess we're at odds here - but each to their own.
-
Hey Farrah Day,
I have to agree with you on the Mayers and Puharich... It's a little strange how he went from 18" tubes to a little diesel injector looking miracle device that instead of producing bubbles of gas now produced this "Thermo Explosive Energy"... Looks exactly like the Puharich device which bears a resemblance to the Keely Cannon to me...
Curious what would happen if you conditioned the white coating on the inner tube... then switched the polarity once the conditioning was complete... would you then condition the same substance on the outside tube?
Let me know the exact dimensions of your tubes... I have a calculation that might produce the ideal pulse and gate frequencies for your D14 PWM. If you have a frequency counter I would be really interested in your results!
Thanks,
-
Hi Tac
I'm still very much at the experimenting stage at present - playing about with various electrolytes in order to try to enhance the conditioning process.
I think conditioning the cathode and then swapping the electrode would be a very beneficial experiment. It would be interesting to know whether or not the coating would remain on the anode or somehow be chemically removed over time. I've been digging into this area a little more and I've found that wet electrolytic capacitors can develop a similar crusty compound which actually covers the original dielectric oxide layer. This coating, would appear similar to ours, tho' not classed as a dielectric, it does provide a very high resistance.
I found this very interesting as it was indicated that this coating may actually help protect the true dielectric coating beneath it. All this is with reference to aluminium being the anode and aluminium oxide being the surface dielectric, but the similarities between this and with what we are experimenting with may be informative and hence useful. Effectively then, they had a capacitor with a very high internal resistance - I think this could be a very accurate description of our conditioned wfc. I'm still puzzled a little by the chemistry tho', as with aluminium, this all occurs at the anode, with ss we seem to be getting this at the cathode, with seemingly little happening at the anode.
Makes me think that perhaps the dielectric properties of the chromium oxide coating on the ss is irrelevant in terms of capacitance, and in fact the white coating on our cathodes provides enough internal resistance to effectively provide the capacitance we need at given frequencies.
I've not yet applied my Lawton cct to my test cells, but when I do I have the equipment to monitor results quite accurately.
Wonder what Dogs is up to?
-
I'ts been a couple of days since I've had chance to get out to my workshop, but I was pleasantly surprised by what I found today. It seems successful.
2 days ago I had my large test cell submerged in tap water with an added flat teaspoon of calcium carbonate (after trying calcium sulphate and calcium hydroxide to no avail). It was running for 4 hours at 0.5 amp, before I removed it to let it dry.
Today is the first time I've looked at it since, and it has an extremely good white coating on it. It's sometimes difficult to see when the cell is wet, so drying is the only way to see how good the coating really is.
Interesting note: The first thing I did was test the voltage across the cell. It read 1.55 volts. In past experiments my large test cell would normally totally discharge when left to dry on the bench overnight, now however, after 2 days drying out on the bench it still reads 1.55 volts!
I've just refreshed the water, added another flat teaspoon of calcium carbonate and popped the cell back in. Set the power supply current at 0.5 amp dc (around 15 volts). Will let it run for another 4 hours before I take it out to dry. Will then post a photo once it's nicely dried.
In the meantime, here's a link to some interesting reading: http://www.powerlabs.org/waterarc.htm
-
Test cell update:
2 hour check up on my test cell in the calcium carbonate electrolyte, and the cell - even wet - visibly shows the white coating. The electrolyte is milky white, no sign of any scum yet.
I left the cell drawing 0.5 amp at 15 volt, but is now reading 0.33 amp, so I've upped again to 0.5 amp, now at around 20 volts. This would seem to indicate that the white coating is indeed increasing the internal resistance of my cell.
Will check again in a few more hours.
-
Farrah Day
While you are waiting take a look at this;
http://www.qveng.com/cavitation.html
By the way Meyer had many fault:
Greedy
Over come by religion
Not able to perceive the whole world as one
Generally a biggot!
But my money is still on him.
-
Hi All,
If you want to test the survivability of Aluminum tubes... you could set up a mini test using Aluminum foil. The last time I tried it I added a bit of table salt to the water to speed up the reaction and the Cathode (Oxygen Producing plate) was eaten in an hour while the Anode was only tarnished... This could have been due to the NaCl I added as I confirmed the presence of Chlorine gas but i'm pretty sure Aluminum is not to be used for the Cathode.
-
Tac, I wasn't suggesting using ali electrodes, I was merely emphasising a possible similarity between what we are getting on conditioning and that of wet electrolytic capacitors. The electrolyte used in these capacitors is not water, and they certainly don't want gases given off or dielectric breakdown.
As per your experiment, I would expect that adding a metal salt to the water to form the electrolyte, would indeed pose you problems.
While in tap water I would expect the aluminium to be fairly unreactive due to it's protective oxide layer, it would appear to be less stable under electrolysis than ss.
It is however the cathode that gives rise to H2, not O2 - that's at the anode. Or in your case chlorine at the anode.
I expect there would be a production of corrosive sodium hydroxide within the solution to eat away at the electrode.
-
Farrah Day,
I am currently doing a lot of research on electrolysis, Hydrogen Generation and WFCs online. I have a decent background in Electronic Engineering but am a little rusty. I am glad to finally see someone is taking a scientific approach to this whole subject. It is almost impossible to weed through the infomercial type web sites without being disillusioned. I must admit the lab you have put together is quite impressive. I have began the process of setting up my own lab recently. It is a slow process acquiring all the hardware needed but I am almost there. I am also gathering information schematics and documentation in preparation for my own test WFC. I have some rather interesting questions that will need to be answered much later on regarding Automobile O2 sensor modifications or using modified timing and Air/Fuel mapping in a cars ECM. But that is much later on.....
Thanks again and keep up the great work
-
Hi Farrah,
My bad on the Cathode/Anode mixup... I totally agree with the statement on wet electrolytic capacitors... Dielectric breakdown is usually closely followed by a pop or boom depending on the enclosure and how catastrophic the breakdown was.
One think that I think we have to consider is the state of the dielectric in our WFC's... In a capacitor, The only way a current can pass through it is if it is alternating/pulsing. Otherwise we get a DC voltage potential buildup and discharge. A WFC can function as a capacitor based on your findings (with the exception of not being able to fully discharge it because of the charged ion's clinging to the cell and not being able to be discharged... If I got that right?). However if we are aiming to build up a non conductive dielectric on the cells and this buildup increases gas production... How can putting the inner tube into a condom (as mentioned earlier) be dissimilar to a non conductive plating on the tubes.
I find this really odd that we are all trying to buildup a layer of non conductive material on the tubes (We all know this works and increases production while decreasing current) but placing an insulator between the conditioned tubes ceases all production???
There MUST be something in the white buildup that functions completely UNLIKE a standard dielectric... I would imagine if the inner tube was inside a condom filled with water... It would still act as a capacitor holding a charge and passing pulsing/alternating current? So why does insulating it still allow it to be a capacitor but not a WFC if the same current (alternating/Pulsing) is passing in both scenarios? Can you form the same coating on other metals?
Sorry to add more confusion to this topic but am I the only one finding this totally strange?
I am also grateful for someone putting rational thought and experimentation towards this topic... I am tired of the Mayers style BS that I am forced to consume on a regular basis... too many people are thinking "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit..." sigh
Thank you Farrah! Keep up the fight!
-
Hi Tac
I understand that Duranza tried coating the cathode with teflon and gas production was nil. This I think would be the same as the condom scenario. Any such dielectric would break down permanantly once sufficient voltage was achieved, and thereafter be useless. Only a self-healing chemical dielectric would be able to fully recover and reform - this was one of the favourable things that wet electrolytic capacitors had going for them.
I'm as mystified by it all as the next person, but feel it's only a matter of time before we get to the bottom of it now. I'm still of the opinion that it's something to do with a self-healing property of the dielectric formed on ss - whether it be the chromium oxide or the white coating - which I'm fairly confident now, is indeed calcium hydroxide.
It is possible to charge a large capacitor up to a dangerous level with just a 9 volt battery. The capacitor would show 9 volts, but if very large could store a massive charge. Shorting the capacitor would produce a large spark as it tries to discharge instantly. Capacitors are often misunderstood, which can lead to confusion. If you charge a small capacitor up with a 9 volt battery, it will charge up to a potential difference of 9 volts, the same as a much larger capacitor. But, unlike the small capacitor, the larger one can store a lot more energy as it takes a lot more charge for it to reach the battery's 9 volt potential difference.
I think we must have a similar scenario once we build up our insulating (or highly resistive) coating. The coating, even if not a true dielectric, will create such a high resistance that charges building up on the electrodes cannot fully discharge through the water between pulses. Hence over time the charges on the electrodes, (even from a very low voltage) can build up to a point where the breakdown voltage is exceeded. Once this happens we get a rapid ionisation and hence much gas production, until the charges on the electrodes reduce sufficiently enough for the dielectric to reform. Of course all this can be happening in a fraction of a second.
Hoping I'll know more when I've finished conditioning my electrodes and can do a few tests.
-
Hello Farrah Day,
I once and awhile drop by here I am really confident that this approach you present here will bring success. Now I will bring to your attention something almost everyone who has experimented with this white-stuff-coating hase overlooked. This makes all of the confusion about capacitor-line behaviour and apparent contradictions regarding inner resistance etc.
I do not give a complete answer here because I do not know it all - but I will ask you a very simple question :
Just imagine the conditioning-process . As you let the cell run at 15 volt and 0.5 Ampere two subprocesses happen at the same time.
Question : How does the first calcium-carbonate-layer forming on the steelplate-surface look like if you start conditioning for the first time ? Does this layer completely seal the steel-surface ? If this is so can then H2 bubbles rise once this first layer is formed ?
What do you think ?
Kator
-
Thanks for the reply Farrah,
A 9VDC battery does have enough "power" to stop your heart or cause serious damage but remember V=IR... It all depends on the resistance in the circuit. If you use a step up transformer to charge a 300V capacitor until the battery is drained... Because it will be 300VDC the resistance of your body will allow a higher current to flow than a 9VDC voltage and it could stop your heart (depending if the fastest way to the other terminal crosses your heart). Current kills... thats why we survive static electricity shocks and lightning strikes (some people).
This is my problem with the dielectric breakdown theory... If I took a 12VDC electric motor that was rated at 1A. I then started the motor and recorded the actual current used as 0.2A. If I tried to start the motor with only 0.2A... I can bet it would try... but probably not go anywhere because it does not have enough current to break the startup requirement. If I added a capacitor in parallel to the motor, the current would build over time and I may have a running motor in a few seconds.
If I apply that to the dielectric theory, it works... The current builds up over time and I get a discharge which is a function of voltage and current (Watts) to give me a spark. The more current I give it, the more often I get a spark or actually maintain a spark.
If this is the case and we apply it to the WFC... More current caused by the dielectric breakdown would give us more gas... But current limiting is the whole idea... we are giving it less current and trying to restrict every way of stopping the current from flowing. We're using high resistance water, high resistance stainless steel, white coatings, reversed bifilar chokes, etc... and we are getting results!
It's all about voltage potential, which does not cause a dielectric to break down without current. If the dielectric breakdown is the key. Then the current flow would be directly proportional to the gas generated (goes along with Newtons law). If we restrict the current, this should prevent cell discharge from occurring as often as it would if we allowed current flow?
If Dielectric breakdown was directly proportional to cell discharges which were again directly proportional to current flow... I doubt any of these cells would be working in OU?
I think you may be onto something with this tho:
"I think we must have a similar scenario once we build up our insulating (or highly resistive) coating. The coating, even if not a true dielectric, will create such a high resistance that charges building up on the electrodes cannot fully discharge through the water between pulses. Hence over time the charges on the electrodes, (even from a very low voltage) can build up to a point where the breakdown voltage is exceeded. Once this happens we get a rapid ionisation and hence much gas production, until the charges on the electrodes reduce sufficiently enough for the dielectric to reform. Of course all this can be happening in a fraction of a second."
Please don't let me stop you, I'm itching for results too!
-
Hi Kator, nice to hear from you again.
The build up of white coating is gradual and appears initially as a light dusting of powder, but it does appear uniform. Indeed if you rub it with your fingers when dry it will easily come off, so does not appear to be chemically bonded to the surface - more like just attracted to it. It may be that it's not until it dries out that it actually even adheres to itself. If you wipe it off, the ss underneath looks clean and healthy. Current for same voltage through cell did reduce over time, indicating that cell resistance is building up - unless this is due to polarisation.
Hi Tac, like you stated, it's current not voltage that kills. When testing high voltage ccts at college, we were always taught to have one arm behind our back so that if we caught a shock, the current would travel down our body to ground, rather than across or chests (and heart) to chassis earth!
Now, I don't tend to be too popular on any of the other forums partly because they see me as an arrogant 'know-it-all' Sheila, but mainly because I have a low tolerance for idiots and openly state this. This forum in general seems to exhibit a much higher level of intelligence and understanding of science, and the last thing I want to do is offend anyone. From my experience of other forums I know I can become unpopular by my bluntness, by talking down to folks or talking above their heads. The trouble is you just don't know what level the person you are talking to is at, so at times it can be difficult not to unintentionally offend - you never know if you're conversing with a competent professor or a spotty teenager who left school at 14!
So, my apologies if I appear to talk down to you or anyone else at times.
One problem I find with the science that we are taught a school is that it's often very simplified, which means that when we need to use it in practice, it all of a sudden becomes far more involved than we were led to believe. For example, we are told that we get oxygen and hydrogen evolved at the electrodes if we run a current through water containing an electrolyte. But the full equations for the reactions of both the water and the electrolyte are not usually given - and who of us was told why the electrolyte did not react at the electrodes? We are simply told that the electrolyte allows more current to flow. In truth, even this simple electrolysis is far more complex than that.
Meyer supposedly had all the current limiting devices to reduce current through the whole cct including the wfc. In reality I can't see this being the case. The current can still be limited through the electronics even if we have high current surges through the water, because we should have an excess of charges on the electrodes and current limiting provided by the inductor.
The relationship between current, voltage and charge here can also be difficult to grasp. It is possible to put a high voltage pulse across the capacitor, yet have no charge on the plates, because the capacitor will take a given time to charge up. The voltage given on any capacitor indicates the point at which dielectric breakdown is a strong possibility, so in theory, we could cause dielectric breakdown with next-to-no current flow at all! Remember that in a normal capacitor no current actually flows between the plates.
This I think is the essence of the Meyer system. My problem with this is that when the dielectric (or water) does break down under the potential, then there is little or no current flow through the wfc to cause ionisation. But then Meyer, I don't think, ever mentions ionisation as the cause of gas production. Maybe it is all about breaking the clumping bonds of water with a very high potential and we're all coming at this from the wrong angle with conditioning and all. Problem here tho' is that I'm not sure the science to explain the reaction exists - at least in any written form.
Probably pay to keep an open mind on all this and not be too single-minded on any aspects. Afterall, the best the conditioning seems to offer is 3x Faraday. Meyer supposedly had 10x this.
-
Farrah,
I am really enjoying the thread that is going here. I just popped over to Youtube and watched the Peter Lindemann Video and its is all starting to make sense to me. I could not see how Meyer claimed his circuit was resonant. The fact the there is a Diode in the output section of his supposedly resonant LC circuit totally negates any possibility of a cascade being formed. I agree with Peter that this is a fairly standard DC charging of a dielectric media that achieves a catastrophic failure. It may be that Stan Meyer may have believed that he was causing the water or the electrodes to achieve some sort of resonance that caused the extreme breakdown of the molecular bond of the H and O. Or he may have known all along but was spinning a tale for our amusement.
Here is the definition of Dielectric Failure: The failure of an element in a dielectric circuit that exists when an insulating element becomes conducting.
In the case of the Meyer WFC the pulsing DC waveform gradually increases the potential difference in the capacitor to such a level that the dielectric fails and a enormous amount of current is generated. This in turn liberates massive quantities of H and O. The duty cycle adjustment allows for the recharging of the capacitor. I will have to do some serious testing to see the same results but I feel I now know a lot more about the Meyer design. Don't get me wrong this is a absolutely ingenious way to generate large quantities of H/O. What I am trying to focus on is how to regulate the gas production in a cct like this.
Also I found a great explanation about the charging effects of the WFC .
Here is the URL. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-iestru.html
PCMD
-
Hey Pcmd,
Please take everything I say as a grain of salt as I have yet to actually build a cell and test it but here are my observations this far:
1) If resonance has nothing to do with gas production, why does every cell have a very specific maximum gas production frequency?
2) If resonance has nothing to do with it, why does every WFC have different ideal frequencies? I notice that the tube lengths are different in most of these setups.
3) if resonance has nothing to do with it, why did Meyers cut pitch slots in his outer tubes to raise their pitch to match that of the inner tubes?
These are only my observations and are not an attack on your ideas... If you have thoughts on these to correct me I would be happy to be corrected?
Thanks,
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with heavy water.
The hardness of the water results in a calcification
Hard water is water that has a high mineral content (contrast with soft water). Hard water usually consists of calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) ions, and possibly other dissolved compounds such as bicarbonates and sulfates. Calcium usually enters the water as either calcium carbonate (CaCO3), in the form of limestone and chalk, or calcium sulfate (CaSO4), in the form of other mineral deposits. The predominant source of magnesium is dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). Hard water is generally not harmful.
The simplest way to determine the hardness of water is the lather/froth test: soap or toothpaste, when agitated, lathers easily in soft water but not in hard water. More exact measurements of hardness can be obtained through a wet titration. The total water 'hardness' (including both Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions) is read as parts per million or weight/volume (mg/L) of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the water. Although water hardness usually only measures the total concentrations of calcium and magnesium (the two most prevalent, divalent metal ions), iron, aluminium, and manganese may also be present at elevated levels in some geographical locations.
The most abundant isotope, 40Ca, has a nucleus of 20 protons and 20 neutrons. This is the heaviest stable isotope of any element which has equal numbers of protons and neutrons. In supernova explosions, calcium is formed from the reaction of carbon with various numbers of alpha particles (helium nuclei), until the most common calcium isotope (containing 10 helium nuclei) has been synthesized. Calcium is the seventh most common element, by mass, in Earth's oceans.
..................................................................................
Chemically calcium is reactive and moderately soft for a metal (though harder than lead, it can be cut with a knife with difficulty). It is a silvery metallic element that must be extracted by electrolysis from a fused salt like calcium chloride.[1] Once produced, it rapidly forms a grey-white oxide and nitride coating when exposed to air. It is somewhat difficult to ignite, in character rather like magnesium, but when lit, the metal burns in air with a brilliant high-intensity red light. Calcium metal reacts with water, evolving hydrogen gas at a rate rapid enough to be noticeable (unlike its sister magnesium) but not fast enough at room temperature to generate much heat. Part of the slowness of the calcium-water reaction results from the metal being partly protected by insoluble white calcium hydroxide. In water solutions of acids where the salt is water soluble, calcium reacts vigorously.
Calcium salts are colorless from any contribution of the calcium, and ionic solutions of calcium (Ca2+) are colorless as well. Many calcium salts are not soluble in water. When in solution, the calcium ion to the human taste varies remarkably, being reported as mildly salty, sour, "mineral like" or even "soothing." It is apparent that many animals can taste, or develop a taste, for calcium, and use this sense to detect the mineral in salt licks or other sources. [2]. In human nutrition, soluble calcium salts may be added to tart juices without much effect to the average palate.
Calcium is the fifth most abundant element by mass in the human body, where it is a common cellular ionic messenger with many functions, and serves also as a structural element in bone. It is the relatively high atomic-numbered calcium in the skeleton which causes bone to be radio-opaque. Of the human body's solid components after drying (as for example, after cremation), about a third of the total mass is the approximately one kilogram of calcium which composes the average skeleton (the remainder being mostly phosphorus and oxygen).
I wonder if this white coating has any piezoelectric properties?
Cheers!
-
Hi PC
glad to hear you're coming on board. Hopefully we'll be comparing notes shortly.
That link you provided above is a good example of just how more involved this electrochemistry we are dealing with can be. It is plain to see - and as I mentioned above - that it is all too easy to over simplify things. Once we delve properly into the atomic chemistry and physics involved, things are clearly more complicated. Add to this the fact that most of us are amateurs and the science we are dealing with is not in itself fully understood even by scientists and it's clear we have a lot of hurdles to overcome!
Kator
I've added a photo of the build up on my large test cell. It is quite a substantial coating and if I look closely I can see that the calcium compound has crystalized somewhat as it has dried. This gives a rough, uneven appearance to the surface. The white calcium compound can be seen clearly on the raised centre threaded bar and nut, but it is also coating the cathode side of all the tubes. This was after just 8 hours at around 0.5 amp, in 2 litre of tap water with a flat teaspoon of calcium carbonate added. I don't think anyone has achieved this amount of coating at this current in such a short time. No sign of any flaking, but under the same conditions I can probably create a more stable coating by taking the cell out of the solution after shorter periods of time and letting it dry out more often.
Tac
With reference to your resonance questions, I'd say that it's all down to the fact that the term 'resonance' is a common misnomer.
There can be values and frequencies at which our cells might perform to maximum efficiency, but it need not necessarily be at any resonant frequency. In our case we might find that a pulsed frequency of, say 14KHz, gated at a particular frequency provides the best results as it creates the right conditions for our purpose. I think the better term is 'sweet spot'. Simply the pulsed, gated frequency at which all the elements of our wfc's come together to perform to their best.
As every cell would provide a different capacitance, no two cells would have the same optimum working frequency.
I've seen one photo of the cut rectangular slot on one of Meyer's tubes, but given everything we know about Meyer, I'm not inclined to read too much into this at present. If you wanted the tubes to physically resonate then it would make sense to have the outer tube balanced to the inner so one frequency would resonate both tubes. Problem here is that we once again come to the fact that the cct can't actually resonate. That said, knowing Meyer, it might simply be that he had run out of tubes without the slots!
-
Farrah,
I agree that the boundaries of Electronics, Chemistry and Physics are being crossed. I would really be helpful if we could recruit some professional chemists and physicist's from some colleges to help answer some of the questions we all have. This could make for a interesting thesis for some students.
Kator,
I was wondering has anyone sent a sample (conditioned plate) to a lab for a chemical analysis? Is everyone certain the the white coating is a precipitate from the electrolyte solution or is it something else? I read another document I have and if stated that soaking the flat plate electrodes in a Potassium Hydroxide solution for a couple days" would condition electrode, another method mentioned was to condition the electrodes by repeated short periods of electrolysis.
I wonder what the chemical composition of the skin layer is?
Tac,
I understand that the frequency of the oscillation plays an important role in the charging effect and as I have not built my test unit either I am only stating what I know to be true (from books). The L/C output section of the WFC cct could not resonate due to the diode installed as the waveform would be clipped.
In Dave Lawton's circuit the diode was installed to protect the MOSFET and is in parallel with the input to the transformers primary winding.
Excerpt from Website:
Signal diodes are also used with relays to protect transistors and integrated circuits from the brief high voltage produced when the relay coil is switched off. See Diode link below.
I am not sure but one could possibly generate some physical oscillations or in this case possibly reverberation of the Cathode and Anode by tuning the frequency injected to the resonant or a fundamental frequency of the electrodes. I suppose one could strike the cathodes and or anodes monitor the frequency with an oscilloscope. I agree with Farrah that matching resonant frequencies between the electrodes may be possible but could prove to be difficult. Also by inserting the rubber spacers in between the Cath / Anode the resonant frequency would be dampened. Its like placing and rubber washer on a tuning fork. You might get a little tone but is would not reverberate very long.
Some Links
L / C resonance
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
Diodes
http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/components/diode.htm
section on small signal is applicable
Keep up the great work
PCMD
-
PC
Remember that the Lawton cct produces pulsed dc directly at its output, therefore no blocking diode is required. Meyers cct uses a blocking diode because he was producing dc pulses from an ac input. The diode in Lawtons cct does indeed protect the mosfet, but his cct does not employ a transformer as such. He is experimenting with bifilar wound inductors in an attempt to improve energy efficiency. Looks quite promising from the read up. For anyone that has not seen this, here are the links:
http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
After my recent electrolyte experiments, I'm 99% sure that it's calcium hydroxide deposited on the electrode, formed by the reaction of calcium carbonate in the solution. Google calcium carbonate and you will find the reaction in water gives calcium hydroxide.
-
Farrah,
To elaborate on my last post.
I am sorry I forgot to state in my reply to Tac I was referring to fig 1.1 (see Below) of the Meyer voltage intensifier circuit.
>>The L/C output section of the WFC cct could not resonate due to the diode installed, as the waveform would be clipped.
Also My comments about the Lawton cct based on the 3rd schematic in D14.pdf that showed the 1n1007 Diode in parallel with the primary winding the biflar inductor. I seems to me to be transformer since he has matched 100 turns of 22 AWG wire around a ferrite core. I wonder if he is going to use this to step up the voltage in the future? It seems a logical path forward from my point of view.
Thanks for the clarification about the calcium hydroxide.
PCMD
-
Hi PC
It's not a transformer in the schematic, and if you look closer you'll find that the diode is not actually in parallel with it.
Neither is it there to up the voltage or isolate the cell. What it is, is a Tesla-like bifilar wound inductor.
Depending on how it is connected, bifilar wound inductors are said, by Tesla, to be able to store many times the energy of standard inductors. They can also be connected in such a way as to negate their inductance altogether. In sensitive ccts, some low value wire-wound resistors that would otherwise provide high inductive reactance at certain frequencies are bifilar wound in order to negate the self-inductance and just leave the very low resistance of the wire itself.
Lawton has wired them as per Tesla, and apparently sees spikes of many kilovolts across his cell from this arrangement. I believe he is still experimenting and at the time was as mystified as the rest of us as to what exactly was occuring. He may have made more progress by now, but, like most people that seem to make advances, he's gone silent and not made an appearance on the forums for a long time.
Hope this helps.
-
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
Hi UncleFester,
great work with very interesting results !
Please answer this questions :
1. the circuit which was used ? Is it from here ? http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf?
2. How about posting any photo of your small cell with 6 tubes ?
3. can you explain the fundamental news in your electrolysis ?
Regards
Praktik
-
"Lawton has wired them as per Tesla" Could you elaborate on that? Could you quote or provide a link to that information? Thanx!
HairBear
-
HairBear
Take a look at this link: http://www.tfcbooks.com/patents/coil.htm
Anyone know who Praktik's talking to? Who's uncle Fester?
-
Quote:Anyone know who Praktik's talking to? Who's uncle Fester?", said Farrah Day with a half-lit light bulb hanging out of his mouth.
??possibly??
-
Thank you for that link. Now can you show me where Lawton had used this type of winding? I'm not questioning your integrity or anything in a mean way even though I may write like it. I just want to make sure the info is genuine. It seems RAVI is still around posting comments on his videos and he says that both him and Lawton have been raided or something like that, so, they are not talking anymore. From the information that both of them have posted, there are still a lot of details not mentioned. I have replicated Dave and RAVI's setup and I get exactly what they get. It looks good but the gas is not all that much. At least not enough to run a small lawnmower size engine. So, for me, there is still something missing like the electron inhibitor circuit. No one ever talks about that piece of the puzzle.... yet.
Cheers
-
Hi all,
I`m talk about ? Reply #23 on: December 06, 2007, 12:12:12 AM ?
posted here at page 2
Praktik
-
Thanks Praktik
Page 2 seems so long ago I'd forgotten uncle Festers post.
-
Ok, hopefully find some time to experiment over the next few days.
I've had my D14 Lawton cct built for quite a while now, but today I finally got it boxed up and running. Connected it up and was pleased that it seems to function perfectly. Scope displayed good pulsing and gating. Quite impressed by the apparent stability of this little cct.
Like many people I was not able to get hold of the BUZ350 mosfet, so I used a substitute that I had at hand, seems to work fine, though I've yet to add my bifilar inductor into the equation.
Mosfet: RFP40N10 - 100V, 40A, 160W, with a very low drain to source resistance of just 0.04 ohm.
Now to do a couple of inductor windings.
-
I believe there are clues, more often than not, over-looked with reference to the Meyer-type production of H2 & O2. The more I investigate things the more I think that we are over-complicating the theory, and that indeed the process is not as mind boggling as we are often led to believe.
One important clue is the fact that Meyer-type wfc's run cool and that standard electrolysis will quite quickly boil the water. Research will tell you that ionisation is an endothermic reaction (ie. it draws energy in the form of heat from the environment), so ionising water should be a cool process. And, it is. It is only the fact that the non-water ions (electrolyte or mineral impurity anions and cations) that carry the a large quantity of charges through the water in standard electrolysis generate this heat during the hustle and bustle of movement. Remember that the electrolyte we add to water carries the current but does not actively take part in any reaction at the electrodes.
In standard electrolysis the water molecule is not ionising and then itself travelling to the electrodes, rather it is ionising at the electrodes, thereby generating no heat of travel itself. Hence, it's not the water ionising that heats up the water, it's the current flow of the electrolyte ions.
So, if we can simply encourage the water to ionise without the help of charge carrying electrolyte ions, the cell will run cool.
I've seen Meyer's depictions of electrons being extracted from the water molecule, and this simply makes no sense whatsoever. It is unclear just how many electrons Meyer thought he was pulling from the water molecule (I've seen depictions of 3), but even if you could pull away the two hydrogen electrons, this would leave you with 2 +ve hydrogen ions and a neutral oxygen atom. In this scenario, there would be nothing attracted to the anode other than the electrons - hence no gas given off at the anode. None of this makes sense and I think is an example of the over-complication I speak of.
It makes far more sense to assume the easy and obvious, and work forward from there one step at a time. And, if the most obvious proves not to be the case, move on again to the next most obvious idea.
To me the obvious answer is that by pulsing, all we are doing is encouraging the water molecule itself to ionise at the electrodes, so we do not require a high electrolyte ion flow through the water.
I'm also now suspecting that it may have nothing to do with dielectric breakdown (either of the chromium oxide or the water itself), as this would likely cause high current arcing. We do not get this!
I'm almost convinced we are trying too hard, looking too deep for the answers.
What then of our white calcium coating on the cathode?
Well, this is obviously a natural reaction of the minerals (mostly calcium carbonate) in the water, but it does help the process by producing a very high resistance layer that drastically reduces current leakage through the cell. I think that it allows enough charges through to react with the hydrogen ions, but very little surplus charge to react with ion impurities (remember that the hydroxyl and hydrogen ions are more electrochemically reactive than other anions or cations in the water). Or, as it makes for a better capacitor with the calcium compound layer, there is always a surplus of charges on the electrodes, which act to maintain ionisation during off pulses. Hence, less power is required. Or possibly a combination of both!
This is where I'm going to be focusing my experimentation. I'm going to assume this is what is happening and try to devise a way of either proving or disproving it.
I then have my game plan.
-
Hi Farrah Day,
I agree with you. Im in electrical engineering and Im replicating this as my project for university. I have built the cell and im using calcium carbonate to condition the cells as suggested. I believe that water dielectric breakdown never occurs and water is never acting as a capacitor because its resistance accross my cell is only 3 K which is WAY to low for a capacitor therefore its just acting as a resistor. We only have the bifilar chokes in the circuit that act as the induction and they also have capacitance between the coils and the reason to choose bifilar coils is to change its capacitance between the coils therefore when we are pulsing through, we charge the inductors and then they discharge in the capacitor. I think we are still doing electrolysis but its more efficient as we are just restricting the current flow using the choke. Im am testing my cell day and night with different setups and different chokes. Will keep you guys updated. Lemme knw what you think.
-
Hi Raz
Glad to have you on board.
I've played through hundreds of ideas and theories in my mind and on paper, trying to get a handle on the science that could be behind them, but many seem to be in the realms of fantasy indeed having no real scientific foundation on which they are based. And, I truly believe that the main source of the problem comes back to Meyer's limited understanding of science and electronics alied with his eagerness to produce over-complicated, very scientific jargon-filled - but ultimately nonsensical - patents and technical briefs.
For me now, it comes down to one simple point. Ionisation of the water molecule. And, however it is achieved the reaction equation and results are the same, so everything balances as it should. We simply have a more efficient way of encouraging the water to ionise - as simple as that!
What is unknown at present it seems, is the mechanics of exatly how this is achieved. Yes we know pulsing and voltage play a part, as indeed must charges on the electrodes, but we don't know exactly how it is all coming together.
You'll find that the calcium carbonate works a treat, though you are best to do it in stages, removing the cell from the water and letting it dry out periodically (every 2 - 3 hours after a 0.5 amp dc run I found to be effective). If you don't do this, the coating does not harden very well. By removing the cell periodically, the coating hardens (I think effectively cures like cement). Also it is less likely to flake of as it dries when you build up thin layers at a time.
The bifilar coil according to Tesla is capable of storing many times more energy than a simple inductor, so may be a key factor in efficient energy exchanging. Again this may well tie in with other factors.
Dogs, I know uses a high resistance (10 meg, I think) in his Meyer-like cct replication. But as we know, a resistor will only waste energy, dissipating it in the form of heat, so I'm not inclined to go that way. Inductors being very much more energy efficient are surely the way to go.
Wouldn't it be funny if the critical pulsing frequency had little to do with the wfc capacitance, and all to do with the frequency at which the inductors would create the greatest opposition to current flow? Our wfc capacitor would still charge over time, and hence ionisation can take place, but little or no current would be able to flow through the cct.
I feel very close to a 'Eureka' moment!
-
Well i think it might be but how exactly does the water cell act as a capacitor when it has such a low resistance. Tap water doesn't have a dielectric of 80 and we need a gd dielectric material inbetween the plates for it to inhibit electron flow. Mayb after the coating has developed, its starts to act a little bit like a capacitor because of the hard coating but without it, its just a resister. The only cap we would have in the circuit is the capacitance of the choke coil itself (between the bifilar coils) which was about 1700 pF for me. I made my choke from 22 awg wire, 130 turns on a 3 inch long ferrite rod. Im using Lawton style circuit. I heard that there are some mistakes with that circuit, are we suppose to have the diode in the MOSFET going from drain to VDD or should it go somewhere else. When I connect the circuit and i probe on the drain pin of MOSFET, im seeing high spikes at, which im guessing is due to the inductor but theres no step charging effect on the water fuel cell. Im hoping to finish my replication by end of Feb so im working day/night on it. If Lawton didn't use a HV transformer then how could he generate high voltage on the water cell unless he had another big cap in // with the circuit, which charges and then discharges in the water cell. Let me know what you think. im feeling kinda stuck now, I can make good gas but it takes about 3 amps. I am using // plate design and my plates are 1.5 mm apart. Is there a special configuration to setup the plates. I have mine as
+ - + - + -
do you think that putting them as + - - + + - - + would be better. They are SS 316L. I have also tried tunning the choke (i do that by moving the pots and hearing when the choke is singing the loudest but at that point the gas production actually reduces and so does the current. When i bring the pots back, the gas production goes up but the current goes up as well. Am i missing some basic idea here to make this work ??
-
Hi Raz
I too have been round and round in circles trying to understand what can be occuring and what holds the key - you get to a point where your mind starts to boggle with info and misinfo - but as I said above I think we may simply be looking too hard and being confused by Meyer.
In his technical briefs, Meyer often talks about the dielectric constant of water being around 78, and then goes on to tell us that you can use any old water. I take most things he says with a pinch of salt as he continually trips up over science and blatantly contradicts himself from one page to another. He even gives the dielectric constant of water as 78 ohms on one page!
Deionised water is great for experimenting with. If you can cause this to greatly ionise then your on the right path, but as it's nearly as expensive as petrol it's pointless to consider using it all the time.
Tap water as you say, conducts fairly well, but nowhere near as well as the metal wiring in the cct, and of course it is this water resistance that produces heat in normal dc electrolysis.
Now, once we find the solution to get deionised water to ionise, we can then substitute it for tap water as we will at this stage know how to ionise the water without using heavy current. However, as you rightly pointed out, (and this used to be my major headache) once we apply a good voltage across our tap water we will naturally cause standard high current electrolysis to also take place.... unless, that is, we devise a cct to limit current flow. This I think is what Meyer's so-called, 'electron inhibiting device, extractor cct or whatever', is all about. We no longer need the high current flow, but we need to inhibit the natural curent flow through tap water while maintaining all the criteria for our new method of ionisation.
I think that maybe the coating on the cathode (which is very high resistance) helps us to naturally inhibit this current flow.
Perhaps, in reality it has very little to do with the capacitance of our cells and the relationship between our cell and the inductors is not so important. More important perhaps is the relationship between the pulse frequency and inductor/s to create the greatest inductive reactance, and the voltage with which to induce ionisation.
Just my current thoughts... but I reserve the right to change my mind at any point! :)
-
When I first saw then Meyer video I assumed he was alternating the polarity of the pipes so as to vibrate or spin the water molecules.
Why was he using an alternator?. Then at a certain state of excitation the molecule splits by itself or is induced to do so by a small current.
This seems to be what Dr. Andrija Puharich claimed,
I'm not an engineer so I was wondering if it is possible to design a circuit that accepts a 3 phase ac input and triggers at the high and low points of each wave to reverse polarity of the pipes many times each cycle.
I read somewhere that 600cps is necessary.
-
The Frequency is important because if we put in a pulse we are charging the inductors.We need to time this frequency so the inductors get fully charged and then put a 0 signal (gate time) so the charged inductor can now discharge. This timing is important and we would have to calculate this using the RC time relationship of our inductors.
When im using lawton circuit and im probing the Drain pin of the mosfet with my scope, I see spikes of over 200 volts. Do you know y that is??
-
Hi Joe
I think Meyer was using an alternator at the time to produce his pulses by rectifying the output. Also of course, ultimately it would be used to power a vehicle and so it would make sense to use the available vehicle alternator, or add a second unit. Either way it would keep things fairly simple.
Raz
I understand that Lawton also saw these high voltage spikes. Read through the info on this link and it is mentioned somewhere a few pages down: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
Are you just using tap water?
-
The Frequency is important because if we put in a pulse we are charging the inductors.We need to time this frequency so the inductors get fully charged and then put a 0 signal (gate time) so the charged inductor can now discharge. This timing is important and we would have to calculate this using the RC time relationship of our inductors.
When im using lawton circuit and im probing the Drain pin of the mosfet with my scope, I see spikes of over 200 volts. Do you know y that is??
you see 200v because your diode is bad or missing.
-
Hi Joe
I think Meyer was using an alternator at the time to produce his pulses by rectifying the output. Also of course, ultimately it would be used to power a vehicle and so it would make sense to use the available vehicle alternator, or add a second unit. Either way it would keep things fairly simple.
Raz
I understand that Lawton also saw these high voltage spikes. Read through the info on this link and it is mentioned somewhere a few pages down: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell
Are you just using tap water?
not really, the rpm's the engine has to offer is not enough to produce 3 phase harmonics.
-
When I first saw then Meyer video I assumed he was alternating the polarity of the pipes so as to vibrate or spin the water molecules.
Why was he using an alternator?. Then at a certain state of excitation the molecule splits by itself or is induced to do so by a small current.
This seems to be what Dr. Andrija Puharich claimed,
I'm not an engineer so I was wondering if it is possible to design a circuit that accepts a 3 phase ac input and triggers at the high and low points of each wave to reverse polarity of the pipes many times each cycle.
I read somewhere that 600cps is necessary.
lol, from the video i watched i do recall stanley meyer say that he used 5 volts 2 amps, 10 watts. this is only on the primary side of the alternator, the secondary side of the alternator delivered over 20 volts over 15 amps to the cell.
the back emf spring harmonic 3 phase behaviour forced amps into the cell briefly so the water doesn't get hot no where near as quick, and the hydrogen producion is greater more than 10 times than using pure DC.
the alternator output is none regulated none pure none filtered DC. he used 3 phase harmonics.
try it.
-
Hi,
Yes im using just tap water. I can make gas at 0.5 amps as Stan did but the amount is not as it would be when I use 5 amps with DC but thats obvious. I think that might change after my plates get conditioned because they would increase the capacitance of the cell hence help increase the voltage across it and decrease the current. I checked the spikes again, I am seeing spikes as high as 2KV. Im using 10x probes to measure that. I have my circuit connected as per Lawton but I have made some adjustments to the circuit. I am powering my bifilar choke with a seperate PS and my 555 timers are on a different circuit. This way these spikes can never go back to the chips n burn them.
The diode that Lawton used that goes from MOSFET Drain to PS doesn't make sense to me so Iv removed that as well. My circuit is working well, and im able to produce OK gas at 0.5 Amps. I can control the gas production (Amp flow) by changing the frequency of the left part of Lawton.
One more thing. I probe the voltage at the Drain pin of the MOSFET and i see spikes of 2KV. The drain is also connected to one side of my bifilar coil. When I probe on the other side of the same coil which is conected to -ve terminal of my cell, my spikes are only about 300-400 V. Does any one know y that is??. I want the high voltage spikes to go across the cell not at the drain. Then I think my production would increase. Ill do these tests tommorow.
Any one have comments about the Choke, mine is 1.7mH and it has a coil to coil capacitance of 1700 pF. This capacitance would act as parralel Cap to the water cell. If the tubes/ plates are not conditioned (aka dont have an insulator layer on them) they would have a resistance of about 3 Kohms in water therefore your cell would act like a resistor and ALL the high voltage spikes and all AC voltage dont really help the gas production. After the tube are conditioned the cell STARTS to behave like a capacitor and ONLY then it would start storing charge but I have not seen my cell store charge (I just see a constant DC value of about 3 to 4 volts across it) when connected. Any comments are welcome.
-
Hi Raz
I found that my ss test cell was storing a charge right from the off - hence before any conditioning had taken place. You might have read my earlier posts above on this - I'm still somewhat mystified by it as you can't simply short out the cell to remove the charge.
Initially I thought that the charge was a result of the fact that the electrical charges from the cct would build up faster than the ion charges could move through the water, but if this was the case I'd still be able to discharge them by shorting out - I could not. It seems that I had to literally wipe the charges off the electrode tubes or wait 24 hours for them to discharge fully. This leads me to believe that the charges are somehow sitting on the insulating chromium oxide layer of the ss. I still find this intriguing.
Did you get chance to read through that link? Lawton's spikes are in the kilovolt range too, though I assume he was measuring across his cell. Seems like the inductors will be the key to high energy efficiency and high voltage spikes. It's just a matter of working out or understanding exactly what is happening. As far as I'm aware,the diode you removed is to protect the Mosfet. From Lawton:
The transistor acts as a current amplifier, capable of providing several amps to the electrodes.
The 1N4007 diode is included to protect the MOSFET should it be decided at a later date to introduce either
a coil (?inductor?) or a transformer in the output coming from the MOSFET, as sudden switching off of a
current through either of these could briefly pull the ?drain? connection a long way below the 0 Volt line and
damage the MOSFET, but the 1N4007 diode switches on and prevents this from happening by clamping the
drain voltage to -0.7 volts if the drain is driven to a negative voltage.
Curiously, I realise today when I was looking at the Lawton cct with the bifilar winding that he has not wired it as Tesla did in order to magnify the energy it can contain. Teslas bifilar winding has two wires connected and hence only two terminals to connect in the cct. Tesla's explanation of this made a lot of sense, I'll see if I can provide a depiction of this soon.
Hopefully I'll be doing some tests of my own today, but I'm using deionised water.
With tap water at 0.5 amps, my cells produce a steady gas output, whether pulsed or straight dc. However, there comes a point when only proper measurements of gas output can really determine efficiency.
At this stage, rather than having to fabricate a gas measuring device, my alternative is to simply try and produce any visual signs of gas from my deionised water. At 12 volts dc, I see nothing in terms if gas production, so I have a reference for my 12 v pulsing tests.
I'm also awaiting delivery of a good LCR bridge in order to make some accurate component measurements - my current handheld LCR multimeter is not up to it. It's all very well winding our own coils and inductors, but it is nice to get some idea of their values.
-
Tesla bifilar winding for high energy storage.
Note: Tesla depicted this bifilar coil in a pancake construction.
-
with tap water in, what if you just pulse the curcuit and read the tank frequency with an oscilloscope? If the cathode and anode match Steven's in size then the resonant return should reveal the frequency. Of course the tank signal will decay rapidly and it will take some messing around to get a trace.
-
Hi Rab
Yes a few things need to be monitored in order to see what is happening. Another thing I found today was that my old analogue scope is just not up to it, so I'm now waiting on a better storage scope.
The bifilar windings are very interesting. Until now, I had not properly looked into the bifilar because other things seemed more of a priority, however, the more research, the more interesting it gets. I've just constructed a small bifilar coil and a small trifilar coil to experiment with.
As Tesla says, because the energy stored in the inductor is a square of the potential difference between each winding, it is possible to increase the energy stored many thousands of time by bifilar winding. Tesla estimated that his 1000 turn pancake bifilar with 100 volts across it would store 250,000 times more energy than a standard 1000 turn inductor, as he would have a 50 volt pd between adjacent windings as opposed to just one tenth of a volt!
Standard inductor (0.1v x 0.1v x 1000 turns = 10)
Bifilar wound inductor (50v x 50v x 1000 turns = 2,500,000)
-
It doesn't have to be a pancake coil as stated in the patent. I think a lot of people see the diagram and think thats the way it must be done. The illustrations shown in the patent are for a better understanding of how the coils are connected and not to be confused with how the coil is wound.
HairBear
-
Agreed HB
It doesn't have to be of pancake construction, the ones I've constructed to date aren't. However, I would assume that there is a distinct difference in properties between the pancake coil and the standard coil in which all the turns are of the same diameter.
I'm not sure just how this electrically effects the properties at present as I've yet to construct and test one (and can find no info available on this), but in general as the capacitance between each winding of a pancake coil increases with every turn unlike the standard coil where it remains constant, I would expect some differing properties.
Incidentally I've modifyied my attached document a few posts above as I realised I'd made a mistake in the depiction.
-
Just wanted to tell some more points that i observed. If we make the exact Lawton Circuit and probe at the Drain/collector point of the transistor, we dont see any voltage spikes in the range of 700 V but if we take the diode going from Drain to Vcc off and then probe it, we get these spikes. These spikes appear to change with the frequency of our DC pulses. I think these spikes are due to the switching of the transistor. I want to know that if I can create these spikes using 12 V circuit that barely takes any current, could these spikes be used to put in the water cell. I have also measured that the spikes appear even if we dont have an inductor, but they seem to be amplified with the inductor connected from Drain to Vcc. Bifilar works better than toroid or seperate coils. Can we just put these spikes across the cell, this way we dont even need a VIC because we r already getting such high voltage. As u increase the inductance or make a better bifilar coil the spikes should get even higher. We can tune the frequency to resonate the inductor. Lawton said he put the diode to protect the FET, but my circuit works fine without THAT diode. Am I doing it correct or should i put the diode back.
Thanks
-
Hi Raz
I would expect the cct to work just fine without the diode - just like a car works fine without the airbags. It simply provides mosfet protection from inductor emf as I pointed out in the quote above somewhere.
-
Just wanted to tell some more points that i observed. If we make the exact Lawton Circuit and probe at the Drain/collector point of the transistor, we dont see any voltage spikes in the range of 700 V but if we take the diode going from Drain to Vcc off and then probe it, we get these spikes. These spikes appear to change with the frequency of our DC pulses. I think these spikes are due to the switching of the transistor. I want to know that if I can create these spikes using 12 V circuit that barely takes any current, could these spikes be used to put in the water cell. I have also measured that the spikes appear even if we dont have an inductor, but they seem to be amplified with the inductor connected from Drain to Vcc. Bifilar works better than toroid or seperate coils. Can we just put these spikes across the cell, this way we dont even need a VIC because we r already getting such high voltage. As u increase the inductance or make a better bifilar coil the spikes should get even higher. We can tune the frequency to resonate the inductor. Lawton said he put the diode to protect the FET, but my circuit works fine without THAT diode. Am I doing it correct or should i put the diode back.
Thanks
when the lawton circuit pulses the chokes with 6 volts 1 amp the voltage to the fuel cell is steped down, thats what chokes do. if you do not use the diode you will be running on lower voltage and lower amps than what you're using to drive the chokes with, so you loose.
chokes are capacitors, they hold a charge and they discharge. the discharge wave form of a choke is identical to a capacitor discharge wave form, its a spike you see then it falls rapidly. if you add a diode as in the lawton pdf then the voltage and amps the cell sees changes if you use the right frequency.
the output to the cell is greater than than the input driving the chokes, what i mean is you may be using 1 watt to power the lawton circuit but the cell see's 2 watts because of the diode and the way it is used, Crowbar. without the crowbar the Back Emf will be lost and not used, Free power gone! But if you use the crowbar since inductors change polarity when they're not pulsed the crowbar will switch on and direct the back emf to the wfc, however when the diode switches on it is no longer back emf because it turns in to amps, this is how the cell sees more power in watts than the primary side of the chokes.
the frequency is determined by the chokes, i call it Back Emf Resonance because if you are not on the frequency of the chokes then the back emf will not switch the crowbar diode properly and the emf and fet gate charge time will not be in resonate with one another so you have a loss of power. A 10 NF 103k capacitor works the best with the chokes in daves Pdf, you do not need the primary 555 timer circuit only the secondary, the primary makes it worse.
the output wave form is a square wave with ringing at the top, the circuit can only do so much and thats it.
if you compare the lawton waveform to the alternator wave form you will see that lawton gets 1 square wave with his circuit when tuned properly, that is 1 square wave with ringing at the top.
the alternator as crazy as it sounds but yes the out put is a square wave and not a sine wave. the square wave output is in 3 phases, at the top of each square wave you see harmonics, not ringing like dave got with his circuit.
-
Hi Spewing,
are you recommending to use just the "Faster Frequency Circuit" (Right side of Lawton) cuz I have had better gas production using the Left Side only, the one with a 1 uF cap on it. I can understand the function of the diode as you are saying that its a feedback to put the back emf to the cell, but I have only removed the diode, I am still connecting the drain point to the cell but directly or Ill put one more choke there. The only thing I saw was that If I have that cap there the 700 V peaks dont come. I know how daves cricuit would cause a square wave with ringing on top, but that would be no where close to 700 V. What my theory is, you remove the diode and when the input DC pulse switches off and the FET has to switch as well therefore for a VERY SHORT time the impedance of drain and source becomes like a open circuit but the inductor still trys to push current thru it because its charged and has no where else to go therefore we get a REALLY HIGH VOLTAGE spike everytime that switch happens. This voltage is much higher than what we would get by just ringing and if we are just trying to cause potential on the water cell and not current then these peaks would be ideal. Please let me know what you think, I will do more testing today. The only problem is that, when I connect them to my cell, I get the same peaks on both terminals therefore the AC swings dont do much to help gas production. Therefore, if we had two exact same circuits but one is inverted again and fed into a different MOSFET the peaks would occur at a different point in time and feed those to the cell mayb it will produce more gas as now the cell terminals are recieveing shocks of +700 V and -700V. I will do testing today and post my progress, I can still produce pretty good gas at 12V and 0.5 Amps (Not as much as Lawton/Ravi but good) when I tune my circuit right but Im aiming to get even better production and my plates have only been conditioned for a few hours. Please let me know what you guys think. I will try to post pics and videos of my setup.
Thanks
-
Interesting experiment today.
I built a simple car ignition coil pulsing cct and decided to pulse some 10-15Kvolts across my small test cell.
My little pulse cct produces a square wave that fires the ignition coil. I tested it on my scope to check it was oscillating ok then connected the car coil. I had attached my small PSU set at 12 volts to the unit, but once switched on, the current limiter cut in limiting the current to 600mA. The result of this was that the supply voltage drops to between 7 and 8 volts. Nevertheless, the coil still fired across a 5-6mm gap. So I was interested to see what would happen when I placed the high voltage pulses across my small test cell.
I've attached a photo of the set up below.
Well, results a little disappointing in that I appeared to get absolutely nothing happening. No sign of any gas production whatsoever.
My water is deionised, so I decided to add some sodium sulphate in order to provide some current carrying ions. Still nothing, no gas at all.
I wanted to check that I had this high voltage there across my cell (2mm gap incidentally), but I've got no HV probes or a meter that will take 15Kv. With the power still on, via insulating cable ties, I carefully lifted the cell out of the water to see if a spark would now arc across the cell... nothing!
Tommorow I want to repeat the experiment with a my large PSU to see what happens when the current is not limited, but here's the interesting thing:
With my test cell in the water, I disconnected the +ve wire of the cell that is attached the the HV of the coil. This meant that I effectively had another spark gap in the cct. Turning the unit back on, I now cautiously moved the detached wire towards the HV coil terminal and found to my surprise that my spark was back - jumping the full 5-6mm gap.
Now, I'm not quite sure what is happening here because my pulses are obviously passing across my submerged electrodes, though I'm not getting any gas so I would assume extremely little current must be flowing. That said, my PSU is limiting at 600mA and I have an arc jumping a 5-6mm gap.
I re-did the above test again using clean deionised water and got the same result.
There must be a logical explanation, but I must say that I'm a little puzzled by this at present - need to give this some thought.
-
I repeated the above experiment today using a larger PSU, and had the same results.
I then repeated the experiment with my larger test cell, that has the two floating plates, with 5-6mm space between each concentric tube. 5-6mm spark happilly fired across the gap between my +ve test cell lead and the HV terminal. Again no sign of anything happening in the water.
Another curious thing though. Before I put my large test cell in the water, I did the test with this, 'bone-dry' test cell out of the water, sitting on my test bench and found that I could still get a spark between the +ve test cell lead and the HV terminal. It was much smaller, maybe only 1.5 mm
So why do I get a spark at the wire and HV terminal, but not across my test cell? This I think comes down to current density, in fact the smaller you make the conductive metal points at which the spark jumps the gap, the greater the distance the spark can jump (ie, the spark will jump further between to needle points than, say, two metal coins face-on.
However, the fact is that energy still must be travelling, via the air gap, through my test cell. I had really not expected this to happen.
I must assume at this point that, as no blocking diode has been employed, my cell along with the ignition coil is forming an LC circuit and the ac signal is therefore seeing my test cell as a capacitor. No gas is being produced because of this ac signal.
Next I want to convert it to a dc pulse.
-
The great thing about this forum is that it allows us to record our thoughts for future reference. This I am about to do.
I have some concerns and problems that I need to air.
Now, it is very easy to get carried away by all the hype regarding Meyer and his wfc, and in all the excitement and wishful thinking it is all too easy to lose sight of reality. At times fundamental, proven science seems to be overlooked or simply disregarded as it is seen to be inconvenient. And some folks go off on all sorts of fantasy trips with no regard whatsoever for science. This irritates and frustrates me, but nothing annoys me more than the intellectually challenged idiots that haven't got a clue as to what they are talking about, but who regardless continually post absolute garbage claiming knowledge and insight. You know who you are!
There are some posts that I'm sure are from people out to confuse the issue and simply muddy the waters - perhaps deliberately, while other posts are just mindless retards full of self-importance - it helps if you can spot them.
With this in mind, every now and then it is worth grounding yourself and returning to a few basic facts.
Faraday's Laws of electrolysis are FACT, not a theory. And, anyone that understands the laws will realise that they make perfect sense. Faraday's laws of electrolysis are often ignored with reference to Meyer's wfc because he talks about using high voltage pulses and... it's different!
Faraday's laws of electrolysis (M. Faraday)
Faraday's first law of electrolysis
The amount of chemical change during electrolysis is proportional to the charge passed.
Faraday's second law of electrolysis
The charge Q required to deposit or liberate a mass m is proportional to the charge z of the ion, the mass, and inversely proprtional to the relative ionic mass M; mathematically,
Q = F m z/M.
They may at first appear a little daunting to anyone not familiar with them. But basically it means this: The amount of H2 and O2 molecules evolved at the electrodes are directly proportional to the charges on the electrodes. Every H2 molecule that evolves takes 2 electrons from the cathode.
These laws of course are related to standard electrolysis, BUT, also any form of electrolysis that relies on the ionisation of the water molecule. Where gas is being evolved due to ionisation then electrons play a key part and every hydrogen molecule that is produced requires 2 electrons. This is FACT. Faraday's Law is not one that can be simply disobeyed like a road speed limit!
My problem is that from his technical briefs Meyer suggests that ionisation is not instrumental in the production of the gases, so Faraday's Laws do not apply.
OK. But if this is true and we are not relying on ionisation, we have no need to exchange charges on the electrodes and hence the electrodes would not need to be in direct contact with the water. Neither then, would they need to be stainless steel. So something is clearly... not right! It's either one thing or another.. not both.
And, if ionisation is not involved we must really be pulling the water molecule apart into atoms - not ions! And I'm not at all convinced that we are actually capable of breaking the covalent bonds of a water molecule so cleanly as to give us O and H2. That said, H2 and O combined in the first place to form H2O, so perhaps there is a way of doing this by pulsing high voltages... but then Meyers wfc design would tend to contradict this and indicate ionisation. There are a lot of contradictions and blatant bullshit in Meyers stuff. I often feel when looking through Meyer patents and his technical briefs that I am pointlessly attempting to make sense of utter nonsense.
If on the other hand we are in fact relying on standard ionisation, then there may be some logical reasons why it seems more efficient when we pulse the voltages.
Firstly, we have to understand that standard electrolysis is not 100% efficient. This is obvious in that heat builds up as current passes through the water medium - wasted energy. Electrolysers that quickly boil water waste a lot of energy!
What then if we are simply operating at far greater efficiencies.
We know - or should know - that it is not possible to get over-Faraday efficiencies from any form of electrolysis that relies on ionisation, as every electron is catered for.
So, possibilities are somewhat limited. But, we don't need the electrons to necessarily come from our power supply. In theory we could be taking electrons from anywhere... the environment for example. Time energy pumps would seem to extract energy from the environment and reduce overall current from the supply. Lawton's D14 cct setup with bifilar inductor would seem to show indications of this. If this is the case, this additional energy, though reducing the current drain on our power supply would actually enhance gas production while also observing Faraday's laws.
Unlike resistors, inductors and capacitors, are extremely low loss components and so the key to greater efficiencies may lie in the LC combination, and more specifically the properties of the bifilar inductor.
Current through the standard electrolysis cell is the catalyst for ionisation, but what if there was another way of initiating ionisation. It may be that we are somehow inducing ionisation without the heavy current flow through the cell, hence without the energy wasted as heat - greater efficiency!
Then we have the calcium **? coating on the cathode. If we are actually creating a better capacitor from the formation of this oxide layer, then electrolysis can be taking place between pulses due to the residual charges left on the electrodes. Possible greater efficiency, but again without breaking Faraday's laws.
I don't now believe that anyone is actually achieving 300% over-Faraday by ionisation as often mentioned - or anything over-Faraday for that matter. It's not possible by ionisation. But I do think that it might be possible to be seen to be achieving this by not taking into account energy input from the environment. If this is so, then it is a way forward in it's own right, and worth pursuing.
The answer is out there... somewhere.
-
Dupe post and you wouldn't want to read through that again... would you?
-
I continue to watch and listen. Thank you for your diligence and your diligent recording and posting, Far ;^)
-
when listening to stephen meyers on water fuel musem archives
he mentions the free electrons in iron fermi i think
he also mentions that metal will not produce as well after time
boyce also mentions that extra push may be coming from radiant energy
bedini type i quess
so the mystery goes on
-
Hi All,
Here's a link to an interview with Moray King done by Sterling Allen. IN there he gives his view on where the extra energy in the meyer cell might come from.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Moray_B_King
Also find here a powerpoint presentation from Moray King where among others he explain the meyer cell.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Dissociation_Using_Zero_Point_Energy
Well worth a look if you're not familiar with his work.
regards
Robert
-
Yes, it should be clear to everyone that we can't get something for nothing, remember "Energy can neither be created or destroyed".
A lot depends on whether or not the process is all about ionisation. If it is, and efficiency is the issue, then the maximum efficiency we can achieve is 100%, through having a perfect energy exchange with no wasted energy.
But, it might well be possible that we are drawing on the energy from all around us, so we might see what appears to be 200% over-Faraday. It really doesn't matter to us where this additional energy is coming from as we will still see the result as a reduction of our applied power. All good. However, if we knew exactly how to tap into this 'radiant' energy then we could theoretically at least, vastly increase efficiency.
The more I learn the more inclined I am to think it is all about ionisation, the electron and some form of radiant energy, rather than pulling the water molecule apart using the electrostatic force between electrodes.
However, it may well be that the nature of the pulses - the voltage, duration, rise and fall times - all tie in to induce radiant energy absorbtion into our cct.
Its all about keeping an open mind while also keeping your feet firmly planted on solid foundations. I see so many people eager to learn, then in their ignorance being led like a sheep by some first class muppet down blind alleyways and deadends. No one should allow themselves to get side-tracked by idiots and idiot posts - and don't take anyones word for anything without good reason (including mine).
Still much work to be done and always lots to think about. Check out these links:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/fep01.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepv21.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tep50pmt.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep01.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/biftest.htm
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/davidmason/timepump.htm
-
On page 2 of this thread Tad (Uncle Fester) wrote:
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
It's a shame that he doesn't seem to have looked in lately, as now I'm approaching this stage in my cell development, his post seems all the more relevant.
If your looking in Tad, I'd like to say - after my own tests with deioinsed water- that your post now sounds more impressive than ever.
I have some questions: Were you using any inductors in your set up... what exactly was your set up?
Endothermic (cool cell) would suggest ionisation, but at 15 mA this would give very little gas.
If your still out there Tad, please pop in for a chat.
-
Ok, I've gone through a bit of a learning process and now, armed with a little extra knowledge and experience, I feel it is time to construct a multicell wfc to specifications more appropriate for high volume gas generation.
My test cells have served their purpose for the time being, but now I want to assemble a unit that will more accurately replicate Lawtons. My large test cell has, afterall a 6mm spacing between electrodes and floating tubes.
In the post from Tad (quoted above), he says he was using a gap of just 1mm. This is however very small and must be on the very limit of practical construction and indeed performance. Construction wise, the plates or tubes would have to be quite rigid and not prone to warp, which likely means limiting the overall length. Performance wise, I would think that there may be a problem with shifting the gas from this tight space and hence a drop-off in performance as the water is insulated from the electrodes by this gas - but I may be wrong.
Tad, didn't reveal much about his set up, other than he was pulsing 1200vdc at 42.8KHz and the cell was drawing just 18 Watts and delivering 200 litre per hour.
My tube arrangement will be designed to fit within the 110mm perspex tube as is common nowadays, complete with the appropriate end caps and fittings. It will be a multitube wfc, but unlike most, I'm going to attempt to further enhance efficiency with additional floating plates.
I have wound a couple of bifilar inductors and one trifilar to experiment with. I will design and construct a reliable gas measurement system once my cell is built and it is up an running.
Some people are welding ss wire, terminals and/or their stainless steel electrodes together. I on the other hand will be bolting everything together with ss nuts and bolts. It should be noted however, that ordinary high speed metal drill bits will not drill through SS - in fact you will overheat them by trying and hardly scratch the surface. Carbide tipped drill bits are what are needed.
Attached is my cell tube configuration. Tubes are 16" long.
-
Nearly completed wfc.
Photos show anodes and floating tubes - still to fit cathode bars down the centres. It currently weighs in at 7.5 kgs!
All the anodes are bolted together at the top with small ss nuts and bolts. Threaded ss bars will be linked together once I have fitted them to unit.
Spacing is achieved by cut pieces of rubber bungs used for test tubes in chemistry. This I think will suffice for now, but the weight of the floating tubes add up and so I would want to improve on this if the wfc was to be fitted to a vehicle, where vibration my cause the unit to disassemble itself in use.
I've roughed up all the outer tube surfaces, but it's very difficult to do this in the inners due to the small aperature and lengths. The outer tubes are probably more important anyway, as it is these that will develop the calcium compound layer.
All spacing is just under 2mm, except for between the centre anode and the next inner concentric floating tube, which is about 5mm.
-
Construction nearly complete. Hopefully have 'the Beast' ready for some testing over the weekend.
I've also decided to make a smaller more compact unit to install directly in our Land Rover asap, in order to get some on going mileage figures while I'm experimenting with the Beast on the bench.
This smaller unit will simply be installed as a hydrobooster to begin with, just to give me a benchmark of figures (both power consumed and mileage) from which to try to improve upon. So, no pulsed, high voltages, inductors or anything - just straight dc.
-
farrah
awesome
if that monster of yours dont produce 20 litres a minute.......
you got a 10 ton truck or something?
can hardly wait for you test results
-
Finally got around to giving my super multicell electrolyser, 'the Beast', a test run today. In terms of the current to power ratio, it seems extremly efficient.
Results are detailed below. Note this is a copy of a post I recently made on another form, but as I feel it's very relevant, I've copied it in it's entirity to here.
I too agree that there should be no need to prepare or passify the ss if it is to be used in a Meyer-type cell as it's the current process that creates the gunge.
SS effectively does not corrode due to the chromium content reacting with oxygen at the surface to become chromium oxide. This protective film - only microns thick - will self-heal if scratched as another chromium oxide rich layer immediately forms. However, if you take away the oxygen from the environment that the ss is in (either air or water), then the chromuim oxide layer will quickly start to fail. In our electrolysers, at the oxygen depleted cathode, this is exactly what happens allowing the iron content to be exposed and hence rust. However, minerals in the water (mainly calcium carbonate 'limestone') react with the cathode and eventually coat it which again prevents the iron content from rusting. So once you have this coating, the gunge should stop.
Normal electrolysis relies on ionisation of the water molecule at the electrodes to produce the individual gases, and there is no way to break from Faraday's Laws concerning this (whether people think so or not) as quite simply, every electron plays a role. Hence it is all current dependent and the amount of gas generated will always be proportinal to the current through the cell.
Meyer's principle apparently did not involve ionisation. If this is the case then current is indeed unnecessary, as current through the cell only serves to initiate ionisation. So if we prevent the current flowing, we get no ionisation. Sounds so simple!
The real problem is not so much preventing the current flowing - the real problem is figuring out exactly what the necessary conditions are to get oxygen and hydrogen from water without ionisation.
The more I research it, the more Dave Lawtons experiments seem like ionisation to me. There is talk of intermittent very high voltage pulses that occur, which might be a clue to seemingly over Faraday results. I recently did a number of tests plotting current against voltage of water or electrolyte using different cells and realised that very high voltage pulses could cause a tremendous amount of ionisation even if only briefly.
I have just tested a super multicell unit, I call 'the beast', monitoring the voltage and current to give me a power graph. The other thing I gleaned from these tests are just how non-linear the resistance of water or electrolyte is. I used a fully stabilised Farnell 35 volt 10 amp PSU.
These are my test results with plain tap water:
@ 2 volts, I = 10mA, Power = 20mW
@ 3 volts, I = 38mA, Power = 152mW
@ 4 volts, I = 130mA, Power = 520mW
@ 5 volts, I = 480mA, Power = 2.4W
@ 6 volts, I = 1,21A, Power = 7.26W
@ 7 volts, I = 3.18A, Power = 22.26W
@ 8 volts, I = 5.09A, Power = 40.72W
@ 9 volts, I = 6.73A, Power = 60.57W
@ 10 volts, I = 8.35A, Power = 83.5W
@ 11 volts, I = 10.3A, Power = 113.3W (current limit of PSU)
This also highlights how voltage effects the non-linear resistance of the liquid, as you will note that at 2 volts the effective liquid resistance was effectively 200 ohm, but at just 3 volts was down to just 79 ohm. At 11 volts the liquid resistance is a mere 1.07 ohm!
So, imagine what a 10Kv pulse would do to the figures? I'm not sure how to calculate this figure, but by plotting the above figures on graph paper it can be seen thgat at 10Kv the liquid resistance would be negligible and the current flow... astronomical.
Though primarily related to standard electrolysis, I thought this info might be helpful in that there may well be an overlap between this and Meyer's.
Incidentally, I'm yet to hear of anyone actually managing to pull the water molecule apart by high voltage. And of course if this is the case it begs the question; why do we need the electrodes in actual contact with the water at all?
Voltage can't cause ionisation, as ionisation is an electron reliant reaction, so it's not as if we even need a small current to initiate ionisation.
Quote:
This is exaclty the point! This was also my first idea when I read Stanleys work. According to his theory it should make no difference if you isolate the plates, for you let only the electric field do the work. It actually would be stupid not to do it. But if you do this, it will not work anymore (my theory, which is also based on some tests).
Otherwise we and Stan wouldn't have made so much efforts to limit the current in the cell, if just isolating it would solve it.
This hits the nail on the head and leads me to think that ionisation may still play a part in the process.
I still have many doubts about Meyer, his VIC, and the whole principle he put forward. I'm not saying that we are necessarily wasting our time, but just that Meyer might well be inadvertantly leading us the wrong way down the lane, due to his fundamental lack of understanding. In other words things might well be happening... but just not the way Meyer stated, so too much reliance on old Stans written word might be foolhardy.
-
Copied this from another forum. Thought some of you might find it interesting reading:
Turning water into fuel
The process of efficient electrolysis
And the operation of the water fuel cell
If you give me fifteen minutes I can show you how to change the world.
Water can be burned as a fuel source. Why hasn?t it been done before? Because people aren?t capable of following directions, and are either guilty of too little confidence in their abilities, or have too much. If you read this to the end, and follow my suggestions, and the links I provide maybe we will see this technology at last. Before I start there are some things you should know. I am not a writer, which will become evident if you choose to continue reading. I am not a physicist, a mathematician, an electronics expert nor a salesman. So this is free knowledge. However it may cost you some money?..you may be so intrigued by this information that you will buy the materials (I don?t sell them) and begin to experiment yourself. Stan Meyer fans, stick around, because for everything you think you know there is still more to learn, trust me, and bear with me while I attempt to tell the story first, and then we will get to the good stuff.
Stan Meyer was a man that made some very bold claims in the late 1980?s. He claimed to have run a car on water. In fact he did run a car on water. With an apparatus that he had designed and patented he was able to break H2O down into its component gasses. Not through electrolysis as it is originally thought of, but through an entirely unique electrolysis process. His claims were witnessed by scientists, government officials, including the patent officials where he had to prove his claims to get the patents, and numerous media outlets.
In 2005 I decided to build a propane injection system for a hopped up diesel truck that I have. With the horsepower in my NA (naturally aspirated) diesel I couldn?t afford to have my EGT?s get any higher, so I was looking to add water vapor injection with the LPG to keep the temperatures at an acceptable level. While searching I came across hydrogen or HHO boosters. I instantly became intrigued. Propane burns slow, combined with diesel it raises the exhaust gas temperatures (EGT), but hydrogen burns so fast it would actually aid the combustion without a serious increase in the EGT?s. That would allow me to increase my injector pump pressures, and add even more hydrogen. Win-win situation. Sorry to digress. I had no intention of buying any ?HHO cell?. My intentions were to decide on a system, and build one that is custom to my application. So while researching these systems I came across Stan Meyer?s WFC, the water fuel cell. At first I was a skeptic, so I set out to learn as much as I could about the science behind it. My first stop was the internet where I found a quite a few people were already researching these WFC?s, after seeing that all of these people were working on the idea and yet no-one had been able to produce the results that had been witnessed and reported by impartial people, and even some that used to be skeptics I became even more interested. I am very good at solving riddles.
Never one to be guilty of too little confidence I set out to learn everything that I could about the science of electrolysis, the water molecule itself, and the inventor of the WFC.
Electrolysis is simply creating a magnetic field and using it to decompose chemicals into their components. In the form of water it becomes hydrogen and oxygen. My first experiment was two stainless steel perforated plates separated by 1/16 of an inch. For power I used a 12 volt trolling motor battery. I got some production, enough to prove that the science was valid, and warranted further study.
Next I studied the water molecule. I hadn?t really paid attention in school; I was too preoccupied with more important things. The H2O molecule is a neat little thing; it is comprised of two H atoms and one O atom. The little thing holding them together is the electron. The electron is the only bonding force, however try pulling three magnets apart, not very hard is it, now take a swimming pool and fill it with magnets and try pulling one of them out, it becomes a lot harder because the force is increased over the entire surface area, and they are all bonded together. That is water in its natural state. But what makes this situation interesting is that it is not a simple electromagnetic bond, it is an electrostatic bond called the covalent bond. Scuffing your feet loads you up with electro-static energy, and touching something conductive discharges that energy. That means that if the electrostatic charge on an electron can be discharged, it will cease to bond. At first I dived in, almost expecting to have to go back to school and get a doctorate in chemistry. After getting this far I decided that maybe I should investigate Mr. Meyer a little bit. If this guy is some kind of super genius then I wouldn?t stand a chance at learning enough without some additional higher learning. What I learned about Stan Meyer sent me right back to my studies with a renewed vigor. He studied at an advanced energy sciences college, but never graduated. Remember that fact because it will become relevant.
During my investigation of Stan I began to realize that he wasn?t a super genius, he wasn?t a mad scientist, what he seemed to be was just a ?good old boy? with some above average intelligence. How had he come to this discovery? I read every article about, and by Stan Meyer that could be found posted on the internet, and published in any book at the library. (Yes they still exist) I watched every video clip with him in it; from news stories about him to home videos of his lectures and his ?car that ran on water?.
?To study a thing is to understand a thing?
There in lies the secret, to understand the invention I didn?t first need to study the mechanics of it, I first needed to understand the inventor. He was what confused me, he confused everybody. He used terms that weren?t exactly correct, and in fact some of the things he said were quite misleading. His patents skated around the issues and seemed to be lacking in relevant information. So once again I went back to watching the videos, I studied them. I slowed them down I paused them; I watched his mannerisms and studied the man. I came to some very enlightening conclusions during that time. About not only Stan, but the people working on replicating his WFC as well.
No one likes to share their secrets, and every one has a reason why. Of all the places on the web that preach information sharing, only a few have attempted to share anything, and I believe that is only showboating. A technology worth billions is not something anyone wants to share, they want to be the first, and they expect to get rich either through sales or becoming famous. The simple fact is if the information is given away someone will get rich manufacturing the cells and or selling them. But if I give everybody the technology, there will be too much competition to charge to a fortune.
Stan turned down millions offered to him by the representatives of an Arab oil company to just sit on the technology. I believe him, and I suspect that they were from the U.A.E. Not Saudi Arabia as some have speculated. Gentlemen, I tell you now, I know how Stan made his cell operational; it worked as he said, and if anyone offers me a few million to stop telling the world, then I will take their money and take care of my family and shower them with gifts. And I highlighted it to let them know in case they are reading it. In the meantime I am going to let the world know that the technology is available, is viable and is extremely valuable. Do not let anyone get rich from selling you this thing which anyone can build, the key to the WFC is in the electronics that Stan used, and he had said that himself.
Stan used an old alternator powered by an AC motor, a signal generator, and his VIC (voltage intensifier circuit) along with his cell to produce this amazing amount of hydrogen or HHO on demand. And this is where the story gets convoluted so bear with me and I will clarify it at the end I promise you.
I studied the videos of Stan?s cell so that I could build one like it; I compared his cell to the hundreds on the web. They all used the same basic materials, and configuration, so all I had to do was gather a signal generator, an oscilloscope, and 12 volt DC power source, build the cell and get on with it. So that?s what I did. I chose to use flat plates instead of the tubes that Stan had settled on because I had some around my shop and from my experiments found that the shape wasn?t as relative as was the technique. Next I needed to double my voltage. This was an easy task, I simply used a 24v 850ma transformer that I had from an old fuel furnace. This solved two things, first it was close to the 26v that Stan used, and second it was low amperage. Next I made an induction coil salvaged from a stun-gun (crazy huh) and placed it in the circuit. By adjusting the frequency and pulsing the voltage I now had some pretty good production, next I gated the pulses switching the voltage off after about three seconds, when the power switched off the primary coil?s power was interrupted causing the secondary coil on the induction coil to fire sending the voltage way into the kilovolt range. The gas production was getting better. After a lot of toying with it I realized I had hit the same plateau as everyone else. The secret eluded me. I could make gas, but I couldn?t make the gas just pour off like Stan. That is until I started listening to Stan Meyer. In his videos his speeches are always rehearsed, that is evident because they are almost verbatim. So it would seem that Stan didn?t know as much about this system that he created as one would be led to believe, he never answered the technical questions asked of him by people that had obviously done their homework, he would just blow it off. One day I went about researching free electrons, and came across what I thought was a paper by Stan because it was discussing ?liberated? electrons. Lo and behold it was written by Andrija Puharich. His studies and even his drawings were almost an identical match to Stan?s work, yet they were written before, and in the earliest stages of Stan?s development. I came to the realization that Stan may have been doing the same thing as everybody studying his work. Trying to replicate someone else?s work and be as cryptic as possible so that no one else would catch on to him, the only difference was that Stan had actually surpassed the other inventors results, that is when it hit me?..That is why Stan had went to that particular college and then dropped out. This man was no failure; he went to that school for a single purpose, to learn specifically about the studies of Andrija Puharich and none other than Nikola Tesla. He went to increase his knowledge on the very thing he was at home working on once he had learned what he needed he dropped out, he needed to apply his time to his mission. That was his goal, not a degree. It always struck me as odd that Stan would go from sales into science, he didn?t have a background in it, so how could this idea just ?pop? into his head. He says God, I say whatever. Now Andrija had a motive to be tampering with this stuff, he had a background story. He found that he could disassociate the atoms in water molecules using ultrasonic and ELF frequencies while searching for a way to break up blood clots with non-invasive techniques. But once he was unsuccessful in that respect he moved on to other things. Somehow Stanley got a hold of this idea and started working on it. So ok, he felt that God had led him to this great idea, and maybe he did, but the concept justified his needing to learn more. (I should have been a detective)
But after further research I found that I wasn?t the only one that had stumbled on to this, there were others, and yet still no one had found success. Why?
With this new information I now had other avenues to investigate, new theories to test , more nights without sleep, and then another epiphany. Well actually a $139.00 stroke of good misfortune. My alternator went bad in my truck, the very truck that had started this whole mess in the first place. A diesel engine does not have all of the excess wiring that a gasoline engine does; it lacks an electronic ignition, a coil, and the computer ?brain?. So as some of you that have ever put a radio in an older car may recall, if you wire it up directly to the battery you get to hear what? An incessant squealing that comes through the radio speakers, and when I changed my alternator I did just that, when I reconnected the battery and started my truck the radio was on an AM station. And of course I heard the whine change pitch when I revved the engine. This whine is caused by the rotation of the shaft (oscillations) creating a radio frequency that runs through your cars wiring. Yahtzee! In newer cars all of the excess wiring soaks up the signal and filters it out.
This is the reason Stan used the alternator, maybe he didn?t not have the knowledge necessary to create a complex circuit that consisted of an Amplitude Modulated audio frequency inducted onto a carrier wave. That is what Andrija Puharich had used in his studies, and an alternator does just that. So now I had the key or so I thought. If I used my alternator and removed the voltage regulator I would get a good amount of voltage and the audio frequency in one bundle, but how do I adjust the frequency? By adjusting the speed at which the electric motor turns my new ?oscillator?. I didn?t have an electric motor around so I pulled the pulley, and used an electric drill on a bolt screwed into the shaft, I checked it with an ammeter and was getting way to many amps, just like everyone else, so I placed a jumper wire on the terminals to ?fool? the alternator into thinking that there was a fully charged battery hooked up to it thereby cutting the amps to almost nothing and keeping the voltage high,
After hooking everything up to an old signal generator I started messing around with settings, by adjusting the dial on the drill?s trigger I could increase and decrease the speed thus modulating the audio frequency, the voltage did not go through a VIC as Stan used because I did not know how to build one, instead going through the stun-gun coil, now I looked for a toroid coil, because Stan said he used one, I found one and was going to put it in the circuit until I found out what they do, they actually filter out RF interference, which is exactly what the audio oscillator was needed for. I assumed that Stan had just made a mistake and actually had meant an induction coil because nowhere in his patent does he show a toroid coil in the circuit. Because if it had been, the thing wouldn?t have worked at the patent office, and if it was present in the schematic and not in the circuit it would have raised some eyebrows. Old Stanley had used that as a ruse, if someone had used a toroid they will not get the audio frequency that is needed to make the cell work. Misinformation to help protect his work from duplication perhaps? Since my cell now had an audio frequency going through it the electrodes were almost humming, they had become the ?excitors? that Stan referred to. And my gas production, at times was just more than at previous times, but when I would switch the pulsing voltage to off and the secondary windings discharged, it scared me to have the thing indoors. Production went off the charts. I thought the water was going to literally boil out.
I have made the cell, I have investigated the man, and found out he was continuing Puharich?s work, and I later found out that his VIC is just a simple Tesla resonant tank circuit. But wait there?s more.
As I let the cell run and continued to play with the frequency, the pulsing time and the audio frequency (by varying the drill speed) I found sweet spots where the water was almost boiling and would disappear at a rate where it was actually a visible action. You could watch as the water disappeared, but then it would slow and have to be tuned again. After awhile nothing I could do made any production and I had actually topped off the cell three times. Lucky for me I was outside because what happened next would have blown the roof off of the house had I been inside with all of the gas I had just made over an hour period, I stuck my hand into the cell to pull the plates, with the electric off (of course) and it still almost electrocuted me, it actually sparked. I quickly double checked and sure enough everything was off. I checked the cell, and it had stored about 3 amps and 10 volts. I am not sure how much discharged when I stuck my hand in there, but let me tell you it cracked liked a baby lightening bolt and made my knuckles ache for a while. I thought that was pretty amazing; I decided to go over everything once more, just to make sure that I wasn?t missing anything. I still hadn?t used the oscilloscope, I don?t even know how. And later that week I had to return the equipment to the person I had borrowed it from. But I was fine, I was satisfied that I had actually achieved some success or so I had thought. I went back to searching for others that should have achieved success by now so that I could hopefully share my experiences?and yet no one had achieved anything, after two years not one other person knew this? So now my selfish nature has just reared its ugly head, I wanted money before I just gave my hard work over to some one else to profit from. I could care less about fame. So I went back to studying the tapes, I wanted to find out who Stan?s sources were, who offered him the money. Maybe I could get some of that. I would love to tell my wife that we are millionaires and that she?ll never have to work again, I?d love to be able to buy a couple hundred acre farm in Colorado and build some jeeps to wheel. I?d even move my mother in-law out there. (Playing on the heart strings for that bribe)
Life would be real sweet if I could just find out who wanted Stan?s work and get in touch with them. I found one of them. But in the meantime I wanted to perfect this thing.
While studying the tapes for the hundredth time I came to a point where Stan talks about the capacitance of the cell. I hadn?t really understood before but I think I do now. The cell works at high voltage while limiting the amperage. Think of the electric as water. The voltage is the pressure, the current is the volume. If you try to fill up a 5gal. container with a pressure washer it will take you quite a while to do it. But the stream will shoot a distance, so you can fill it up from across the yard. That is voltage.
Now fill the same bucket up with the garden hose that was hooked to the pressure washer, it will fill the bucket quicker. Twice as fast in most cases, but at a shorter spray distance than the pressurized stream. That is because you have lost the ?potential? energy by increasing the volume, to put the stream out at the same distance (get the workout of it) you have to do one of two things, limit the volume(amps) which means pressurize the stream (induction coil and circuitry) or increase the flow rate (larger more powerful water pump/power source), and increasing amperage increases the danger, and increases the energy being used to create the gas, making it an inefficient process.
What we are trying to do is get the voltage to go a long distance through some highly resistive material, so by decreasing the volume we increase the potential (work that pressure alone can do) because it does not require more power, and volume (amperage) just fills the container (cell) faster, reducing and ultimately stopping its effectiveness.
So to say it in Stan speak (I hope you understand now). By limiting the amps we allow the potential (amp free voltage) to take over, yet we still ultimately end up with amperage saturating the WFC, this amperage comes from the minimal current we are putting in, but also comes from another source as well. Since there is no continuity for the current to pass through easily it charges the cell and becomes free electrons. And I believe that the audio frequency being inducted onto the anode acts as an inhibitor keeping the current from being able to leave the cell at the rate it is brought in to it. Also current is nothing more than electrons. By breaking the covalent bond, each molecule loses two electrons; these liberated electrons remain in the water as well due to the capacitance, once ?the capacity? has been reached the cell can not release anymore gas because there are now to many ?free? electrons hanging around in the cell that just reformulate the bonds and attach at free points helping to make the covalent bonds stronger by increasing the negative polarity of the molecules as a whole, and create a static layer around the cathode and anode. I believe that some of the free electrons do take on a slightly positive charge, this static layer that builds around the electrodes appears to trap the gas bubbles until it is discharged by either the high voltage being gated off and shaking the cell freeing the gas atoms thereby pulling the electrons away with it, or the polarities of the ?exciters? being momentarily switched. But if we harvest those free electrons from the water we are helping the extraction process by taking the generated stored current from the cell. This current can then be used to supply power back to the electronics that power the cell. Since Faraday only discussed the actual fracturing of the covalent bond and did not account for the efficiency of higher grades of stainless steel being able to do the job without decomposing, and then ?harvesting? the free electrons that were ?liberated? in the process as well as those added by the process?? well I?ll just leave that argument up to the chicken before the egghead debaters for now.
All of this through luck, and misfortune. Those of you that are studying this phenomenon are on the right track but in the wrong position. Those who said it can?t be done, you are wrong, it has been done. Through the hard work and sheer genius of great men like Nikola Tesla, Andrija Puharich, and Stanley Meyer.
These men who have been shunned in our history books for being unconventional. Well if we are to examine history we will see many cases of men with unconventional ideas that were proven right. Maybe Stan can join their ranks.
An attempt at clarification
Now that you have the story behind this story, I will try to bring it together for you without all of the history. And hopefully in simpler terms then the mathematical algorithms and geek speak that Stanley and Andrija.
The main difficulty in completing this project without a doubt will be the construction of the electronics. A microprocessor will have to be built, one that can provide or regulate all of the necessary frequencies involved, as well as monitoring the cell to adjust the frequencies accordingly. That is easier today than it would have been even in 1992 when Stan realized it. And more possible than when Andrija figured it out in the late 70?s. Like most of us Andrija and Stan Meyer just could not complete that single most crucial component to the WFC. (I wonder if a nice little Palm Pilot could be utilized as the brain)
Here is what I think will be required: (Remember, I am no electronics expert)
An audio oscillator and maybe an amplifier, I didn?t use an amplifier but Andrija?s schematic shows one.
A custom built microprocessor / built to control the frequency and voltage parameters defined from the use of the signal generator and an oscilloscope during pre-production testing and monitoring.
The microprocessor should be of a small and efficient design capable of controlling the audio frequency / the voltage pulse timer / as well as the voltage frequency to the desired parameters as set through study with the use of a signal generator and oscilloscope during pre-production testing and monitoring.
The microprocessor will also have to monitor the cell, and adjust all frequencies accordingly, as the water?s natural resonance will change as the HHO is produced and contaminants are left in the cell. These contaminants change the ability of the water to maintain a steady resonance at a fixed frequency by changing the viscosity as the level of solid contaminants rise to a higher ppm as the water is converted. (Does anyone know what minerals cause a green/black scum to form? Because that comes out of the tap-water where I live, in about 10 seconds there is a ? inch layer of it on top of the water) (If you do this in a glass container on a ceramic tile as I did you will be able to hear the change in pitch from the glass & ceramic vibrations)
During the pulsing, the water will reach a state of near ionization, aiding in the breakdown process due to weakening of the electrons. The pulsing charges the H molecules natural polarity to a greater extent while weakening the negative charge of the O molecule and electrons, this allows the bond to move from 104.5? to a 109? angle, reducing the dipolar regions hold on the H molecule and stretching the bonding electron, which can now come into contact with more positively charged molecules discharging the electrostatic charge and momentarily switching off the covalent bond. And now the positive is more positive, and the stronger negative is weakened, since the oxygen atom is now less negative it actually has less attraction to the hydrogen atom preventing it from readily reattaching. When the voltage is turned off after peaking, the secondary winding of the induction coil discharges sending the voltage into the high kilovolt ranges stripping the atoms away from each other before they can recover. I believe that the audio frequency should be applied as a constant, not switching off with the voltage. And by using a Tesla resonant tank circuit in conjunction with an induction coil, voltage should reach exponentially higher peak kilovolts. (I still don?t know how that works)
Harvesting the free electrons from the cell will facilitate continued effective and efficient production, storing them in a capacitor and using them to assist in powering the cell. According to Stan Meyer, storing the current from the cell and then using it to power the cell you can actually create a closed loop system. This may sound impossible, but think of it this way, a steam engine boils water to make steam, the rapid expansion and movement of the air is what is used to move the turbine engine, so energy is lost in the form of heat, but a useful byproduct is now available to use again, the water. The wasted energy is in fact not the heat from the steam, but the heat used to create the steam. That energy is transferred into the steam, but since it does not become a source of energy it is now wasted. So by using high voltage potential to gather electrons from water you lose energy in the form of hydrogen, but since you are capturing the hydrogen for use it isn?t lost, and since you are now taking the voltage and generated current back into the system, and using it, it isn?t lost. The amps are recaptured in the form of freed electrons, the voltage potential?s power, but since it is using hardly any amperage, you need to add the kilovolt surges to make watts.??.I?ll stop talking there. It makes sense in my head, but it took me two long years to get my head wrapped around it. The WFC works, I have done it, except for the closed loop part, Stan has done it, and Andrija has done it. I wonder if there are others.
Also Faraday?s law is not broken as he intended it. He never counted on using the potential energy of electricity (voltage) he only thought in the terms of current, the power, he also never counted on harvesting the liberated electrons. So if you only think of it as using voltage to make usable electrons then the hydrogen would be the wasted energy, if you only use it to make hydrogen then the electrons become wasted energy in the form of both electric and heat. You can create heat, electricity (running a generator) and even desalinate water, there are a lot more possibilities then what I can think of. But no matter what the waste is HHO gas and electricity. Both are usable. At the end of the cycle using a car for example, the exhaust is water, but that water needs to be recharged with photons which come from the sun. So energy is being used, but not energy we use or have to pay for. (FREE ENERGY)
This is all I can do for now. When I have the money to purchase the electronics and start again I will. But in the meantime here is the secret; I have a lot more to learn about electronics before I could ever complete it. And a lot of you are suffering the same problem, to confident in your abilities to ask for help, and to unwilling to share your work out of fear of losing it. Since I can?t do it, I give it freely in the hopes that someone else can, it will take an electronics expert to design a microprocessor to do just what I have said here. And we will all be driving cars that run on water within a year. Sorry Big oil. But as it was said ?we didn?t come out of the Stone Age because we ran out of stones, and we won?t come out of the oil age because we run out of oil?. We came out of the Stone Age because our technology grew, and an idea was born, and that man taught another man, and one after the other through history man has learned from man and we have grown because of our ability to learn from one another?s ideas. Only in this age of greed do we fear teaching because we may lose the fame and fortune to another. How sad. As for the learning, most of the people working on this technology are so smart that they look at the cell and see how it is done, so they try based on what they know, I wasn?t that fortunate, I looked at the cell and saw how it was made, but then I listened to what Stan was saying, and I had to learn what he meant, as well as learn what was going on. Most of these people already knew?.and just like people have a propensity to do, they do not listen to what they already know and they just jump right in. If you look at the documentation and listen to Stan you will see that he used the voltage coming from an alternator that was also used to limit the amps, doubled with a VIC (Tesla?s resonant tank circuit) into his signal generator, then into the cell, only a couple of times is the toroid coil mentioned, but as I said it is either subterfuge, or he meant induction coil. And with as much as he has kept secret, and let speculation occur just to keep these very facts hidden, I go with subterfuge.
But I still wouldn?t mind those millions that were offered to Stan. I?d take the money; I have a family that I would like to spoil. In the meantime I would settle for free gas and electricity, imagine how much cheaper the world would be to live in without the extra bills. As for the economy; that?s just how the Feds generate their paychecks. So don?t worry about that, this technology would narrow the gap between the rich and the poor and do it by saving the poor some money, only big oil companies would feel the sting, and who cares about them?
Oh? and that secret Government Agency that was going to fund Stanley?.DARPA.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, high risk, high payoff research.
I contacted them and told them I?d like to talk to someone about the technology, that it can be done and I know how?..Not one person responded. In fact they made it impossible to contact them directly after that, you now have to get a job with them to work on any project. They won?t take ideas. I have also contacted the energy giants MOBIL/EXXON and BP, no response. They are only interested in Hydrogen from fossil fuels. They rely on the fact that one man can?t do it alone.
Only the people want this technology so we have to make it ourselves. If you think this is BS, which is up to you, fine keep doing it wrong, but if you already have a working cell, a signal generator, and an oscilloscope, what is the harm in adding an audio oscillator to your arsenal? If you use an alternator as the oscillator don?t forget the jumper wire, and use a dimmer switch on that wire to control the amperage. Too much will keep the alternator from transferring voltage though it will still create the AM signal. By the way, someone out there (I won?t name names) is working on Sonosonic breakdown of water molecules, basically taking a steel tube filled with water and vibrating it with sound waves so fast that they can get the water to split inside the area of cavitations. Sono is from sonar, which is sound. An electronic tuning fork in water, hmmm I wonder what would happen by adding high voltage DC and limiting the amperage to the milliamp level? Anyway folks, I can only tell you what I?ve learned and hope someone smarter than me can take it to the next level. Give it a shot, and let us all know how you make out. I?m not saying I?m smarter than Stan, I only figured out what he did, he was on his way to perfecting it before he died. I am openly admitting I have gone as far as I can; the electronics are the key, the audio signal and pulsed high voltage coupled with the right frequency modulations. I am not even sure that super high k-volts are even necessary with the audio signal at the right frequency.
Do this and you have it. But if anyone suddenly does it and tries to make a huge profit from it without cutting me in for a piece?.I?m coming for you, and I don?t want to hear that ?coincidence? crap either. Do the world some good, free us from fossil fuels and the cancer it is putting in our air and water. Oh? and make it so I can give my diesel another 50+ horsepower, if all the cars are burning cleaner a little smoke won?t hurt. Hell if someone can do it I?ll go with a gasser.
I?m not sure of everything that goes on in this system, it?s just the way it works. Try it for yourself. Most of the terminology is gleaned from Stan, and I believe he uses it because whether or not it is scientifically correct it feels right, and I know some will say there is no proof because I have no videos or pics?well people I wasn?t doing it for a movie, you-tube or a book, I was doing it to put it in my truck. And once I got it right maybe sell it for mucho dinero contante, but since it is a useless piece of junk without the ability to control it, I have no use for it. All I did was figure out why and how Stan used that alternator instead of a battery or battery charger for the DC voltage. As for the rest, look at what I am saying, and then listen to Stan?s lectures, it is that simple.
Or you can just do what I?ve said, but I?m sure you all are skeptics, lord knows I am. I?m not selling it to you, I?ve explained it the best I can, and I?m not saying, I?m running a car on it. I?m saying some electronics genius needs to do the important part and then we all can, that guy will be famous for it not me. If you want more I can?t give it, but I?m e-mailing this to every one I can in with the hopes that someone can fix us up with a program, or controller to keep it running instead of the constant tuning to keep it going. I?m sick of buying fuel, and paying for electric, (and I still want that HP for my diesel). Plus I can?t get rich off of something I can?t do, so I figure if I can?t be rich, and I?m not going to make someone else rich, the only other solution is to make a lot of us a less poor by saving money!
My cell was perforated stainless plates in a 1? qt. glass jar, nothing fancy.
A few links / make up your own mind
http://cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/2001/March/01.html (a link that talks about radio noise from alternators)
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm (Puharich?s work) http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm ( Some of Meyer?s work) http://www.familycar.com/Classroom/charging.htm (A short course on the alternator)
http://www.waterfuelcell.org/ (good videos, these are filled with clues that helped me immensely)
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html (Meyer?s inspiration for the VIC
http://merlib.org/node/5247 (A compilation of Meyer?s lectures)
Links to information on toroid coils and inductors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_inductors_and_transformers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_coil
http://www.estreetplastics.com/Acrylic_Tube_s/45.htm (cheapest acrylic cell tube I could find $20.00 for a 6? OD 23? long)
http://www.burnsstainless.com/304tubing/Straight304/straight304.html
(A good place to order stainless tubing)
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/tubing-stainless-steel-88672423-1.html
(Find a local SS supplier)
One other thing, Good luck!
The AM frequency from whatever source you can generate it from needs to be manipulated separately from the voltage which needs to be manipluted as well, then put into the cell at the same time. Someone (no names) said he was now using an alternator splitting the leads, adjusting the speed of the alternator to adjust the frequency as I suggested, and using a signal generator to adjust the frequency and pulsing of the voltage, then putting them through rectifiers right at the cell without any coils shokes or special crap. Said his gas production has went through the roof and he has found the "sweet spots". He said he is going to post it on you-tube later next week. I will put the link up when I get it. He also said he was getting 2lpm before, now he is getting 3&4+ and if he could keep production up when it hits the "high notes"(his words not mine) it would be 15lpm+ estimated because the prodction is at least 5 times as much.
That still doesn't seem like enough to run a car yet. So an electronic circuit is definately needed. Nothing fancy, just to monitor the "tune of the cell" at mass produciton, and then maintain that frequency as the water changes viscosty. I think the voltage is ok at the right frequency and will maintain itself, because atmosperically nothing in the water will change what the voltage can do with the exception of suddenly becoming non-conductive
-
Hi farrah day,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. At first glance it seems to match very well with established facts. I especially like the fact that it takes the electron extraction into the equation.
What is your own opinion about Able's findings? Do you think it is worth persuing?
regards
Robert
-
Hi, you wanted to see a step up voltage charge look at this video: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RQNrFUnQmnw
I am still reading up on your testing on page 3 now :P
-
Hi Dutch
I mainly posted it as I found it somewhat inspirational. I do have one or two issues with the theories of operation suggested though. Once sentence particularly concerns me:
I believe that some of the free electrons do take on a slightly positive charge,
What is meant by this is anyones guess as I don't think science will accept the fact that an electron could be come more negative or positive than it is. The electron as far as I'm aware is a fundamental particle and as such of fixed value. It think it would be wrong to think that the electron could have a variable charge.
But, having said that, like Meyer, you don't necessarily have to understand the science to make it work!
-
Hi Dutch
I mainly posted it as I found it somewhat inspirational. I do have one or two issues with the theories of operation suggested though. Once sentence particularly concerns me:
I believe that some of the free electrons do take on a slightly positive charge,
What is meant by this is anyones guess as I don't think science will accept the fact that an electron could be come more negative or positive than it is. The electron as far as I'm aware is a fundamental particle and as such of fixed value. It think it would be wrong to think that the electron could have a variable charge.
But, having said that, like Meyer, you don't necessarily have to understand the science to make it work!
That phrase certainly makes some people raise their eyebrows..... I think it is like Able says himself, he doesn't have the scientific background to put all he found in the right words. The main things i see in his findings is the possible relationship with Puharichs work (did Meyer really copy and extend his work???) and do the audio frequencies generated by the alternator really make a big difference in the production of the gases.
Do you have any info to get in touch with Able somehow and see if we can get some more specific info? What I really would like to see is what happens when the audio signals get filtered out before reaching the cell. Will the gas production drop significantly? If so we have an important clue as to what really needs to happen in the WFC.
Gonna dig up some more Puharich stuff and see if I can get to the same conclusions as Able has done....
regards
Robert
-
Okay I read all the post and feel that I might be able to aid some. I will first say I do not know all of Meyer/Dingle technology through and through. But the one thing I did is to replace the blocking diode with a voltage multiplier. I every post I have every read on Meyer type technology I have never read that someone was able to raise or lower the voltage independently of the frequency or has anyone ever pumped the water through the cells. I have designed a WFC that is totally isolated and all electricity has no choice but to go through the tubes. I have also made a circuit that can raise and lower the voltage independently, though on that one I had a lot of help. The circuit will produce three phases, since I desided to go back and take another look at Meyer's work.
Also I don't hear anyone talking about the skin effect of the wires too be used. This part is very new too me but I will be making some coils that look pretty much like Meyers. The chokes will be of 16 gauge wire, to take advantage of the skin effect. Dr. Daniel Dingle is still alive but not talking to anyone it seems. The one thing I do know about this technology is that greed is it's worst enemy. Most fail to see just how big the opposition is too this technology. Once they posted some of Dr. Dingles work, but it has been removed now, and I saw just how close it was to Meyers technology. So I combined the two in the hopes that I too can become energy independent, don't worry if I get it working I will make a how too pdf. and post it.
The WFC design has all the needed stuff in it as far as I can tell, a constant water level, water flowing through the tubes, voltage isolation, and auto filling of the water. I have to build the WFC first so I can match the chokes too it's capacitance. I still have a lot of testing too be done so lots of trial and error I am sure. But I seem to be alone in this type of thinking when talking about Meyer technology. Plus another thing I see is that a lot of people get Meyers air conditioner mixed up with his water fuel capacitor. The air conditioner is not even Meyer's work someone else created it and Meyer took it as his own. But he is pulling electrons from the incoming air or air intake system not the WFC.
I like you get upset when talking to stupids, but everyone should have a voice, for that part of this technology might just come from some of these unexpected sources. So in that I have learned to be open in a way, still working on my temper ;).
One thing I do know is we are running out of time to get this technology up and running. America is soon coming to an end once this North American Union is formed in 2010. All of these wars for oil have too be stopped, for America will sink into a depression if we keep this up.ÂÂ
This is my latest WFC design I will hold out on the circuit until tested so no one gets mad at me if it doesn't work.
-
Hi H2O
Nothing wrong with people voicing their opinions, but often opinions would carry a lot more weight if a little thought or research was behind them. While various differing opinions can be justified by the grey areas in our understanding, other things are clearly black or white. Hence, in some cases an opinion can be clearly wrong or right.
I just wish that more people would give it a little thought and do some proper research on the given subject before they jump in feet first!
Dutch
I don't know how to get in touch with the guy... is that his name, 'Able'? I hadn't noticed.
Puharich's work is far more scientifically documented than anything I have ever read of Meyers. Puharich was a genuine scientist and unlike Meyer, backed his work up with relevant calculations and the resulting figures. Puharich's experiments came a good time before Meyer's, yet Meyer's wfc diagram is almost identical to Puharich's.
The Puharich document makes a lot more sense to read than Meyers as there is no psuedotechnical jargon to make it look impressive - that however, is just my opinion! ;)
-
Hi Farrah, It takes me some time to get things done due to buget constraints, but I like the science you guys put up. The skin effect is when the current will nolonger flow through the center of the wire, raising the resistance of that wire due too the frequency used. In most transfromers this is not a desired effect, but with this technology it is. The voltage multiplier, works pretty good and I am going to try and get the frequency up to 48k Hz, for that is what Keely found to work best. Like you I too hate reading Meyer's patents from all the hidding of his technology an made up words, like I said greed is this technologies worst enemy. What I did to force the WFC to put the voltage only where we want it is Isolate the positive and negetive. The positive is press fitted to an aluminum plate and the negetive is also going through a aluminum plate totally covered up with arcylic and using Tesla 18 gauge wire. The reason I am making it this way is that I have had the voltage go everywhere but where you want it too go, and notice that the water level needs to be ketp constant. The use of the water flow pump is to acheive these goals and more.
Camster6 and I have a lot in common but I am doing it with tubes, I am H2opower on You Tube. Ever since they raided Ravi I stop posting everthing. I just post the stuff to save gas and the effects of vacuum on normal electrolysis.
Dr. Dingle uses vacuum to draw in the Hydo/Oxy gas mixture into the combustion chamber, seems to be an easyer way to do it. Once I get the funds I will build more and more test too come. The coil for the air conditioner is already made and the diodes and capacitors are in the mail. I am putting everything into a 1985 VW Sirocco, most of what I build goes right to use. This is the coil I made for the air processor:
-
Farrah,
Yes that is his name, Able Morley.
And I found the article here:
[dd: Febr. 28 link removed request of the author]
I don't know if that is where you got it from. I will try to contact him through the email addresses found on that website. Would be good to have some info coming straight from him..... There must be something else than a white coating to explain the massive production seen in stan's videos. Hopefully the audio signals coming from the alternator are just the thing we are looking for.
Robert
-
Hi Dutch
I found his post on another forum.
I'm not sure the white coating is necessary at high voltages, I have never seen or heard Meyer mention this. I think that the white coating is more effective and hence important for low voltage cells. Though I could be wrong.
H2O
Impressive looking coil there.
Daniel Dingle or is it 'Dingel' has always been a little bit of a puzzle to me because, as far as I'm aware, he just uses straight dc from the car battery. There was also another unit by a Carl Cella that was using straight dc and apparantly able to power a car. I used to be extremely dismissive of these people and consider them frauds as their claims seemed impossible, but now feel I may have been a little hasty in my judgement. I'm wondering (assuming that is, they are/were genuine) if there might be a crossover in technology here between the wfc and the Joe cell. Almost like a hybrid in the technologies.
Afterall, we seem to currently have a lot of people being able to 'charge' water and then set it alight.
-
Hi all,
I just had a brief look at the Puharich patent and noticed that he says that his cell is 80-100% efficient. Is it therfore unable to produce more power out then is put in?
I don't know alot about Puharich yet, did he run a car from his cell?
Robert
btw According to his patent it is Daniel Dingel. There is a patent of him in the european patent office, but it only claims he can run a car on water and does not give anything away about the technology used.
-
Hi Farrah day,
That stuff I found on Dr. Dingle was pulled down off the net in just a few months, but what it showed was that the two technology are very close. In the place of the blocking diode Dr. Dingle used a voltage multiplier, most of the rest of it looked very similar to Meyers. They both used just about the same types of stuff, so my conclusion was that their is more than one way to skin this cat, but dealing with the skin non the less. I will have to look through my records and see if I saved any of what I found on Dr. Dingles technology. I have been writing him asking that he give his technology away, since it has been close too forty years now that he has been running cars off of water, and the IMF and World Bank is not going to let up anytime soon. All I can do is hope he hears me, and help save humanity for we really need this right now. If you have been following world events you will know time is short, and that the One world government is well underway in it's planning. We need to be free of their systems of control and most of it is through energy and the control there of. Times are going to get really hard in the next few years as the dollar crashes and they bring in this Amero for the 2010 planned North American Union. Well enough of that, huh? But I can see what they are planning and it is nothing less than slavery for about 98% of the worlds population.
Anyway once I have enough money to buy a new intake crossover tube I will build the air conditioner with the lights, voltage extraction circuitry, and all. That is suppose to help any type of fuel burning device, so too save on even more gas I will make that ASAP. The new WFC I have too have made for the tolerances are too tight for me too make at home for I will be using a 1 inch diameter outside tube with .035 walls and a 7/8 inch solid bar in the center. That gives just about 1/64 to 1/32 of an inch on both sides too be centered, not a lot of room to be playing with. I went with a solid bar for in the end Meyer did too. I will try it both ways negative inside and positive to see if it will make any difference. I just wish I have the income to get things done in a timely fashion.
-
I'm fairly certain that Puharich never claimed to run a car off ac electrolysis, but I see Puharich as being the most likely source of Meyers inspiration.
Yes, Dingel does apparently run a car off his unit. I've seem diagrams of his unit which just seem to show a standard, simple electrolyser - no pulsing electronics or the like. Bit of a mystery to me.
-
I fairly certain that Purarich never claimed to run a car off ac electrolysis, but I see Purarich as being the most likely source of Meyers inspiration.
Hi Farrah
I fully agree to that. There are just too many similarities to dismiss any connection between the two.... The question now is what exactly is it that makes this thing tick? Is it the audio type signal that comes from an alternator? If so, how did SM copy that into his solid state technology......OR didn't he??? We can see the alternator in he demo cell video and the car that ran on water has a alternator of course. This raises the question, do we have proof somewhere that SM was NOT using an alternator and still got the massive production?
So far i've only looked at Puharichs patent. Have you got any more stuff or relevant links that you're willing to share? (Puharich related that is....)
Robert
-
I've invited Able Morley to join us here at overunity.com. Hope he does respond....
Robert
-
Dr. Andrija Puharich's vibratory method of breakin
May 6, 1990
Vibrations that Split Molecules
Produce Energy
Seawater - or even dirty rainwater - could be transmuted into fuel
through a new technique serendipitously discovered by a researcher
in medical electronics.
Dr. Andrija Puharich has found a way to split water molecules by
tuning in on the vibrations of their atoms and breaking the
molecules into hydrogen, which could become fuel, and oxygen.
Alternating-current impulses augment naturally occurring
vibrations in the H2O molecules. By boosting the vibrations out
of control, Puharich makes the molecules fly apart into the
component atoms.
He likens the water-splitting effect to the way soldiers marching
in step across a bridge risk damaging the structure by making it
vibrate at a critical, stress-producing rate.
Electrolysis by simple direct current would create hydrogen and
oxygen with a net energy efficiency of only 54 percent, according
to Puharich, a Virginia-based inventor. But he says his
alternating-current system reaches better than 90 per cent
efficiency.
A former physician, Puharich discovered the water-splitting
technique a dozen years ago but has only recently presented his
findings publicly.
Originally, he was investigating the DISRUPTIVE EFFECT of
electrical resonances on blood clots and noticed a peculiar thing:
in dilute blood, a SPECIFIC FREQUENCY made bubbles appear in the
liquid.
Lab analysis showed that the bubbles were composed of oxygen and
hydrogen.
A barrel-shaped cavity contains the water in Puharich's recently
refined system. He introduces alternating current at A KEY
FREQUENCY of 600 cycles per second.
The cavity resonates with the impulses in somewhat the same way
the body of a violin resonates with the sound of one string,
ADDING HIGHER AND LOWER HARMONICS TO THE PRINCIPAL TONE.
The additional harmonics, Puharich says, cause the proton in the
hydrogen atom TO ROTATE, further forcing the hydrogen to split
from the oxygen.
Page 1
Puharich suggests that the splitting energy could be provided by
solar or wind generators. The hydrogen could then be stored and
used conveniently in fuel cells or hydrogen-powered cars.
-
Yes, although Meyer's resonant charging cct is almost identical to the original Puharich document diagram (just the addition of the diode), there would appear to be distinct differences in the applied signal.
Puharich used and AM modulated ac signal, whereas Meyer would seem to have used gated half-wave rectified ac in order to provide dc pulses more akin to FM.
Therefore, although both Puharich and Meyers cct diagrams are nigh-on identical to look at, they would seem to be very different in their claimed method of operation.
To my mind, the first thing that strikes me is that Puharich's setup can genuinely resonate - Meyer's setup can't!
I think it's definitely worth experimenting with modulated ac to see if Puharich's ac electrolysis can be replicated easier than Meyer's.
After saying in a post above that I could not recall Puharich claiming to have run a car on water, I have just realised that at the very beginning of the document it reads:
Dr Andrija Puharich reportedly drove his motor home for hundreds of thousands of miles around North America in the 1970s using only water as fuel. At a mountain pass in Mexico, he collected snow for water. Here is the only article he wrote on the subject, plus his patent:
Though the above statement does not appear to be from Puharich himself, the text that follows is. This is entitled: Cutting the Gordian Knot of the Great Energy Bind by Andrija Puharich appears to a scientific paper. However, rather curiously what seems like a later continuation appears to be written and patented by presumably his offspring, Henry K. Puharich.
Henry K Puharich's entry starts by saying: "Disclosed herein is a new and improved thermodynamic device to produce hydrogen gas and oxygen gas from ordinary water molecules..."
It is dated, July 19, 1983 - is that Meyer era?
Another bit of mystery!
Funny how you don't always register these things on initial readings - I guess that comes down to the mind-boggling effect that trying to understand and/or decipher hundreds of documents, patents and posting have on us, eh!
-
Hi Dutch, I see you've been hassled into removing the link to that website.
After my initial praise for his posting, I too have has some personal emails from this chappie - turns out that he's got a serious attitude problem and is in fact a quite unpleasant, prize numpty.
It seems that one minute it is 'spread the word brother, now you take it to the next stage, the next minute he wants everyone to retract posts and links because he now wants to sell the info. I brought peoples attention to his post as I found it somewhat inspirational, not because it was breakthrough stuff - I certainly found nothing there worth paying for. With no accurate gas, voltage, current and power measurements of any kind provided it really is anyones guess as to what production he was actually getting, afterall what looked like a lot of gas to him might not to us. In reality, without any figures it's meaningless! So, irrespective of the fact that his theory and explanations have to be taken with a pinch of salt, to be quite honest there is nothing he stated that we have not seen before.
Anyway he's really pissed off with anyone that asked the wrong questions or questioned his theory. Apparently now he's going to build another unit and sell it on ebay for big bucks! So, keep your eye open for that ;)
In his own words: In Memory of: Stanley Meyer, "Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition"
http://www.helium.com/tm/857077/turning-water-fuelthe-process
-
Hi Farrah,
I see what you're saying..... ;)
What I still wonder is if there is any proof out there of Stanley operating his WFC (with equal HHO production) where he DOES NOT use an alternator?
It seems like the dune buggy has the motor/alternator combo on board. So was he never able to actually run without the alternator?
Anyone got any proof either way?
Robert
-
Actually I still correspond with a lot of people Fairy Day, just not you, or people like you. You are a blowhard, and have littleman syndrome hence your giant cell tubes. You are an uppity and pompous little scrote, and you abrade people with your rude and callous attitude. And I for one will not tolerate it. The fact is neither myself or anyone else owe you a damned thing, yet you come off as a demanding little troll. Well let me tell you something son, I can learn to do anything you can, not in a million years can you learn to do what I can. Education is a poor substitute for intelligence, and ignorance is no excuse for a poor attitude. As I've made clear to 90% of the people contacting me, they can feel free to do so, and I will help in anyway I can. But this isn't a relationship honey, so I don't have to forgive bad behavior. And I never claimed to have any new information, just information that I had found and put together for my purposes, and decided to share it after shelving it for a while. If you had known this information about the alternator then why hadn't you shared it? Quite simply because I hadn't told you yet. So it was new to you.Hence, Blowhard. From a lot of your postings on every forum you start trouble on, I can see you have little to no experience with ICE's, and I doubt you have done one bit of investigating to uncover the truth behind the WFC and instead jumped in with both feet building one. As impressive as your cell may look you have already defeated the fundamental designs purpose by not building it like Stan's. Don't get your superior education all caught up in a bunch with your knickers when you fall short of success. The fact that you didn't follow his design, and didn't bother to educate yourself about the very components involved in the whole process tells me that you rely only on your "education", and not your intelligence and very minimal wit. Therefore when you find yourself at the limits of your educational prowess in a short time and can progress no further, your bullish pride and degreed ego won't allow you to ask for help or input. In a couple of months when you get bored you can fill your cell up with some purple water and make a pretty bubbly machine out of it. And leave the real studies up to the gearheads and people interested in the technology, not the BS arguments enjoyed by petulant little boys. So grow up and quit picking fights over the internet. And yes if I build a working model, I will sell it on ebay. Why shouldn't I if I have to go to the extent of contracting the electronics out to someone that can do it. In the meantime I've given it freely in the hopes that someone will build it. What have you offered, your limited abilities and curt attitude? So if you guys want to figure out how to do it, I suggest you first start finding people in your area that are working on cells and start a club. Meet in groups, and bounce ideas off of one another. You don't need the ALT. if you can create an AM signal to put onto the wire with the voltage by some other means. Farrah Day(putz) said that an AM signal comes from AC, and that since it is DC it is more like FM. Maybe that is true, but since the signal originates from an AC source I can only assume it stays an AM frequency regardless of conversion to DC at the diodes in the ALT. since you are only capable of hearing it on the AM bands of your radio. I have been looking for info to see if some newer type AC Delco alternators have some kind of RF filter or suppressor built in because some people can't get a signal from them. But if there are any questions regarding the possibility of Stan Meyer using the AM frequencies from the alternator in conjunction with the voltage supplied from it, or have general questions regarding the fact that Stan has never ran the car without that alternator nearby, or even questions why the video of them running the buggy in his driveway shows the ALT/motor combo but the signal generator appears to be absent from the picture, you can ask Farrah Day. As he said this is all old news to him.
http://ionizationx.com/index.php?topic=158.0 and this link will take you to a nice newspaper article that was found, if you are like me you will spend more time looking at the pictures than reading it. A couple of interesting points are that the coil and distributor are still present meaning that either the spark plugs are still installed, or that his injector system uses the same wires to power them. And even though it says that his injector system is installed he is still using the WFC to power the car. Another especially wonderful tidbit, is that the names Charlie Holbrook, and Stan Graumlich are listed, although the L is hard to see I took the liberty of searching using L,R,W, and there is a Stan Graumlich 92, and a Charles Holbrook both still living in Washington Court House, Ohio. 25 miles from Grove city. And that is important because of this http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html?print=yes
And at the bottom of that article you will find this little paragraph:
"And what became of the dune buggy that captivated a community for at least a few years?
A longtime friend of Meyer's, who doesn't want to be named because he fears that people will bother him about the invention, led a reporter to the basement of a property south of Columbus recently.
"I really shouldn't be showing you this," he said.
After passing through several darkened rooms scattered with computers and electrical equipment, he opened a door. In the far corner of a garage sat the buggy, its leather seats cracked, its engine partially covered with a cloth.
A decal on the bright red paint declares: "Jesus Christ is Lord."
Then the man quickly led the way out. Lights went dark. Doors clicked shut.
In his front yard, he sat on a lawn chair and sipped fruit punch. He watched the cars and trucks drive by on the road, burning gasoline."
Copyright ? 2008, The Columbus Dispatch
If Stan were as paranoid as we are led to believe, and as we ourselves would be , then I would suspect the only friend close enough would have been one of the two gentlemen in the picture from the newspaper article. But once again that "old" news should be checked with Farrah Day. In case the dune buggy were recently moved to his garage.
Good luck people.
Able Morley
-
Just for you FYI Stanley Meyer converted a Corvett, and a small plane to also run on water. My design looks different than Meyer's yes, but in it gutts it's the same. I just made a lot of improvments to the whole concept as I uderstand it. I am having trouble with the coils but in time testing will solve the problems I'm sure. Once I can get the effect and start to understand it more I will try for the injector. The injector has too be timed very well from the amount of water that needs to be push through it and much much more.
The thing I see most people having problems with is when Stanley Meyer talked about the KISS method. That is totally based on the person, for if say Sir Issac Newton found something too be easy, would most likely be very hard for the rest of us, if not imposible.
I mysefl had too go back too Meyers earlyer works and try those, for he was just too kryptic with the injectors. All I can do is try, and not try to make money off of the technology for it is ment for the whole of mankind to free us from oil and energy enslavement. The way I view this technology is a penny saved is a penny earned.
I just started adding in some of Dingle's work with the voltage mulipliers, it works very well so far, just have to get the rest of the circuit builts so I can control the voltage at will, like Meyers did( another something most following his work don't have).
NofearofdaMIB don't knock someone for trying it a different way, for the answer can come from any source for I think there is more than one way to skin this water cat. For even I am trying Daneil Dingel and Stanley Meyer technologies even mixing them. All one has too know is I got your back to energy independance if I get a working prototype, and I hope you have mine if you solve it, right? Anyway best of luck too us all for time is short if we want to stop the war with Iran, the North American Union, and New World Order.
-
Well what can I say, another thread contaminated by a self important, total tosspot.
I guess I must have really gotten under his skin for him to justify such a long post!
Couldn't be bothered reading through Arsehole Morleys post, as I daresay it contains nothing but an extension of the vulgarities he personally emailed me. No doubt his post above clearly says something about his IQ and illustrates to everyone that he is in fact not a very pleasant individual. Just another 'Muppet' to be ingnored!
-
Hi all,
Well, I fried that coil I posted with the voltage multiplier, I guess the wires insulating wasn't high enough for the increased voltages. The chokes shorted out inside somewhere. Guess I have to make a new one now. Oh well, I needed to make a new one anyways, one with the wires the right way builts like an alternator. What I mean by that is the primary must be 4 ohms, this one was only 1.2 ohms I think. The secondary will stay the same but the chokes I made the wrong way, I used a very small wire when in fact I was supposed to use a heavy gauge wire and make use of the skin effect to give the needed resistance. Live an learn right?
-
Now you are just showing your maturity level Farrah. ;D And I looked at the pictures of your cell buildup, what nicely detailed proof that you can't be bothered to clean your own house. Your tile looks filthy.. ;D ;D ;D Back to you (Arsehole Morley was funny, probably the wittiest comment you've ever made.) . IQ isn't even a question, I'm sure you are as lacking in intelligence as you are in personality. And getting under my skin is easy, I hate children. But if you ever get to the states, let's get together. :-*Goodbye Farrah, don't hijack your own post with your negativity.
Your Pal,
Arsehole Morley
-
Hi Farrah Day,
I have been following your various posts about your project here and on other forums. I had a look at your latest invention and was
wondering whats with the copper wire you had used to connect your cells. Can you outline as for why you had used such wire ?
Also, you were saying to try to replicate the Meyer WFC, yet this seems quite a departure from it using multiple tubes clustered.
Thanks
-
Meine IP: 198.54.202.250
Mein UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
Wo ich gesperrt wurde: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=post;topic=3641.135;num_replies=142
PRES-Sig: 200803042238
Ich verstehe nur ein kleinen bischen deutsch, und bin ein wenig beschwerd. Ich hoffen das diese gleich gut ist mein die forum zu offnen.
-
Hello everyone, particularly to Farrah Day!
This sort of work is great to see, starting from the beginning.
It looks like she is doing a good job, by making all known.
I have just started out on this quest, and so far have built my own WFC, which appears to be working. How well, I have yet to measure, as
it's based on the design made public by Archie Blue, back in the 70's.
I built this design because of it's smaller size, able to fit into my car's engine bay.
So far, I have discovered the effects that Farrah Day had already commented on -- ( acting like a battery/electrolytic capacitor ).
I have built the support equipment -- Safety relay, supply circuitry, etc., and intend to install it in the car soon.
At present, I am playing around with my test equipment to try to discover and document the resonance frequency of this cell and will be
using both parallel and series resonance to see what works best here. I intend to post the results for all to see.
Best regards.
Kayjay.
-
All can takes for the anodes are bolted together at the top with small ss nuts and bolts.
_________________
Refrigerator filter (http://www.filter-outlet.com)