Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 892811
  • *Total Topics: 15669
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method  (Read 26475 times)

Offline dcarlson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2008, 04:47:23 PM »
If you are interested in a water fuel cell, you might find the work that Jim Hunt (309-734-0452) in Galesburg, Ill is doing.....Jim Hunt <cscinventorsclub@hotmail.com>
 
 Below is an old link; but it will provide the basics.
 
http://www.registermail.com/stories/111007/MAI_BESD12VP.GID.shtm

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2008, 04:47:23 PM »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2008, 03:34:58 AM »
add an   "L" to the end of the above link

that's actually a pretty interesting story there......

anyone out there with a whimhurst, that could run a few preliminary tests ?

pulsed "lightning" electrolysis  AKA  Plasmatic Induction

Offline nightlife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2008, 08:21:03 PM »
canada765, welcome to overunity.com and I for one thank you for the link you pervided. It does indeed shed more light on how Stan was able to produce enough hydrogen to power a cumbustion engine as well as other fuel burning applications.

 I was wondering why people were not pulsing the current supplied to their cells. This is said to be very crucial in the splitting of hydrogen from water. Not only does it provide a higher voltage but it also helps keep the cells cooler. Also it must be known that pulsing currents also have back EMF's and or collasping feilds that can be utilized.

 I for one have been against the burning of any fuel but this link you provided makes me think twice about it. Thnk you again for proving us with that link.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2008, 08:21:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline capacitor70

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2008, 05:10:29 PM »
Conditining of tube is must and really it improves output, I tried with 302 SS tubes for 7 days in tap water some thimes calcium hydroxide mixed

CFL White Coating- I dont know much about chemestry Please explain  water to hydroxyl radicals
Hydrooxyl is same as HHO ?? ???

Another variation on existing CFL technologies are bulbs with an external nano-particle coating of "titanium dioxide".
Titanium dioxide is a photocatalyst, becoming ionized when exposed to UV light produced by the CFL.
It is thereby capable of converting oxygen to ozone and water to hydroxyl radicals,
which neutralize odors and kill bacteria, viruses, and mold spores.

Offline trog601

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2008, 09:23:04 PM »
Can anyone answer the following?

Suppose you were to use 1000w to make Brown's gas.  Will using the 1000w over a time period (e.g. 10 minutes) produce the same amount of gas as compared to using all of the 1000w in a burst?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2008, 09:23:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2008, 06:02:17 AM »
Can anyone answer the following?

Suppose you were to use 1000w to make Brown's gas.  Will using the 1000w over a time period (e.g. 10 minutes) produce the same amount of gas as compared to using all of the 1000w in a burst?

no.

you can actually configure that  1Kw  in several ways and each will have it's own performance rating for the particular electrolyzer being used. the key is to find the optimal performance voltage/current for your electrolyzer set-up.

in most devices low voltage / high curent produces the most gas for the total power consumption. but i have seen some that perform better at low voltage / low current over a longer time = more gas for total power input.

so, i would say its device dependent.

Offline Laserrod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2008, 11:52:26 AM »
Here is a new type of electrode!

I copied from EE times
 
 Related Content 
 
? Semiconductor aerogels advance sensors (2005-03-16)
? Auto makers catch fuel-cell fever (2003-02-11)
? Nuvera launches hydrogen-powered cell business (2002-08-06)
? Synthesis of nanoparticles coming into focus (2002-07-18)
? Rodel, Nanophase to codevelop CMP slurries (2002-07-03)

 

More Related Content 
 
 
 

 Top Ranked Articles 
? DC/DC PoE splitter loads up to 45W 
? IBM touts efficiency 'breakthrough' in solar cells 
? MIT researchers report fuel cell advance 
? NEC, Sanyo make Li-ion batteries for 'green' cars 
? WLED drivers backlight entry-level phone displays 
 More Top Ranked Articles
 
 
 
 
Startup QuantumSphere Inc. has claimed that its nanoparticle coatings could make hydrogen easy to produce at home from distilled water, which can bring the cost of hydrogen fuel cells in line with that of fossil fuels.

The company says it has perfected the manufacture of highly reactive catalytic nanoparticle coatings that could increase the efficiency of electrolysis, the technique that generates hydrogen from water. Moreover, the coatings could also eliminate the need for expensive metals like platinum in hydrogen fuel cells.

Boasting 1,000 times the surface area of traditional materials, the coatings can be used to retrofit existing electrolyzers to increase their efficiency to 85 percent?exceeding the U.S. Department of Energy's goal for 2010 by 10 percent. The scheme holds the promise of 96 percent efficiency by the time cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells hit automobile showrooms, according to the company.

"Instead of switching 170,000 gas stations over to hydrogen, using our electrodes could enable consumers to make their own hydrogen, either in the garage or right on the vehicle," said Kevin Maloney, president, CEO and co-founder of QuantumSphere. "Our nanoparticle-coated electrodes make electrolyzers efficient enough to provide hydrogen on demand from a tank of distilled water in your car."

Nano-coated batteries
The first commercial product inspired by QuantumSphere's technology will debut later this year. A battery using a cathode coated with the startup's nanoparticles offers increased energy density 5x over alkaline cells and power by 320 percent. The first commercial non-rechargeable batteries with this increased capacity will be announced by an as-yet-unnamed major U.S. battery maker in 2H 08.

QuantumSphere also claims to be able to improve rechargeable nickel-metal-hydride batteries to the point where they perform better than the less environmentally friendly Li-ion batteries popular today.

The startup plans to first retrofit existing electrolysis equipment with its nanoparticle electrodes to boost efficiency. Next, it intends to partner with original equipment manufacturers to design at-home and on-vehicle electrolyzers for making hydrogen from water for fuel cells. Finally, the company wants to work with fuel cell makers to replace their expensive platinum electrodes with inexpensive stainless-steel electrodes coated with nickel-iron nanoparticles.

QuantumSphere's nanoparticles are available in four formulations: nickel cobalt, iron cobalt, nickel iron and silver copper. According to the Freedonia Group Inc., the nanoparticles can be sold directly into the catalyst metals market, which it predicts will edge up to $4.7 billion this year.

QuantumSphere is also expected to have an impact on the battery market, which Freedonia estimates will grow to more than $5 billion by 2009. Portable fuel cells and direct hydrogen generation are markets that are growing even faster, with fuel cells estimated to top $11 billion by 2013, according to Wintergreen Research Inc., and hydrogen generation to exceed $15 billion by 2016, according to Clean Edge Inc.

Nanoparticle project
QuantumSphere was founded in 2002 with just $100,000 of private funding and still has not taken in any venture capital, although it did have a public funding round last year. The company's founding goal was to create a thimble full of the nanoparticles it invented. But now, just over five years later, it claims to have surpassed its original goal with a manufacturing plant capable of producing tons of nanoparticles per year.

QuantumSphere claims its current manufacturing capacity is enough for both the battery and electrolysis markets. With an eye on future growth, however, the company has partnered with the OM Group Inc. for mass-producing nanoparticles when QuantumSphere can no longer meet demand.

After perfecting the original invention, for which QuantumSphere was awarded a patent last year, the company hired an engineering team to adapt the nanoparticles for particular applications. Leading that team was director of fuel cell research Kimberly McGrath, a prot?g? of George Olah, the 1994 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. Olah, inventor of the direct liquid-methanol fuel cell, serves as a scientific adviser to QuantumSphere.

"We have formulated a nanoparticle coating that has a very high surface area, enabling inexpensive coated stainless-steel electrodes to exceed the performance of the expensive platinum electrodes used today," said McGrath. "We start with raw material that covers about the size of a sheet of paper, but after converting into nanoparticles, it covers a soccer field."

The nanoparticles are perfect spheres, consisting of a couple hundred atoms measuring from 16nm to 25nm in diameter. They are formed by means of a vacuum-deposition process that uses vapor condensation to produce highly reactive catalytic nanoparticles, for which the engineering team has formulated several end-use applications.

"Our biggest engineering challenge was finding a way to get the nanoparticles to stick to metal electrodes," McGrath said. The company has solved that problem, she said, "enabling existing electrolysis equipment to realize a 30 percent increase in hydrogen output just by retrofitting our coated electrodes."

QuantumSphere projects that the efficiency of electrolysis using its nanoparticle-coated electrodes, now at 85 percent, can be increased to 96 percent by the time hydrogen fuel cell automobiles are in wide use. Adjusting for rising gasoline prices, QuantumSphere projects that performing electrolysis at home to power hydrogen fuel cells will be less expensive than burning fossil fuels.

The company has also made progress in its quest to eliminate the need for expensive platinum electrodes inside the fuel cell itself, claiming that today it can replace half a fuel cell's platinum with nanoparticle-coated stainless steel. QuantumSphere hopes to demonstrate fuel cells with no platinum at all in the coming years.

- R. Colin Johnson
 
 
 Bottom line: electrode the size of 8.5*11 area expands to a football field surface area!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2008, 11:52:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2008, 06:04:41 AM »
i think what he is describing as an "electron inhibitor" is in all actuality - a low quality, home-made semiconductor.

like a "doped" non-conductor (binder). to make it partially conductive/capacitive, backing up the pipeline if you will.  Standard analysis tells us that the voltage will fluxuate. Current - set to a constant by the resistive factor - the voltage will build up to a break-down point, conduct to the next portion of the "inhibitor material" and drop, thne build back up. so the output freq. will be a very high frequency signal with any productive current draw.
The frequency is determined by the current
          as well as other factors involved in the mixture of poor-conductor + binder

the binder is most likely a non-conductive adhesive of sorts.... would be my guess

consistency between devices with this type of semiconductor is highly unreliable. This is why millions of dollars are spend growing crystals into perfection.
This inherent flaw is probably why he includes the additional resistive factor to bring the total resistance up to where he wants it to be. <<--- which i might add seems rather ingenious, and may have usefull application in semiconductor engineering.


the question i am left with is::    Is it the slowing-down ("inhibiting") of the electricity that causes the effect?
or is it the high-frequency produced by the electron inhibitor splitting the water?


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2008, 06:44:37 AM »
all his technical garble in the patent is rediculous...

~~~~~~     < -- split your wave with a rectifier,. take the top half to one plate (+),
                                        the bottom half to the other (-).
with variable pulses so you can adjust the freq.
[HV transformer would be nice, in my opinion, with adjustable center-tap ]

MOhm trim-pot to ground on each

plates seperated by water.  distilled water if you are going for accurate production measurements..
    if you just want to make some gas, ordinary water should do fine  :)

woud be best to make a (non-conductive) mount for your plates, that allows you to fine-tune the spacing
then just sit there and adjust freq / V / R until you get the most gas.


why he needs an "electron inhibitor" i dont know.... probably to confuse people.

If you want a 2mm space, yur looking @ +/- 150Ghz ,,   5mm = +/- 60Ghz


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2008, 06:44:37 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2008, 04:29:48 AM »
I have abandon my tests with piezo materials due to the complexity and cost of the materials. The more I find about about the "demo cells", the more I see garage tech. Capacitor70 seems to have some good results with his work on the s1r replication and I would like to see that be successful. I will be taking a different approach to replicating Stan's demo cell with the alternator. So, I'm off to the bench again...

Again...


Offline cleanfuture

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2008, 03:20:37 AM »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2008, 03:20:37 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MeltDown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2008, 10:10:39 AM »
I have abandon my tests with piezo materials due to the complexity and cost of the materials. The more I find about about the "demo cells", the more I see garage tech. Capacitor70 seems to have some good results with his work on the s1r replication and I would like to see that be successful. I will be taking a different approach to replicating Stan's demo cell with the alternator. So, I'm off to the bench again...

Again...

You are right on track and that is coming from someone that has done a year of full time research and spent tens of thousands of dollars. If you look at the center cell in Meyer's original cell, you see a clip hanging over the top. That is where the piezo device would have been sitting. Also, if the piezo was in series with the inner and outer tubes, it would in fact inhibit electron flow and voltage would all that would pass between the cell walls.

It is also possible that Meyer was using a spark gap located in the center cell to produce the ultrasonic energy. You first post regarding cavitation is more important to OU than you may know. In fact, I do not think it is possible to produce an OU device without cavitation since that is where the mass to energy conversion takes place -  electron clustering as a result of the shockwave and then electron cascade as a result of the electron clusters exploding outward and then that electron cascade is the mass to energy conversion.

In Meyer's Canada patent, he patented underwater plasma electrolysis and in the notes you cited regarding semiconductive material is the piezo version - all the same thing. This would also explain how the cell could produce electricity since two conductors will have a charge form between them.

Me thinks that Stan was using a spark gap running at 42.8KHZ in that center tube.

Want more proof? Read Stans (pretending to be his twin brother) patent application where he starts out talking about how the tubes ring like bells. ;-) Nothing will produce a sharper ping than a spark gap and a solid state version of the m1s9???  whatever circuit (any high amp DC spark gap will do) would be the perfect way to produce that. Many high power lasers use a spark gap to fire also so that may be a source for a circuit.

Keep up the good work, you are on the right track.

Offline OscarMeyer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2009, 05:10:53 AM »
Could anyone explain to me what would happen if you simply broadcast, at say 5 watts, the radio frequency of 45.8 khz right next to a plastic container filled with water while at the same time applying voltage to electrodes inside the water at the same time?  Would not radio waves be able to destablize the water molecules just as sound waves can break glass when its resonance is reached?

Go easy on me.  I'm just asking :)

Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2009, 05:49:59 AM »
Yes, google Kanzius...

Offline OscarMeyer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Stan Meyer's "Non-Electrolysis" method
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2009, 08:15:21 PM »
Yes, google Kanzius...

I took your lead and googled Kanzius.  He is extracting hydogen on demand from ordinary sea water.  He is not even electrofying the water or in other words, using a conventional electrollisis method with the radio waves.   Radio waves alone are enough to liberate the hydrogen.

The only problem is, the efficiency is only around 70 percent in comparison to Faraday's equations.

Now, I will just bet that you can produce a radio signal with less electricity than the machine this guy was using.


 

OneLink