Just in case anyone looking in thinks that I’ve gone out of my way to create havoc here, then I would ask you to look at the very start of this thread.
On page one, we have Hydrocars (using his much more apt alias, Spewing) saying he has discovered ionisation – but everyone else is taking credit for it…What!?
When i was told ionization was nothing new, that it was on many other sites before i published, it made me angry because i as well as many others know differently.
We also have Dankie Doodle Dandy saying that folk will have to go ‘throught him’ (I assume he meant, ‘through him’, if they wanted a working VIC.
Everybody here will have to go throught me before pursuing their dreams of making a working VIC .
So you see the utter nonsense has been here from day one!
Add to this the above illiterate ramblings and outright profanities of the mentally challenged and you can see that the thread is simply maintaining the momentum it started with. Does make you wonder how this thread ever achieved so many views!
I’ve watched the Meyer’s videos, and it’s quite clear that he himself does not fully understand what he is talking about. Indeed anyone with a background in science will tell you that most of what he says is gobbledegook. And I’m not saying that merely to wind up ardent Meyer fans – it is simply fact. I really wish that Meyer made more sense in his videos, as his explanations are extremely nonsensical and flawed to say the least.
Using the dielectric constant of water in any formulas is a waste of time, as water is quoted by Meyer and others as having a permittivity in the region of 74 – 78. These are levels of purity only achievable to any degree in the laboratory. Pure water with a relative permittivity of 80, is as good an insulator as you can get, and would require no current limiting to prevent current flowing through it.
However, Meyer states on numerous occasions that ‘any’ water can be used in his WFC, pretty well negating the idea of him using pure water. And we all know that tap water conducts very easily, so we can forget about using the dielectric constant of pure water in any equations.
Meyer will show you that water is pulled apart by voltage. If this is so, why isn’t one of the electrodes simply coated in an insulator to prevent current flow? This would make far more sense than trying to develop complicated circuitry to prevent current flowing through a conductive liquid. This would also mean that all the high voltage was dropped where it is wanted - across the WFC.
Meyer also states that the water molecule is ripped apart by having the electrons pulled off and leaving ions of oxygen and hydrogen. None of this makes sense as in this state we still do not achieve H2 and O2 gas.
In a standard electrolyser, the water molecule dissociates into OH- and H+ when it ionises. Assuming that breaking this bond requires the least energy, then you would expect water to also break down this way in Meyers WFC. Even so, the H+ ion in a standard electrolyser is no good for anything until it picks up an electron from somewhere and then joins with another hydrogen atom to be evolved as H2.
You have to ask the question, what was Meyers trying to achieve with his VIC – after all a VIC is just a fancy, made up name for a high voltage transformer. A car ignition coil will provide between 20 – 40kV and is on the shelf, ready made, ready to go.
I see talk of resistive wire and all sorts of coils to restrict current flow, but all this seems to be overcomplicating the issue. Adding high impedance coils and resistive wire will only serve to have high voltages drop across them rather than where you want it, across the cell.
As stated, simply insulating one electrode would best achieve a high voltage right across the plates of the cell – that is, if Meyer was actually pulling the water molecule apart as he stated.
Now if indeed high voltage does cause the water to ionise into OH- and H+, we need a way to use these products, which is where the problems start. The hydrogen ion requires a source of electrons in order to become an atom, and the hydroxyl ion needs somewhere to dump an electron in order to free the oxygen. If we have insulated or restricted current flow to the cell, then we have a stalemate – and no gas.
A background education in science and a little research would make what I’ve just stated clearly evident.
The most interesting thing I’ve seen recently, and something that might have some real bearing on what Meyer was actually doing (assuming he was genuine), is the John Kanzius – burning saltwater discovery. Here we have a truly interesting phenomenon that has been highly publicised and looks to all intents and purposes to be genuine.
The Kanzius discovery also poses similar questions to Meyer’s WFC, in that it is not immediately obvious as to the electrochemical reactions taking part – especially given that there are no electrodes.
Understanding the Kanzius discovery will likely shed a lot of light on the workings of Meyer’s WFC.
People - and rather worryingly some scientists – are saying that Kanzius is simply breaking down water into oxygen and hydrogen, that is then burning off – another form of standard electrolysis, and no big deal. Easy to say, but far too simple and in truth a statement that is not worthy of anything other than laymen.
Clearly some unheard of and seemingly unknown electrochemistry is at work here. Furthermore, Kanzius is using NaCl as an electrolyte, but apparently not getting any chlorine gas, which would be the case in standard electrolysis. All very intriguing.
