Dankie, I love you buddy but your wire ain't gonna sell and your countless promises of massive results from you and "your team" of voluntary/part-time cultist in the hope of selling more of your blessed wire... dip it in red wine and try to pass it off as "genuine" imitation of the wire used by some religous cults guru...

He'll have to order more, I am sure of that.
And we are no cultists, we are Muppet's.

I agree there are aspects to meyer where you can put question marks, absolutely, but we realize the message is more important than the messenger. The techbrief is unreadable, but no reason to dismiss it all, too important for that.

But all in all Meyers terminology when DIRECTLY translated and constructed does not reach over unity, this has been proven lots of times.

can you give an example of this proof pls?

Farrah day, if you really want to analyze/prove/disprove SM theoretically, try to interpret section 5 and see if you can bend it and make it fit the theories you have learned. I can't, so your view and interpretation is welcome. There is no magic, if it is real, it can be explained scientifically and perhaps with current scientific knwedge. And I think it is real.
he talks about it in this video and further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN-_ZBPu4gg&feature=related

let's not throw arguments to the man

The problem with Meyer is that he never seemed to consider Faraday's laws.

Faraday, (unlike Meyer) was a brilliant scientist, and someone who actually knew what he was talking about. Indeed Faraday was a pioneer, and we owe to him much of what we know and understand of electrochemistry today. His laws cannot be dismissed - unless you don't possess the brains to understand them in the first place, that is.

If you do possess the brains to understand Faraday's laws in respect of electrolysis, then you will see quite clearly why it makes perfect sense. To simply dismiss Faraday's laws, as so many people around here seem quite happy to do, is foolhardy in the extreme and opens the floodgates for all the bad science that then tends to follow.

Simple ELECTROLYSIS… oh yeah… right!

I often see people coming into this area of science – and it’s quite obvious who they are – who try to actively take part in discussing a subject that not only do they have no background knowledge or education in, but which they clearly haven’t got a clue about. These people jump straight in at the deep end expecting either to be taught by others, or more often than not, simply and inevitably highlighting their own level of general ignorance on the forums – often to the frustration of others.

Take simple everyday electrolysis.  We all know this from high school… don’t we?  We simply draw a current through water containing an electrolyte and the water dissociates into hydrogen and oxygen at inert electrodes.  True enough, and that explanation might be enough to gain you a mark in your high school science exam, but it is nowhere near detailed enough an answer to be of any practical use if you intend to research WFCs.

Educating yourself to a level whereby you fully understand, let’s call it, ‘Standard Everyday Electrolysis’ will hold you in good stead for further WFC research. Understanding exactly what is happening in SE Electrolysis will allow you to not only make distinctions between other forms of water dissociation, but also allow you to make educated comments on the electrochemistry involved.

Full understanding of electrolysis will not come unless you get to grips with Faraday’s laws.

Hence a little background knowledge goes a long way to sensible discussion.

But...!  I hear you say, Meyer was not using standard electrolysis, so Faraday’s laws don't apply!

Well, even if this is the case, unless you take time to understand Faraday’s laws in the first place, you have no grounding from which to make that call, make intelligent observations, or come to any logical conclusions.
Armed with the understanding of Faraday’s laws you can then better understand the problems with what Meyer suggests is happening in his WFC, and so take part in educated discussion..

Ignorance might be bliss for most of you, but it won’t change the laws of physics!

Bob Boyce recent [few weeks] interview 

He shares frequency info, circuit info ,WATCH THIS VIDEO
 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1779100537035350538

Chet
PS This man ran race boats and cars on his HHO tech, and is an Open source hero engineer
And touches on the subject of the last few posts

Hi Loner

I think that basically you and I on the same page with all of this.

Though there may well be things happening in Meyer's WFC that science has yet to explain, I think we must all start from a point in science that is understood, and work from there.

I never actually considered that someone could work with this without a basic understanding of electrolysis, otherwise how would they be determining the efficiency of their design?  I mean, Faraday's law really IS the standard that ALL of the devices are measured against, so if anyone is giving a >100% Faraday efficiency, they must know the original formulas and concepts, right?  Or am I just too naive and assuming too much.

This is the heart of the problem - or at least my personal gripe - with many of the posts. I do think you may well be being a little naive here, but perhaps that’s just because you are a genuinely decent person. But, re-read some of the threads and in the cold light of day, you might come to a different conclusion.

Now that I have said that, I will say that certain aspects of what Meyer states in both the videos I have seen AND in the patents I have read are "Slightly off", to put it in nice terms.  Many will not like me for saying it that way, but you have a point.

'Slightly off', that's one way of putting it. Seems to me that you see what I see, but simply have a more eloquent turn of phrase than myself.

Then again, I have read a few posts in other threads that seem to have been written by smart monkeys.  As far as language goes, I really feel for the people who's first language isn't English, and yet they still get the ideas across and the information transferred.

I rather fear that you may be doing real monkeys an injustice with this remark.  I also commonly find that folks whose first language IS NOT English often write more coherently than many of those whose first language IS English.

I try to assume that they are just speed typing and don't really care enough to spend the extra time to think about what they are typing.  That is actually another acceptable thing to me as it would certainly cut down the typing time drastically.

It's a nice thought, but it's not just about what they type, it's about what they are saying in their incoherent ramblings. I personally doubt if any of them speed-type as their brains wouldn't be able to keep up.  Give a real monkey a typewriter and you’d probably get better results... but here I am, having fun at their expense again! My husband is always telling me I’m too abrupt and too blunt, because I do always tend to, say it as I see it. Unlike myself, you'd clearly make a good diplomat Loner.

Where I genuinely fail to see the logic, is in trying to design injectors and such-like, when they haven’t yet got the gas production element of the process sorted.  What’s that all about?  It’s all arse-end backwards - they’re trying to run before they’ve mastered walking!  But... each to his own, eh!

Anyway…

The problem with Meyer… continued…

As already pointed out earlier, the problems with Meyer’s Technical Brief start at page one where he gives the dielectric constant of ‘natural’ water as being 78.54, but then later clearly talks about ‘natural’ water as spring water or everyday tap water.  Nowhere does Meyer state that pure, de-ionised water is used in his WFC.  Which then immediately negates the use of the dielectric constant of water in any subsequent formulae or calculations.

It would seem then that right from page one, Meyer is emphasising the workings of his WFC as a capacitor, based on the high dielectric constant of water – when of course the water he uses is actually a good conductor.

If Meyer was using pure, uncontaminated water (which is only achievable under strict laboratory conditions), then there would be no need for the current inhibiting circuitry or his so-called amp-consuming device.

That aside, the biggest problem of all, and the question that any intelligent educated person asks is:

If he intends on pulling apart the water molecule using a high potential across the cell, then why doesn’t he simply insulate the electrodes so that no current can flow?

This is the most obvious thing in the world to do in order to have only voltage potential, with no current flow.  So why then does Meyer have his SS tubes actually in contact with the water?  The only reason you would need the water to be in contact with the electrodes is for the exchange of charges.

Naudin would seem to have noticed this problem, as in replicating a Meyer-type cell, he HAS insulated one electrode from the water:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm

Another point of note.

In standard everyday electrolysis, the water molecule is caused to ionise into OH- and H+, which would suggest that breaking the O – H bond requires the least amount of energy, and hence is the first reaction to take place.  So, if breaking the O – H bond requires the least amount of energy in standard everyday electrolysis, then it is fairly safe to assume that this bond would be the first to break in a Meyer-type WFC.

Of course, Meyer states that all the outer electrons are being stripped off the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, by the high voltage potential between the plates, leaving O+ and 2H+ ions and a whole bunch of ‘free’ electrons.  Meyer then states that these oxygen and hydrogen ions then, during the off pulse, recapture the ‘free’ electrons and become stable O and H atoms.

This of course is all just wild speculation, not backed up by any real science. You can follow his lines of thought, but I suggest this is all just wishful thinking, and typically how a layman might perceive things.

It’s the same with his VIC (Voltage Intensifier Cct).  This device seems to serve two main purposes, to put a high voltage across the WFC, whilst restricting current flow.

I would assume this to be loosely based on a parallel tuned LC cct, whereby at the resonant frequency, the voltage can achieve exceedingly high potentials whilst the current becomes negligible. This all happening due to the current through the inductor in fact being 180 out of phase with the current through the capacitor, and hence cancelling each other out.   But Meyer uses a blocking diode, so this immediately eliminates resonance of the cct itself and so to the naturally high voltage that could be attained.  The other thing of course is the fact that a tuned LC circuit relies on the ‘C’ actually being a capacitor.

That said, if you google Puharich, you will find he had this WFC set up depicted long before Meyer. In fact Meyer’s cct just seems to be a copy of Puharich’s cct.

I personally find that Meyer exhibits a certain arrogance in the fact that he clearly makes out that his rather obvious speculations in terms of the science, are known or proven.  I also find Meyer’s video lectures to be an insult to my intelligence, and his technical briefs simply pose too many questions that are left unanswered, flying too obviously in the face of factual science.

Perhaps now it’s time to start looking at the science in a different light and doing some educated speculating of our own.

All
Another open source Hero that picks up the torch

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7030.0;topicseen

Chet
Farrah Day, please look and comment

@Loner, I think you're carrying this thread.

@ALL,

The Meyer devices have tubes within tubes ...

This is interesting, yet contrary, if current were to flow in opposite directions in these tubes, then a current would then flow inside ( between ) the two tubes in a circular fashion.  When pulsing DC through these tubes - which is all I can hope to think he did, then he's just agitating the current flowing between the tubes.  Nothing special there except how he manages to get current to flow evenly - perhaps by pulsing alone or via high voltage.  What he essentially has is a broken, perpendicularized, electric discharge lamp which has been flooded with water.

Barring any philosophy on this post, ...he's 'cracking' water using elongated tubes where current is made to flow, at least, inductively, in the water between the tubes.

This is no surprise, what's remarkable, is the tendency for it work.  And if it's not working, and if that's what the problem is, then the electrodes need to be reconfigured - the frequency is just going to be a variable fixed to the physiology of the individual setups.  All systems have a resonance.

If I were going to try this - and it seems like a waste of time, I would try to make sure that source currents were flowing in opposite directions in the tubes.  For instance, negative comes from the top and positive comes from bottom, or something to that effect. You will, of course want hydrogen to form on the electrode with the most surface area.  Once any amount of electrolysis starts to occur, then the solutions become differentially alkaline and acidic... just depends on concentration, and then electrolysis becomes easier...resonance occurs here as well at any other natural 'cracking' frequency ( which has been the subject of much debate here and there ) ..these last few remarks being metaphor.  One also has to consider capacitance in these tubes while they're running - this winds up being an equation of many variables - this is why I state the the input frequency is dependent on many factors, and is thus relative to the individual system.

A similar thing happens at a very high speed in a florescent tube - disregarding PH (something reserved for liquids, etc ), ..the tendency is for increasing domino effects to rapture and create the desired effects.

Read this if you haven't done so already.
http://67.76.235.52/cre.asp

In many stiffler video's he shows the wireless illumination of fluorescent tubes, so the energy level of the atoms inside the tubes are being raised and I guess also ionized, without charge exchange, only fields are being used. Maybe  it correlates with Meyers work: voltage field to ionize and raise the energy level of the water molecules, but how can this contribute to breaking the covalent bonds?
Not to forget the materials in the tube and water are different, maybe free electrons in the gas are being pushed back and forth, creating (displacement) currents.