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 March 12, 2009, 01:12:48 PM
-
The problem with Meyer
This post will no doubt be considered somewhat controversial, but it should not necessarily be regarded as negative. The purpose of this post is to highlight the often ignored or over-looked problems with Meyer and the Meyer information, and to openly portray my personal thoughts on the subject, in order to get people actually THINKING. I’m not inclined to post idle, ill-considered or thoughtless rubbish, so please bear with me.
Some years ago I remember getting a copy of Meyer’s technical brief:
The Birth of New Technology
WATER FUEL CELL
HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS
Having a keen interest in this subject, as well as being very practically minded and hands-on, I remember being very excited by the prospects of learning the secrets to his WFC from the 100 or so pages. Unfortunately, I also remember only being a few pages into it before I found obvious flaws in the science and electronics - indeed my suspicions were raised from the very first page. I nevertheless continued to read, noting the many and varied problems as I went.
After reading Meyer’s technical brief, I was left with many more questions than answers. Something was not right. Apart from the science described often being blatantly wrong, there were clearly pages of meaningless gobbledegook and invented words and terminology. To my dismay, I realised there was nothing in the brief that could be confidently relied on as being accurate or indeed factual. To me at least, it became quite clear that the author himself had very little understanding of science or electronics. Not only was I disappointed by this, but this very fact in itself brought up the most important question of them all: Was Meyer simply a fraudster?
To be honest, after reading the Meyer technical brief, with all its pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo, I started to feel that the whole thing was a big scam. It was then brought to my attention that if the brief was copied using writing recognition software that, inconsistencies might be due to how it was copied. OK fair enough.
Sometime shortly after an Aussie, and ardent Meyer supporter (Murray, who now runs the Water Fuel Cell website) kindly sent me copies of the Meyer lecture videos. However, these videos did nothing for my confidence in Meyer, as his lecture (seemingly to a handful of non-intellects in a garage) was as consistently flawed as his technical briefs. He talked and I listened, but nothing made any particular sense – it was all pseudo-science and pseudo-technical babble that, while sounding very impressive to the layman, actually meant nothing in any scientific terms. Excuses and explanations were running out - watching the Meyer videos my doubts and concerns were confirmed by Meyer himself.
To my mind there are only a few possible explanations:
1. Meyer discovered how to build a very efficient WFC, but did not have the background to understand the science behind it.
2. Meyer thought he was onto something with the WFC, acquiring funding before he had actually built a working WFC – thereby digging himself into a hole he was unable to ever get out of.
3. Meyer was a scammer and the whole thing was fraudulent from the start.
One of the above is likely very close to the mark, and with all of the relevant information available, no one should have to jump to any immediate or knee-jerk conclusions. Of course, for those people that have no formal background education in science or electronics – those people without the education to see the flaws - then much of the information available is meaningless and blind faith and ignorance often wins the day. Hence we get that set of Meyer groupies and fanatics who stand by Meyer’s every word, blindly following his lead without question... yet, curiously never actually being able to replicate Meyers process.
Some intelligent people will tell you that the only thing Meyer ever separated with any great efficiency was, ‘the ignorant and uninformed from their money’. However, die-hard Meyer fans will not let mere ‘science or reality’ impose on their fantasies; they endeavour to remain uneducated - protectively cloaking themselves in ‘stupidity and blissful ignorance’. This point is made clearly evident from the meaningless nonsense continually posted by several members of this forum
As a reasonably intelligent man, I would assume that Meyer surely knew that the only people he could fool with his pseudo-science would be the layman. One would have thought that he must have known that none of what he said or wrote would stand up to any real scientific scrutiny, if not, this rather suggests more than a little naivety on his part.
In fact, if you watch the Meyer Introductory video here (top left – link below), you will see how scientists themselves were troubled by Meyer’s interpretation of the science. This first video, not only depicts a Meyer WFC on a bench, reportedly producing as much as 1700x more gas than standard electrolysis, but also running cool and at just 500mA. The video then goes on to show that Meyer’s Dune Buggy was using special water splitting injectors, this technology being a further advancement from the WFC depicted earlier on his work bench.
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/
So where does this leave us?
Well it doesn’t necessarily mean that Meyer was a fraud, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Meyer had not discovered a way to vastly improve the efficiency of dissociating water. However, what I am inclined to believe is that the Meyer technical briefs and patents have no bearing on real science and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Hence, Meyer information cannot in truth be relied on in any shape or form when attempting to replicate a Meyer-type WFC. The clues are there, but not much more. Trying to understand Meyer’s interpretation of the science is where the real problems start.
Be assured that this post is in no way intended to dissuade people from researching or experimenting in this subject area. On the contrary, I am simply attempting to highlight how foolish it would be to accept without question anything written or said by Meyer as being gospel. To simply overlook all the blatant technical flaws would be foolhardy in the extreme. Sometimes it is necessary to actively point out what is wrong - to see the nonsense for what it is - before you can move forward. If you are educated in this science then you will understand what I’m talking about, if you think that I’m simply out to cause trouble and dishonour Meyer’s name, then you need to get an education. Use your brain, learn up on the subject, apply common sense, and above all ‘think’ for yourself!
These are of course only my personal thoughts and observations; that said, they are the thoughts and observations of a relatively well educated, and intelligent human being with an above average IQ and more than my fair share of common sense.
So, I would suggest that instead of trying to faithfully replicate a WFC from somewhat dubious Meyer patents, you instead try to focus your mind on understanding what needs to be done in order to achieve a desired result. Once you understand what you are trying to achieve, then you can go about designing and fabricating a unit and the necessary electronics to accomplish the task.
And, start from the WFC bench model and work from there, as unless you can crack it at that stage, your clearly wasting your time trying to apply WFC injectors, etc, to a car engine
These statements above are not true !
This is a disinformation posting .
Please read the new postings over here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7034
-
Meyers aint frikkin mysterious when you just follow the frikkin directions.
Just leave it to the experts and forget about it . Forget about it ... Meyers not for everybody
-
Dankie
Just one vid of gas production at low wattage ,the world will beat a path to your door !!
Chet
-
I iterate:
However, die-hard Meyer fans will not let mere ‘science or reality’ impose on their fantasies; they endeavour to remain uneducated - protectively cloaking themselves in ‘stupidity and blissful ignorance’. This point is made clearly evident from the meaningless nonsense continually posted by several members of this forum
Thank you Dankie and Chet for being the first to emphasise my point!
Just leave it to the experts and forget about it . Forget about it ... Meyers not for everybody
Experts.... you and your merry Muppets! Who do you think you are fooling? The only thing you are expert in is the art of stupidity - and you'd be right at the top of your class in that! Why don't you go away and give the intelligent folk a chance to comment?
This gets so frustrating.
Are there no forum members with anything close to an IQ in double figures, or like Dankie and Chet, have you all got shit for brains!
Come back Buzz... all is forgiven.
-
How About I invite Fear jar back over here, And we can discuss The IQ thing and how important it is when Rome is burning
Chet
OH its all in the arcives Pointless Much like being nasty
If you want to have an uninterrupted project with your peers at this forum
CALL THE BOSS HE WILL GIVE MAKE YOU MODERATOR,OF A THREAD IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING OF USE BESIDES CONJECTURE
Chet AKA [shithead]
-
Projects are pointless here now Chethead, as is trying to post anything of value.
There appears to be no peers up to intelligent conversation let alone worthy of reviewing anything - you and the other half-wits have seen to that.
What hope is there for this forum when clearly the mainstay of active members are illiterate, and uneducated no-hopers looking for a little glory in the limelight!
All forums have there problems with idiots, but I see most of you have invaded all the other forums too, which seems strange, because you only tend to be talking to yourselves anyhow. You're like a rampant plague - the black death... and the demise of this and other forums will be down to you low-lives and the moderator for tolerating you.
Stefan, clearly a mental asylum somewhere is missing a few inmates! Are you ever going to manage this forum?
-
Projects are pointless here now Chethead, as is trying to post anything of value.
There appears to be no peers up to intelligent conversation let alone worthy of reviewing anything - you and the other half-wits have seen to that.
What hope is there for this forum when clearly the mainstay of active members are illiterate, and uneducated no-hopers looking for a little glory in the limelight!
All forums have there problems with idiots, but I see most of you have invaded all the other forums too, which seems strange, because you only tend to be talking to yourselves anyhow. You're like a rampant plague - the black death... and the demise of this and other forums will be down to you low-lives and the moderator for tolerating you.
Stefan, clearly a mental asylum somewhere is missing a few inmates! Are you ever going to manage this forum?
Its clearly you that is mentally ill , obviously you are TheBuzz and you should be banned .
-
I iterate:
Thank you Dankie and Chet for being the first to emphasise my point!
Experts.... you and your merry Muppets! Who do you think you are fooling? The only thing you are expert in is the art of stupidity - and you'd be right at the top of your class in that! Why don't you go away and give the intelligent folk a chance to comment?
This gets so frustrating.
Are there no forum members with anything close to an IQ in double figures, or like Dankie and Chet, have you all got shit for brains!
Come back Buzz... all is forgiven.
Why don't you give your comments on the techbrief and its incorrectness. It is written in layman's term, and for the educated hard to translate. Apart from some errors, everything in the brief makes sense, except for the mechanism of covalent switch-off which isn't well explained.
He did mention in the NZ house meeting that the hydrogen atoms are totally consumed with the HFP, nowhere else did he mention this again.
-
Apart from some errors, everything in the brief makes sense, except for the mechanism of covalent switch-off which isn't well explained.
Of course it makes sense sweety, you just keep telling yourself that, while l phone for the men in white coats to come and take you away.
Of course it makes sense, because you, like Hydro and the rest of the Muppets, don't have the knowledge or education to disagree with it. None of you seem to have the foggiest idea about science or electronics, which is why so much fantastical utter rubbish is posted time and time again.
Well done Alan. You too have made clear your own lack of education and basic understanding of science... and another one joins the ranks of the Muppet Squad.
Why don't you give your comments on the techbrief and its incorrectness. It is written in layman's term, and for the educated hard to translate
The whole thing is a minefield of incoherrent gobbledegook (the same as his lectures), which you and the regular lame-brains would realise if you had even a glimmer of an education to fall back on.
It would take me longer to point out all the flaws than it took Meyer to write the bloody nonsense. And what would be the point when you and all the other Meyer worshippers have been brainwashed into seeing something that is not there. You haven't the brains to see nonsense if it pokes you in the eye!
Do you all take your brains out and leave them at the door before logging on... or what?
It's now way beyond ridiculous. I've seen more intelligent life growing on 6 month old cheese than we get on this forum.
You're all as nutty as fruitcakes!
-
the electronics is correct my dear
However, die-hard Meyer fans will not let mere ‘science or reality’ impose on their fantasies; they endeavour to remain uneducated
meyer isn't scientific, no, show us where the concepts are utterly wrong, you're the intellectual scientist here.
maybe this whole thing is making advantage of autoionization of water.
-
You are an idiot bitch.
Your an retard, First you preach how the vic works etc,,,, and then you claim stan to be a fraud. Your ignorant.
AT LEAST I WARNED EVERYONE I WOULD DO WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO lol.
Farrady, you have been revealed,,,, how does it feel grow worm, you june june. Bend over and take it like a man.
-
Lol Spew!!! At last some-one has bought up some serious points...
BUT FIRST THE RETORTS SLANDER AND NAME CALLING!!!
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...
as for the others with the profanity and nothing but name calling... well its always good for a laugh how you guys spell stuff and use words!!!
OK onto the actual topic...
Your up to something that i keep bringing up (or at least have a few times) when people start to say "Meyers says!!" and then rant on about exact specifics. You have to remember that this man has no formal training in Physics, Chem. or electronics. He has his own terminology for everything to do with this science. You can tell this from his diagrams. I think the only thing that you can take as possibly stable is the power consumption and the quantity, possibly the temperature too but not to go there. To shoot the third option in the foot is the fact that there have been some seriously solid replications from people that have shown time stakenly slow progress and some nice little leaps (Ravi!!!) but then nothing. Meyers replication is possible. Using his terminology as gospel with todays components will result in some very average cells needing some creativity and application. Remember the old saying a rose by any other name still smells just as sweet. This is more applicable now then ever, we have a reasonably wise man with low commercial intelligence, who also has an invention he is trying to push without giving away its secret. I don't think you will find anything that will create a break through from Meyers notes videos or anything else he has published with first being able to understand "his english". I'm not saying i do, if i did you would see my add on here not ebays :). Over-unity is a nice target and personally i think that the chances of someone here achieving it is low. But we are all still looking at the problem as a possible solutions. Meyers may of had something beside a good story but his ideas have already been proven to partially work. So on that note anyone who understands Meyer-science please post some translations. If not keep working and the only thing that doesn't help is people simply calling others names and those that discredit something without proof. But all in all Meyers terminology when DIRECTLY translated and constructed does not reach over unity, this has been proven lots of times. Modifacations and missing components are a plenty. Good luck all and you never know we could be looking back one day thinking 1700x OU is a joke!!! :P
-
Lol Spew!!! At last some-one has bought up some serious points...
BUT FIRST THE RETORTS SLANDER AND NAME CALLING!!!
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...
as for the others with the profanity and nothing but name calling... well its always good for a laugh how you guys spell stuff and use words!!!
OK onto the actual topic...
Your up to something that i keep bringing up (or at least have a few times) when people start to say "Meyers says!!" and then rant on about exact specifics. You have to remember that this man has no formal training in Physics, Chem. or electronics. He has his own terminology for everything to do with this science. You can tell this from his diagrams. I think the only thing that you can take as possibly stable is the power consumption and the quantity, possibly the temperature too but not to go there. To shoot the third option in the foot is the fact that there have been some seriously solid replications from people that have shown time stakenly slow progress and some nice little leaps (Ravi!!!) but then nothing. Meyers replication is possible. Using his terminology as gospel with todays components will result in some very average cells needing some creativity and application. Remember the old saying a rose by any other name still smells just as sweet. This is more applicable now then ever, we have a reasonably wise man with low commercial intelligence, who also has an invention he is trying to push without giving away its secret. I don't think you will find anything that will create a break through from Meyers notes videos or anything else he has published with first being able to understand "his english". I'm not saying i do, if i did you would see my add on here not ebays :). Over-unity is a nice target and personally i think that the chances of someone here achieving it is low. But we are all still looking at the problem as a possible solutions. Meyers may of had something beside a good story but his ideas have already been proven to partially work. So on that note anyone who understands Meyer-science please post some translations. If not keep working and the only thing that doesn't help is people simply calling others names and those that discredit something without proof. But all in all Meyers terminology when DIRECTLY translated and constructed does not reach over unity, this has been proven lots of times. Modifacations and missing components are a plenty. Good luck all and you never know we could be looking back one day thinking 1700x OU is a joke!!! :P
HAHAHA you know nothing , keep sucking your thumb .
This technology is for the chosen ones , you guys will just get left out in the cold ...
-
HAHAHA you know nothing , keep sucking your thumb .
This technology is for the chosen ones , you guys will just get left out in the cold ...
Lol you fool... all your talk of the greater good and now your proclaiming that this technology is only "for the chosen ones" there are lots of "chosen ones" in history some create religions, some create cults but the ones that try to limit their finding to make money end up with some like a fatal dose of food poisoning. Dank you must be young (or young on the inside) if you don't understand the simple financial-mechanics of not to mention the global revolution technology like this would create... a fanatic like you sound like would squander such a discovery reveling in their tin hat philosophy of "those fools don't know how smart i am... i could change the world with my massive interlect... but instead MrFluffles me and my team shall hide, YES HIDE OUT in my cardboard castle!!! we shall have to wear these!!! No MrFluffles they are not mere tin foil hats!!! THESE SHALL PROTECT US FROM BIG BROTHER knowing that we have this technology and coming after us!!!
unless your holding off till you have sold your wire... lol
-
lol @ crazy,,, Well I'm sick of farraday, buzz threatening me, and I'm sick and tired of him following me around.
Tell you the truth,, i plan on getting these small engines efficient as i can, and when i do i plan on traveling to these hydrogen shows,,, My spelling has nothing to do with this technology,, I aint the perfect speller and i am also not the worst...
To be honest,,, most of the guy's that get this crap to work is rednecks, and they couldn't spell a lick...
And I'll tell you something else,,, some of the smartest people on this planet cant spell, nor type, most of them is to computer illiterate, But that by no way makes them stupid, even Einstein failed in school. He brought the name calling upon his self.
-
This is a copy of the personal message Hydro (Spewing) sent to me:
you are a bitch, you need your teeth beat down your throat, you little washington boy, your a gen gen.
I would like to stick my foot up your ass, you little mother fucker
If these posts do not clearly illustrate the level of intelligence that this forum has been reduced to then most of you need your head examining.
To think that anyone with this mentality can bring anything useful to the party is sheer madness!
-
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
-
This is a copy of the personal message Hydro (Spewing) sent to me:
If these posts do not clearly illustrate the level of intelligence that this forum has been reduced to then most of you need your head examining.
To think that anyone with this mentality can bring anything useful to the party is sheer madness!
Lol. That’s nothing. You should dig out some of the private correspondences between Tesla and Edison. The reason we never saw Tesla’s car again is because Edison set fire to it which accidentally spread and burnt down wardencliff.( I guess I just started another Web rumour).
-
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!
-
Well... finally... there is intelligent life out there.
For once a considered and intelligent post. Good grammar, spelling, paragraphs... the full works... thank you Loner.
I actually concur with what you say, and agree that laws work for most of the time and are generally the rule but there definately are exceptions.
If you read my initial post, you will realise that I have never dismissed Meyer's claims, I simply question the quacky science and the man himself. I really hope he achieved what he claimed as that would justify my interest, my research and indeed this discussion.
The point I was trying to illustrate was that understanding Faraday's Laws (which are quite valid for electrolysis) would lead to a better understanding of the nature of electrolysis itself, allowing an educated and informed opinion of other possible methods of dissociation of water. Without this as a foundation in electrochemistry, how can people possibly consider other alternatives?
The John Kanzius, 'burning saltwater', discovery always comes to mind as a form of water dissociation that has yet to be explained in terms of the electrochemistry involved. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, this discovery could be the boost Meyer's WFC technology needs in order to gain some credibility, as it seems to me to be every bit as mysterious - something that anyone familiar with Faraday's Laws of electrolysis should see straight away!
The difference of course, is that Kanzius made the discovery almost by chance and did not concoct any gobbledegook science to explain it, whereas Meyer seems to have made it his mission to confuse and confound us all.
With regards to the 'name calling', I have simply become intolerant of the mindless stupidity that is continually posted, and, yes, I know I should simply turn a blind eye to it... but the temptation to provoke the idiots just often gets the better of me. I'm rather embarrassed to say that in some perverted sort of way I find them kind of... entertaining!
PS. My English teacher once told the class of the 'i' before 'e', except after 'c' rule to help us with our spelling. I piped up saying that the word 'their' did not conform to this rule. "Ahhh", he said, "Yes, there are exceptions"
-
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
-
Open source hero engineer
I dont think he gets the credit he deserves, he's taking this tech a step further with the processor to stay on resonance.
I applaud you Mr. Boyce and hope your health gets better.
-
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.
-
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.
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
Hi Alan,
Examples of Meyers replications not working to claims of overunity are easy to find... The patent has been public knowledge for years... If it was that easy there would already be a plethora of working models out there and there would be no second guessing or people with their Glass jar attempts.
People have tried to replicate his work and then once they have what they think is replication the best they can say is (3LPM, 5LPM etc etc). Meyers held back required knowledge for his technology to work. There are more than 1 missing components in his patent. small black holes or parts that are not explained properly. If you think you can replicate with his result (or better) there are more than just me that are happy to see your plans and replicate with all the "meyerisms" changed into common english. But TO MY KNOWLEDGE the closest replication was Ravzz... And he is now very quiet... which is saddening.
-
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
-
Interesting post Loner
Though I find Meyer’s interpretation of his WFC workings as quite ludicrous and laughable, I’m nevertheless intrigued by it all, and still get genuinely quite excited by the science and technological possibilities surrounding this subject as a whole.
It's interesting that you say that the high voltage is not across the plates, as Meyer himself seemed to think it was - at least that's how he explained pulling off all the outer electrons! But then I'm not big on that interpretation of things anyway!
It has been suggested that the inductor set-up in the Puharich/Meyer circuit is acting as a type of ‘free’ energy collector. Some people believe that the cct can be compared favourably to research of Bedini, Beardon, Newman and others and their respective ‘free’ energy research and machines - effectively acting as a ‘time energy pump’.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tepprinc.htm
If so - and I’m not closing my mind to this possibility – then this may well be a factor in increasing overall system efficiency. However, if ‘free’ energy was indeed found to be an essential part of Meyer’s process, this would not in itself explain the electrochemistry involved.
If we forget about Meyer’s claims of all the outer electrons being torn from molecules and atoms, and assume that Meyer’s process, just like standard everyday electrolysis, relies on the ionisation of water, then Faraday’s Law will apply. And, for the resulting hydroxyl and hydrogen ions to form into atoms and be evolved as a gas, they must gain or lose their charges at the electrodes.
However, as it is effectively a closed loop, no electrons are ever actually lost in the process, so perhaps it is more to do with the efficiency at which the electrons are being moved around the cct. Perhaps, bringing us again to the possible ‘free’ energy element in all of this.
There are of course further possibilities. For example the science behind Avramenko's plug, whereby additional electrons are thought to be acquired from the surroundings!
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/afep01.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avramenk.htm
However, my problem then would be that the circuit as a whole would have a surplus of electrons, so effectively be unbalanced… unless only Hydrogen was evolving from the WFC.
Now if you checked out the JLN Labs link I posted last time, you will have seen for yourself that Naudin has insulated one electrode. This means that he has a genuine capacitor, even if it is the actual insulation on the electrode that is the major dielectric.
Now Naudin clearly reports that he is getting gas produced with this set up, which begs the question… how?
I emailed Naudin about a year ago, but he never did the courtesy of replying. My question… ?
I simply asked him, how he thought the gas was being produced when an insulated electrode would prevent any ions from dropping or collecting charges to become atoms... quite a valid question I thought.
The question still stands!
-
@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.
-
Firstly, I've got to say Loner, it's a real pleasure reading your posts and indeed conversing with you. Not only do you raise the level of discussion and provide insightful posts, you also bring an element of sanity - and hope - to this forum.
I'm always open to people thinking 'outside of the box' so as to speak... it's just that some people seem to have unrealistically large boxes! :)
Now, was this "Cold Electricity", an unusual RF effect, RE, Positron flow, Quantum entanglement, or something else? I can't answer any of that. What I can say for sure is that taking this one wire and putting it into a test tube of water produces HHO gas. How? Again, I cannot answer that, but I was able to re-create this on my bench with about 15 minutes of work.
I've never heard of this before, but find it extremely intriguing... fascinating! This is just begging to be experimented with further!
This really does tend to open up whole new realms of possibility. Can you confirm that it was hydroxy and not just H2 though... or are you simply assuming this to be the case?
My immediate thoughts would be H2 alone would make more sense if the wire is providing a surplus of electrons. That said, I've a feeling that I could be at the bottom of a steep learning curve here.
I tend to use the term electrochemistry, because to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water, there must at some point be an exchange of charges.
So we have standard everyday electrolysis dissociating water via two electrodes, we have Naudin and yourself apparently doing this with a single electrode, and we have Kanzius doing it without any electrodes at all! Looks like it really is time to re-write a few science books!
Just a further thought, and something that is never considered in relation to standard electrolysis, is the magnetic field produced by the ionic current flow itself.
In a standard electrolyser, unlike the one-way electron flow in a wire, we have ions travelling in both directions. The opposing magnetic fields that they themselves induce must surely go someway to explaining the impedance of such a cell. Furthermore, if we then dc pulse the cell, there must also surely be a momentary high voltage spike (back emf?) between pulses.
To my mind, this again raises even more questions.
Even from just what we have said in the last few posts, it’s clear that this science is far from straight-forward and indeed still poses many questions. I guess accepting the mystery is the first step to unravelling the puzzle.
-
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.
-
Good link Alan.
Some very interesting stuff there.
-
@Farrah Day
Please stop spreading false information about Stan Meyer !
Otherwise you will be banned.
Read the eye witness report of a coworker with Meyer here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7034.0
This topic is closed now.