Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[H2earth]

Dyamios,

Your dogma is getting in the way of your education.  The Meyer WFC works, and we have multiple examples of HHO being created at 1.5 wh/ltr,  0.383 wh/ltr., and even 0.0 wh/ltr.  When the free electron current released from the water is counted, they are all net current producers, and, in effect, the Hydroxy is then better than free from an energy standpoint.

How many times is this going to be scrapped up off of the basement floor?

I don't want to be a pessimist or anything, but really, why is there any rhyme or reason to believe that pulsed (essentially AC) electricity will somehow fracture water molecules any better than regular DC. There is no electrical resonant frequency of water to be found. It physically does not exist.

H2O doesn't even vibrate in any electrical fashion, let alone has the capacity to hold resonant energy. The simple reaction occurring during electrolysis is merely extra electrons being transfered to form gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen (diagrammed below):
H20 + e- -> H2 + O2

The reason there is less energy use is because of the minute gap between the electrodes. The smaller the gap, the less distance the electrons and ions have to move to form new molecules.

The reason the water heats up is because when the water molecules fall apart when extra electrons are supplied, the various atoms must migrate through the water itself to the various electrodes, where it finally forms the gaseous form. As these particles move, they bump into other molecules and atoms, and add entropy (in the form of heat) to the system. This is INEVITABLE and ALWAYS occurs no matter what kind of frequency is used. The less gap, the less chance for the particles to bump into each other, therefore creating less heat, but heat will ALWAYS be produced.

Therefore electrolysis can NEVER under ANY type of circumstance be more than 99% efficient.

First, there is no similarity between AC current and pulsed DC as employed in the WFC.

Second, the compound resonance in the WFC is clearly evident to experimenters.  There is an electrical resonance between the inductors (Resonant Charging Choke coils), there is an electrical resonance within the intraelectrode gap itself within the water, and, finally, there is an acoustical resonance between the cylindrical electrodes, which is somehow phase coupled to the electrical resonances.  The electrical resonance involves a phase delay between the pulses to the electrodes, which has the effect of inhibiting current flow into the cell; the acoustic resonance produces a standing wave which inhibits ion transport.  Both of these contribute to dielectric breakdown in the water, which is where electrons are ripped from the water (by voltage alone) producing gas in the process.

Actually, what about the Water Fuel Cell even resembles electrolysis?   1) There is no electrolye;  2) There is NO current admitted to the water, in a proper system;  3) No heating occurs in the water as it produces gas; 4) The gas produced is Hydroxy (aka HHO or "Brown's Gas"), not differentiated Hydrogen & Oxygen; and 5) All of the work is performed by voltage potential alone.

Stanley Meyers had a flawed understanding of the process of electrolysis, and his theory was debunked by the patent office.

Why make such demonstrably FALSE statements?

Actually, in a Sec. 101 technical appeals hearing by the U.S. Patent Office, Meyer's fundamental "Methods" patent was issued because, upon inspection of the working device by engineering examiners, it did exactly as he claimed it was doing.

I'm begging everyone who reads this: PLEASE learn the rudimentary science before running off go blindly believe somebody. Most, if not all, of the theories here are flawed in some basic way (it goes without saying that the laws of thermodynamics are excluded from this, as every theory violates this).

Enough of Stanley Meyers. He was a fraud. His theory was flawed. He was weighed, measured, and found guilty. What does it take to get people to realize that water is NOT an energy source. At most its an inefficient energy carrier.

Hydrogen is only the future of MOVING energy, NOT making it. Please people, understand this!

The old 'rudimentary science' is obsolete, and all of this evidence posted by different experimenters proves it.  A growing list of independent replications is establishing the viability of "Hydrogen-on-Demand" from water, with no (or negligible) net external eneregy input.  Water is definitely a fuel, when used as an electron source for Radiant Energy circuits.

[starcruiser]

It appears to me that Dyamios may be trying to dissuade us from following a path that will free us from Big Oil? I could be wrong but???

[h20power]

Yeah, it does indeed. History is behind us with Dangel Dingles work since he has had this type of stuff working since 1968. That really makes it hard too say it's all BS, like this guy Dyamios is trying too do that, or he is so stuck on the old ways and he is willing to give his life in it's defense. So many lost souls out there.

[hartiberlin]

Faraday's is 2.4 watts / hour / liter.

Just to not confuse other people, I must correct you a bit:
It must be 2.4 Watts x 1 hour long applied  /  liter.

so it is 2.4 Watthours of energy per Liter.

( so it is multiplied with the hour not divided by the hour...)

Volts x Amps = Watts

12 x 0.51 = 6.12 watts
the generation is around 7 cc/sec of H2 + O2

This converts to 4.66 CC of H2/sec

and NerzDishual wrote:

@Harti_Berlin

Do you mean 2.4 Ampere/hour?

2 moles of electrons for one mole (22.4 liter) of H2.
2*96500= 193000 coulomb for 22.4 liters.
193000/3600/22.4 = 2.4 amp/hour for one liter.

You need more than one volt (theorically 1.23 volts but in practice almost 1.6 volts). This 'leads out' to about 2.4* 1.6 =/= 4 watts/hour for one liter (or 4 kWh per cubic meter) of h2.  Leads it out not?

So the real question I have now,
must the Faraday law be
2.4 Watthours per liter (H2 plus O2) gas
or per Liter H2 gas alone ?
So do we have to remove the O2 gas from the equation ?

If yes, we would need to generate more HHO gas for 2.4 Watthours of energy input....

Can somebody clarify this ?
I have been reading about this somewhere on the web but don?t find
the link anymore...
Many thanks.

Regards,Stefan.

[kewlhead]

Compound Resonance....H2EARTH, thank you for that post !!!! and if Im not mistaken you may have just coined that term "Compound Resonance" You were a first HERO among alot of us o boys....and Im proud that you were the one to clear up Dyamios unfortunate pleas to piss all over one of the GREATS, just wanted to say Thank You.