Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[demartin]

mrgalleria, my power source is a linear, non-switching, regulated variable DC power supply, 0-30V and 0-5A. It plugs into the wall, 120V 60Hz. I noticed on my oscilloscope some resonant frequencies in the 1mhz - 2mhz range that seemed to be associated with my power supply rather than the VIC circuit. Therefore I am concerned that the supply is messing things up and have been pondering using a battery bank instead. Anyone else having problems when using a benchtop variable power supply?

[Goblue]

Burning water.  Very simple and interesting set-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I

Can this concept be used to run a car entirely on water (also using HHO) or will it work as a suppliment to gasoline?  Mainly used to burn gasoline more thoroughly?

Any thoughts?

Go

[Farrah Day]

DM

Above you mentioned that Meyer could apparently use any water (including salt water) in his device. I too have read this statement by Meyer, but few people seem to realise the implications of it.

If this is the case, then it surely goes to show that Meyer was indeed not using current to induce the ionisation of the water molecule, otherwise he would have had chlorine instead of oxygen at the anode.

MrG

Somewhere above you talk about electricity in the water been taken away.  By electricity I assume that you mean the covalent bonding electrons between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.  This however does not make a lot of sense if you think about it.  If the electrons were pulled off they would go to the anode so reducing the charge on it. We would be left with an oxygen atom (neutral), which would not be attracted to either electrode and 2 x +ve hydrogen ions that would head for the cathode.  My problem with this, is that if you pull something apart it will break at it's weakest point, which I think you will find results in the OH- and H+ of normal electrolysis.

The simple fact is that Meyer was causing water to ionise as normal, but without using electrical current to initiate it. So we get the gases given off at the electrodes as per usual, but we've initiated ionisation not by heavy current flow, but by some other method.  Once we know exactly what this criteria is we have cracked it!

Once we understand how ionisation is initiated in the Meyer fashion we will more easily be able to recreate it.

I often think that there is far too much emphasis on trying to recreate Meyer's ccts, rather than recreate his results. If it's high voltage pulses at specific frequencies there are far better and easier ways to achieve this than to be fiddling with inductors of unknown values and configurations and just hoping to get lucky.

Initially, using the correct electrical and test equipment to give us the result we desire is surely the best way forward. Then, once we know what we have to achieve, we can then go about achieving it from a more compact stand alone cct.

Lawton and all the others using the Lawton cct are claiming 300% over-Faraday. This seems to be the constant - not sure why this would be.  I'm concerned that this may be due to the residual voltage left on the electrodes during the 'off' periods between pulses. So effectively the cell continues to produce gas when the cct is drawing no current.  I know from my own test cells that the voltage can remain for a good 12 hours and that the electrolysis voltage threshold is maintained for short periods once turned off.  The length of time for which the cell can hold a charge above the electrolysis threshold, would determine the amount of 'extra' gas produced. At 300% over-Faraday then, the cell would have to hold enough charge to last 2 times longer in the 'off' state than the 'on' pulse.

This is where the electrode conditioning may come into play.  By producing an effective dielectric on the cathode, then we may be able to greatly enhance the charge storage and hence voltage on the electrodes to a point where we can maintain the electrolysis threshold voltage for much greater periods of time. I.e. shorter 'on' pulses, longer 'off' pulses.

[demartin]

Above you mentioned that Meyer could apparently use any water (including salt water) in his device. I too have read this statement by Meyer, but few people seem to realise the implications of it.

It blows my mind how deceptively simple the Meyer technology appears on the surface, yet how it becomes a rabbit hole you keep tumbling down. It looks like pulsed current electrolysis, but isn't. It looks like simple pulsed high voltage, but current is voltage over resistance so that would imply pulsed high current. Impurities in water only changed the resonant frequency, they did not significantly alter the power requirements. This can only be if the conductivity of the water was taken out of the equation through lack of real current through the water, which of course is what Meyer was trying to do.

It really looks to me like the cell was powered by displacement current or longitudinal electron oscillations, even time/gravity waves since longitudinal (compression/expansion) electron density oscillations generate those. I made a short post over on the "Stanley Meyer, please meet Avramenko" thread here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2967.0.htmlÃ, 

-- check out the PDF link in that post, it says that power could be sent over copper, steel, water, damp earth without resistive losses. That explains why Meyer was using stainless steel coils at one point, to truly restrict the regular current while allowing through this longitudinal energy that ignores resistance anyway.

So when people talk about restricting amps and allowing through only voltage, that is kind of misleading because someone could say like I did, "If you put voltage across the water gap, the water resistance will see that voltage and create current. It's Ohm's Law. To cut off that current, you'd have to cut off the voltage." -- but not so if by "voltage" you mean something more like longitudinal / scalar / temporal / gravitational energy, aka some unconventional electron behavior. I think everyone deeply interested in the Meyer technology should study up on Avramenko and this article by Tesla:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

[Farrah Day]

Agreed DM

It is not quite as simple as some people try to make out is it. 

That's why I get very frustrated when people say things like, "Meyer uses high voltage pulses to pull water apart while restricting the amps". Simple as that... yeh, right!

If the gas is produced from ionisation as per usual, then we still need charges on the plates, and hence some current flow through the cct, but we may not need the heavy current flow through the water (electrolyte) which is required for normal electrolysis.

Some Meyer documents I read indicated - as MG said above - that the covalent bonding electrons were pulled off the water molecule and out of the water.  However, a Meyer document I read last night stated that the covalent bonding electron force was broken, with the two hydrogen ions taking the electrons, which leaves all neutral atoms.  This would allow the two hydrogen atoms to combine as the hydrogen molecule H2 and be given off as gas, while the oxygen atom joins with another oxygen atom also to be given off as O2 gas.  In this scenario, ionisation does not take place and no electrons are needed in the reaction at all.

The question now is the: Can high voltage pulses pull the water molecule apart that way.

Another thing that concerns me is if the latter is the case, then gases would not be given off at the electrodes, but all throughout the liquid medium - as neutral atoms they would not be attracted to either electrode.

DM, don't forget though that it is quite possible to get a voltage without any current flow. Just consider a fully charged car battery. It exhibits a 12-13V potential difference but no current flows until you put some form of conductor between the terminals.

That said, in the case of a capacitor, it is the charges on the electrodes that provide the voltage. Ie, a capacitor charges up as charges (current) flow onto the electrodes. The more charges the higher the voltage, until the voltage across the electrodes equals that of the supply.  If the dielectric had no leakage, then this capacitor would remain charged and no further current would be drawn from the supply. So there would then be a pd across the capacitor, but no current flowing. Water would certainly line up to this pd.

All good stuff, eh!