Meyer's Resonant Charging Circuit Analysed

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rob

The problem here is that you are covering the same ground that most people have already done many times over.

The thing about a capacitor is that it should possess capacitance and does not conduct dc.  This is true if you use pure water, which has an extremely high dielectric constant.  Unfortunately, tap water conducts very well, makes for a very poor dielectric and hence what we really have is a non-linear resistor.  If we put an ac signal across it it would no doubt possess some capacitance due to close spacing of the plates, but the main component would be resistive.

The other thing about 'literally pulling the molecules apart', is that it is not enough to simply say or assume this. Any reaction in the water needs to obey the laws of physics and hence form a balanced equation. A statement like that needs to be backed up by a scientific explanation. 

If you haven't already, take a look at the other thread: 'Meyer's wfc concept analysed'

Farrah Day

[Farrah Day]

At this stage I'm not going to worry about the actual design of Meyer's resonant charging cct itself, but rather try understand its action, or what exactly it is supposed to do. In that way I can replicate it in my own fashion.

Its all very well going at it bull-headed, and just trying to replicate Meyer?s WFC, without worrying yourself with the complicated science behind it. But, unless you do some real in-depth initial research you will never understand exactly what you are doing.

It's all very well people simply reciting Meyer's technical briefs and patents, but this is not good enough as it does not in itself imply understanding of the process. Furthermore, Meyer's science is appalling, as indeed are some of his statements. I know I've said this all before, but let me just give you a prime example of the problem Meyer can cause if you take his word as gospel.

Over on the OUPower forum, I've had a very heated debate with someone convinced that water is made up from 31% Oxygen, 62% Hydrogen and 17% Nitrogen, and that the same percentages are given off during electrolysis... and yes, I know it adds up to 110%.  Now, no amount of discussion with this guy will make him see reason, no explanation is good enough to open his eyes. He is absolutely convinced that I'm a 'dimwit' and that he has it right, and, that I should take note of his 'knowledge' if I want to learn anything.

When I asked where he got these strange ideas from, he provided a link to ... yes, you guessed it, a Meyer technical brief.  It's a shame really as this guy has built a D14 cct and an impressive looking tube wfc, but thanks to Meyer's bumbling scientific errors, this guy is now unable and/or unwilling to be put straight on the incorrect technical points.  Furthermore I don't think he is alone, there are far too many 'Meyer fanatics' out there that see old Stan as a saviour that could do no wrong.  This is a shame, as it will severely hinder, if not halt further progress.

Farrah Day

[robbryder]

Hello Farrah Day. Thanks for the input. Its always good to hear others thought and ideas.. but we are going to have to agree to disagree on somethings..lol.

Two steel plates insulate from each other and submersed in water, is a capacitor... waters resistance is much higher than the steel, and is then by definition a dielectric. 2 conductors separated by a dielectric makes a capacitor...  Now I read this out of a Boylstadt electroinc text book... so I'm go with that for now..

Since we now have a capacitor, if we add the correct size inductor we can tune into any frequency we desire. Boylstadt again.. I'll agree that depending on the condition of the water the value of the capacitance will be different, but it will be a capacitor..

If we can tune the circuit at waters resonant frequency, and match it with a voltage spike (at the same frequency) just short of breakover for the capacitor, the maximum amount of the energy available to the water is going to break it up, tear it apart.. what ever you want to call it.. all I know is it looks like alot more energy is available then is used.. and really for me thats all that matters... 

Someday soon, someone is going to claim to have figured out the  science.. probably post it on this site, and when they do I'll gladly read about it because I am curious... but for now.. I just want the Power...lol

But what Myers did "is" the science..

If Myers didn't have it exact before his "demise" he was awful close... and I don't believe he put on paper all he knew.. but apparently what he had on paper was worth a lot of money.. and ultimately his life..

RobbRyder..

[Farrah Day]

Rob

A lot of speculation there with reference to 'Meyer'. For all we know he could have been killed by one of his many personal creditors. He had afterall encouraged many people to part with thousands of dollars to fund his project, ensuring them it was a very good investment, and of course he was eventually (rightly or wrongly), declared to have committed fraud by the government.

People seem to have their own set ideas on this, which doesn't change the fact that either Meyer's was the genuine article or he was a fraud. If his dune buggy worked as he demonstrated, then he was not 'nearly there', but he had succeeded. Either way, I'm not too bothered by this as that's all in the past now, and I get the feeling the real truth will always be obscured by uncorroborated science and speculation.

Anyway, back to the water capacitor. You wrote:

Two steel plates insulate from each other and submersed in water, is a capacitor... waters resistance is much higher than the steel, and is then by definition a dielectric. 2 conductors separated by a dielectric makes a capacitor...  Now I read this out of a Boylstadt electroinc text book... so I'm go with that for now..

I agree, two steel plates in close proximity do form a capacitor. However, what you are failing to see is that tap water is not a very good dielectric.  Pure water is great dielectric... tap water is a conductor.  In essence, putting tap water between two steel plates is a capacitor of sorts, but tap water conducts so readily that the capacitance would be negligible  ie, the dielectric effect of tap water would break down with only a few volts applied.

Think about it, you would not call one metal a dielectric just because it is not as an efficient a conductor as another... would you?

Put pure water between the plates you have a great capacitor, put tap water between the plates you have a poor capacitor, a good non-linear resistor.

If we can tune the circuit at waters resonant frequency, and match it with a voltage spike (at the same frequency) just short of breakover for the capacitor, the maximum amount of the energy available to the water is going to break it up, tear it apart.. what ever you want to call it.. all I know is it looks like alot more energy is available then is used.. and really for me thats all that matters... 

How is this energy breaking the water apart?  Is it ionising? How are the charges moving? There has to be a balanced equation for this reaction.

If we were tuning the water to it's resonant frequency (I believe this is somewhere in the microwave range), what effect does this have?

If you search through various posts on various forums you'll see that there now seems to be a direct link to wfc efficiency and the conditioning of the electrodes, which strongly indicates that we are enhancing the dielectric chromium oxide layer on the anode.

If this is so, then the pulsing takes on a different task to what most people think.  If we completely dismiss (for the moment at least), resonating water, and concentrate on the dielectric oxide layer, we have a good capacitor that can hold a charge.  What then is required of the pulsing. Well, ideally we need to step charge the capacitor until the dielectric oxide layer breaksdown. During the step charging, the water will align and no doubt there will be polarised water molecules at the cathode and at the dielectric.  Once the dielectric breaks down, the water molecules ionise in great numbers as charges are exchanged until the dielectric reforms.

However, we need the dielectric to keep reforming and breaking down in order to maintain a high electrical charge on the electrodes, so there needs to be a frequency of pulses that allows this to happen at its optimum (the sweet spot). Ie. if pulses are too slow then it takes a long time to reach dielectric breakdown, too fast and the dielectric has no time to reform, the charges on the electrodes quickly and continually leak away effectively producing inefficient high current normal electrolysis.  In this scenario, pulsing the voltage has nothing at all to do with the resonant frequency of water or altering the angle of the OH bonds, but perhaps there is a frequency at which this effect can be capitalised on for further efficiency.  Meyer did claim to have been getting around 1700% over Faraday.

You'll note that most pulsing ccts have two frequency timers, one high frequency pulse being modulated by another lower frequency pulse. Perhaps, a combination of the pulse frequency and it's modulation frequency is a key to further efficiency.

For anyone looking in, I must emphasise that this is my current thinking on the subject and by no means conclusive or correct.  It just seems to tick a lot more boxes than many ideas, theories and assumptions out here in cyberspace.

[Farrah Day]

Assuming our Meyer type wfc is a 'wet electrolytic capacitor, and we require the dielectric oxide layer to at some point breakdown in order to cause ionisation of the water, then how do we ascertain what voltage is required to do this?

Well, ideally, as Meyer stated, some form of step charging would work well, in that once this voltage is reached, the dielectric would give, allowing rapid ionisation of the water.  This way, the correct voltage is at some point automatically reached. This I would assume to be much better than simply pulsing a voltage well above the dielectric breakdown point, for two reasons. Firstly, there is a time for the water capacitor to step charge up (energise) before breakdown, and secondly I would expect it to be more energy efficient in just exceeding the dielectric breakdown threshold, rather than exceeding it, by possibly, many thousands of volts.

This I think is where old Tesla can be helpful. I don't think Meyer ever mentioned Tesla, but I think his VIC assembly was probably based on a Tesla coil. Specifically the Tesla Magnifier. Employing this design and given the correct design and construction, I think we should be able to achieve a steady build up of potential across or water capacitor.

Again only my thoughts at present, though I'm now actively looking into the design of such a coil to give the desired result.