HHO Cell - Stan Meyer Design.

[newbie123]

Just my thoughts...  I suppose we should forget about science altogether and just goof around like Meyer did. As most inventors have shown, it doesn't hurt to experiment.

The chances that Stan Meyer really had a FE/OU cell is pretty slim.  But If he did somehow achieve anomalous gas production, the chances that he 'harnessed' a well known phenomena are much greater than something unknown...  But if he did have  overunity, I still think it had to be  nuclear (i.e. CF)


Meyer says he used voltage potential to produce hydoxy gas...  I think he might have meant electric fields  which can  really effect water...
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic.html

Here is another phenomena that could tie  into the dielectric/capacitor aspect...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_breakdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_avalanche

 

[Farrah Day]

SM, I totally agree about ali foil capacitors and the dielectric oxide layer.

And yes it is the oxide layer on aluminium that protects it from further oxidation, just as the chromium oxide layer on the SS does.  However, SS is far more inert in electrolysers, especially where electrolytes are used, so SS tends to be the metal of choice.

I'm not sure how much of an insulator the aluminium oxide is in it's micron standard form, (I would guess similar to the chromium oxide of ss) because aluminiun conducts just fine - I have one aluminium cell arrangement that I've experimented with in the past. Using AC is why you didn't get any gas evolved, not because of the oxide layer. Try it again with just a 12 volt battery and see how good the oxide insulates then.

Scratch through the oxide layer of aluminium submerged in water and the aluminium reacts with the water molecule to become aluminium oxide and hydrogen.

My reluctance to trust anything said or written by Meyer is simply down to the fact that I feel he was making up the science to seemingly fit the facts. If Meyer did what he claimed, then his biggest downfall was in trying to invent the science to explain it. Credible scientists would have looked at his Technical Brief, laughed at the psuedoscience and binned it... probably without further considering whether or not he actually had a working device.  If his device worked as claimed, then I think he tried to be too clever and this cost him any credibility.

My alarm bells went off only a couple of pages into his technical brief, when he talks about the dielectric constant of water being 78.54, at one point quantifying this figure in ohms... but also stating any old water can be used!  From then on it was all downhill for me.

Water as a dielectric is far more credible with AC, as a true resonant cct can be configured with the correct frequency... but of course Meyer was talking about massive dc potentials. I ask you, if you charge, or attempt to step charge, two highly conductive plates across a conductive medium you don't need to be Einstein to realise that current will flow.

[HeairBear]

My alarm bells went off only a couple of pages into his technical brief, when he talks about the dielectric constant of water being 78.54, at one point quantifying this figure in ohms... but also stating any old water can be used!  From then on it was all downhill for me.

That's funny, my electronics 101 book from college states the dielectric constant of water to be roughly 80 ohms @ 20 degrees Celsius. What exactly is your point of argument here?

[Farrah Day]

That's funny, my electronics 101 book from college states the dielectric constant of water to be roughly 80 ohms @ 20 degrees Celsius. What exactly is your point of argument here?

Does your Electronics 101 book also point out that that figure is for absolutely PURE, de-ionised water only obtainable under laboratory conditions?

Pure water is a very good insulator and so indeed, yes is a fantastic dielectric, 'pure' being the operative word here.

Dielectric constant or relative permittivity is a ratio - if your 101 book gives it as a measure of ohms I should take the book back and get a refund!

Has it not occured to you that if tap water was such a good insulator, then electrocution from a mains appliance dropping into your bath while bathing would not be an issue.

Incidentally, even if you seriously think that your bath water is a good insulator with a dielectric constant of 80 (@20 C), I really would advise against experimenting with mains voltage while bathing in it!

That basically is the point of my argument.

[OscarMeyer]

Farrah Day,

I once read a previous thread on this site in which you were pretty much ridiculed and discredited but I abandoned reading any more of the previous thread due to the quality of the information being presented.  I’m pretty thick skinned so the name calling didn’t bother me as much because my motive for reading the thread was purely WFC technology advancement â€" enlightenment â€" related.  I am glad to see you are now here participating in this one.  It’s a much more civilized debate and discussion here in this thread so far. 

I don’t always agree with what you present but on the suspicion that Meyer left stuff out and inserted made up stuff…yes.  I would agree.  Partly to protect his invention from being copied and sold under the table by hacks but that would have eventually taken place anyways after he sold his very first unit or kit at Walmart to the public. 

Some keep insisting you are “Buz” who was banned under another screen name but I really don’t care which is the case.  Whether or not you are really someone else in disguise is irrelevant to me because I’m just here to learn, not be a politician.

Glad to see you,
Oscar.