The Problem with Meyer

[ramset]

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

[Dave45]

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.

[Farrah Day]

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 â€" 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 â€" H bond requires the least amount of energy, and hence is the first reaction to take place.  So, if breaking the O â€" 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.

[CrazyEwok]

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.

[ramset]

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