DM

I see where you're coming from, but only in the case of charge exchanges due to ionisation would the metal electrodes need to be in direct contact with the water.  If the electrodes were completely insulated with teflon, derlin or some other such insulating material and placed within the water, you would still be able to have a dc potential across the electrodes and still be able to pulse the voltage, but no ionisation can take place.

I'm not at all convinced by this, as it basically undermines everything about the construction of the wfc as we know it and totally dismisses ionisation.  Ionisation is an endothermic reaction which would cause the cell to run cooling barring any heavy current flow, which would seem to be in keeping with findings. I doubt very much that pulling the water molecule apart into its component atoms would be an endothermic reaction.

Purarich claimed that by applying a modulated ac signal to water that he could alter the bond angle between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in order to effectively make the molecule more 'brittle'.  It then apparently took much less energy to break it down.  I believe that ionisation was still the process involved.

I may be very wrong, but I'm of a mind that ionisation still plays the main role, and the key is to initiate ionisation without the need for high current through the water and hence without the need of an electrolyte.  Many people don't understand the reactions of simple electrolysis (mainly because it is indeed nearly always over-simplified).

We add an electrolyte to water but it does not play any part in our final reaction, and remains inert in the solution - all it does is initiate ionisation of the water at the electrodes. Water does not ionise when you add the electrolyte, it only ionises at the electrodes once you pass a current through the water.  All we need to do is encourage the water to ionise using another method that is not current hungry. This I truly feel, is what it's all about.

Another thing was brought to mind. Until recently I'd thought that Meyer was using this technology to power his Dune Buggy, now I realise that he was using a very different system in which he had modified sparkplugs and more like a water injection system, which rather begs the question, 'Just how efficient was his original wfc?'

Hi,

I would say that indeed ionisation of the water has to play a big part in the meyer wfc. The simple fact that he used electron extraction circuits to pull electrons from the cell shows us that electrons are seperated from the water molecules. Even the latest D14 shows how to extract electrons from the water and power a load. It even improves hydrogen production, which makes sense because the liberated H and O atoms can't reform to water because of the lack of electrons.....

As I see it the white coating on the tubes restricts the inflow of electrons from the pulsing circuit and restricts the reconstruction of water molecules before the gas can escape the wfc. Looking at it this way seems to explain WHY electron extraction improves gas production.

Robert

Sorry Dutch, I can't follow your line of reasoning here at all.

Firstly apart from being very suspicious of Meyer's so call 'electron extraction unit', we actually need those electrons for ionisation to produce gas. If you take away the covalent bonding electrons, that actually means we have to find extra electrons from somewhere in order to get the gas - it simply doesn't make sense!  The only reason we would not want the electron is if we are not initiating ionisation.

The O2 and H2 created by ionisation won't recombine to form water until you add energy (ie a spark), this is not, nor ever has been a problem.

I'm not aware of the D14 showing how to extract electrons from the water!?

Quote from: Farrah Day on February 03, 2008, 01:43:00 PM
Sorry Dutch, I can't follow your line of reasoning here at all.

Firstly apart from being very suspicious of Meyer's so call 'electron extraction unit', we actually need those electrons for ionisation to produce gas. If you take away the covalent bonding electrons, that actually means we have to find extra electrons from somewhere in order to get the gas - it simply doesn't make sense!  The only reason we would not want the electron is if we are not initiating ionisation.

The O2 and H2 created by ionisation won't recombine to form water until you add energy (ie a spark), this is not, nor ever has been a problem.

I'm not aware of the D14 showing how to extract electrons from the water!?

Hi Farrah Day

Well if you're not aware of the electron extraction circuit in the D14 file (the september 2007 version!) I suggest you have a look at that. It is on the very last two pages. It states there:

The load was a 10 Watt light bulb which shines brightly, and interestingly, the current draw of the circuit goes down rather than up,in spite of the extra output power.


On the last page you will find the EEC used. So if we need the electrons as you say, how do you explain for the brighty shining light and undiminished gas production?

hope this helps.

regards

Robert

Hi Dutch

I think the Meyer term 'electron extraction unit' is the problem in that it is a Meyer made up name and, like many of his other 'invented' terms, rather misleading.

The Lawton cct is I believe thought to be extracting energy from the environment, not extracting electrons from the circuit as Meyer seems to be indicating, and so the environment is thought to be providing the extra energy to to power the load.  In this scenario electrons are not inhibited, its just that less are drawn from the psu.

QuoteSo if we need the electrons as you say, how do you explain for the brighty shining light and undiminished gas production?

I don't say we need electrons to produce gas for ionisation... rather it is simply a fact that we do.  It is a Faraday Law. If you research the ionisation reaction and gas evolution you will see this.

I don't think that we are breaking any Faraday Laws and I do think it all comes down to initiating ionisation by a means other than high current.

Lawton seems to have done the best work and indeed appears to be the most informed on this process to date, but it's clear that even he doesn't (or didn't) have explanations for all the reactions involved. Makes you wonder how he has progressed since the D14 info was published.

We will probably not hear from him again until he has a business set around it!