Meyer type WFC - from design and fabrication to test and development.

[Farrah Day]

I repeated the above experiment today using a larger PSU, and had the same results.

I then repeated the experiment with my larger test cell, that has the two floating plates, with 5-6mm space between each concentric tube.  5-6mm spark happilly fired across the gap between my +ve test cell lead and the HV terminal.  Again no sign of anything happening in the water.

Another curious thing though.  Before I put my large test cell in the water, I did the test with this, 'bone-dry' test cell out of the water, sitting on my test bench and found that I could still get a spark between the +ve test cell lead and the HV terminal.  It was much smaller, maybe only 1.5 mm

So why do I get a spark at the wire and HV terminal, but not across my test cell?  This I think comes down to current density, in fact the smaller you make the conductive metal points at which the spark jumps the gap, the greater the distance the spark can jump (ie, the spark will jump further between to needle points than, say, two metal coins face-on.

However, the fact is that energy still must be travelling, via the air gap, through my test cell.   I had really not expected this to happen.

I must assume at this point that, as no blocking diode has been employed, my cell along with the ignition coil is forming an LC circuit and the ac signal is therefore seeing my test cell as a capacitor. No gas is being produced because of this ac signal.

Next I want to convert it to a dc pulse.

[Farrah Day]

The great thing about this forum is that it allows us to record our thoughts for future reference. This I am about to do.

I have some concerns and problems that I need to air. 

Now, it is very easy to get carried away by all the hype regarding Meyer and his wfc, and in all the excitement and wishful thinking it is all too easy to lose sight of reality.  At times fundamental, proven science seems to be overlooked or simply disregarded as it is seen to be inconvenient. And some folks go off on all sorts of fantasy trips with no regard whatsoever for science. This irritates and frustrates me, but nothing annoys me more than the intellectually challenged idiots that haven't got a clue as to what they are talking about, but who regardless continually post absolute garbage claiming knowledge and insight. You know who you are!

There are some posts that I'm sure are from people out to confuse the issue and simply muddy the waters - perhaps deliberately, while other posts are just mindless retards full of self-importance - it helps if you can spot them.

With this in mind, every now and then it is worth grounding yourself and returning to a few basic facts.

Faraday's Laws of electrolysis are FACT, not a theory. And, anyone that understands the laws will realise that they make perfect sense.  Faraday's laws of electrolysis are often ignored with reference to Meyer's wfc because he talks about using high voltage pulses and... it's different!

Faraday's laws of electrolysis (M. Faraday)
Faraday's first law of electrolysis
The amount of chemical change during electrolysis is proportional to the charge passed.
Faraday's second law of electrolysis
The charge Q required to deposit or liberate a mass m is proportional to the charge z of the ion, the mass, and inversely proprtional to the relative ionic mass M; mathematically,
Q = F m z/M.

They may at first appear a little daunting to anyone not familiar with them. But basically it means this: The amount of H2 and O2 molecules evolved at the electrodes are directly proportional to the charges on the electrodes. Every H2 molecule that evolves takes 2 electrons from the cathode.

These laws of course are related to standard electrolysis, BUT, also any form of electrolysis that relies on the ionisation of the water molecule. Where gas is being evolved due to ionisation then electrons play a key part and every hydrogen molecule that is produced requires 2 electrons.  This is FACT. Faraday's Law is not one that can be simply disobeyed like a road speed limit!

My problem is that from his technical briefs Meyer suggests that ionisation is not instrumental in the production of the gases, so Faraday's Laws do not apply.

OK. But if this is true and we are not relying on ionisation, we have no need to exchange charges on the electrodes and hence the electrodes would not need to be in direct contact with the water. Neither then, would they need to be stainless steel.  So something is clearly... not right!  It's either one thing or another.. not both.

And, if ionisation is not involved we must really be pulling the water molecule apart into atoms - not ions!   And I'm not at all convinced that we are actually capable of breaking the covalent bonds of a water molecule so cleanly as to give us O and H2.  That said, H2 and O combined in the first place to form H2O, so perhaps there is a way of doing this by pulsing high voltages... but then Meyers wfc design would tend to contradict this and indicate ionisation.  There are a lot of contradictions and blatant bullshit in Meyers stuff. I often feel when looking through Meyer patents and his technical briefs that I am pointlessly attempting to make sense of utter nonsense.

If on the other hand we are in fact relying on standard ionisation, then there may be some logical reasons why it seems more efficient when we pulse the voltages.

Firstly, we have to understand that standard electrolysis is not 100% efficient.  This is obvious in that heat builds up as current passes through the water medium - wasted energy. Electrolysers that quickly boil water waste a lot of energy!

What then if we are simply operating at far greater efficiencies. 

We know - or should know - that it is not possible to get over-Faraday efficiencies from any form of electrolysis that relies on ionisation, as every electron is catered for.

So, possibilities are somewhat limited. But, we don't need the electrons to necessarily come from our power supply. In theory we could be taking electrons from anywhere... the environment for example.  Time energy pumps would seem to extract energy from the environment and reduce overall current from the supply. Lawton's D14 cct setup with bifilar inductor would seem to show indications of this. If this is the case, this additional energy, though reducing the current drain on our power supply would actually enhance gas production while also observing Faraday's laws.

Unlike resistors, inductors and capacitors, are extremely low loss components and so the key to greater efficiencies may lie in the LC combination, and more specifically the properties of the bifilar inductor.

Current through the standard electrolysis cell is the catalyst for ionisation, but what if there was another way of initiating ionisation. It may be that we are somehow inducing ionisation without the heavy current flow through the cell, hence without the energy wasted as heat - greater efficiency!

Then we have the calcium **? coating on the cathode.  If we are actually creating a better capacitor from the formation of this oxide layer, then electrolysis can be taking place between pulses due to the residual charges left on the electrodes.  Possible greater efficiency, but again without breaking Faraday's laws.

I don't now believe that anyone is actually achieving 300% over-Faraday by ionisation as often mentioned - or anything over-Faraday for that matter. It's not possible by ionisation. But I do think that it might be possible to be seen to be achieving this by not taking into account energy input from the environment.   If this is so, then it is a way forward in it's own right, and worth pursuing.

The answer is out there... somewhere.

[Farrah Day]

Dupe post and you wouldn't want to read through that again... would you?

[twohawks]

I continue to watch and listen.  Thank you for your diligence and your diligent recording and posting, Far ;^)

[knh]

when listening to stephen meyers on water fuel musem archives
he mentions the free electrons in iron   fermi  i think
he also mentions that metal will not produce as well after time
boyce also mentions that extra push may be coming from radiant energy
bedini type i quess
so the mystery goes on