HHO Cell - Stan Meyer Design.

[dankie]

Hey Dankie ... thanks a lot for your input but I am afraid you hit the wrong thread and pardon my lack of graciousness but I really think you gotta go get lost and go follow whatever you believe in ... unless you got something interesting / important to say (pertaining to topic) and/or contribute a comment on posts made within this thread (positive or negative) you really gotta take a hike and perhaps maybe go fuck something or the other or at least yourself (most likely). I'm sorry guys this dankie dude is getting on my last nerve and I had a few drinks and I am not to pleasant right now and I am known to speak my mind when provoked.

P.S. I don't care if he is a senior member and/or has posted more than i did in the past either ... that means nothing to me.

Sorry lol , I was @ a barbecue @ my girlfriends house , when I saw this I started laughing .

No this isnt the wrong thread , this is a Stan Meyers . Ive read all of these .

Theres something called forum "arm-chair-ers" and theres serious "experimenters" . This "Dankie dude" has been throught it all and sure in hell knows ALOT . Every questions you wondered I asked myself the same , every problem you faced I found the solution . That francobizz video is old , its nothing trust me , just some lawton replication .

Once you know that difference you can move along  , dont bee noobish now ,

I've only been be reading this crap for years now , bla bla bla bla .... So much bla bla bla ... Not enough "experimenting" .I wasted too many hours of my life reading this crap and watching people who "explain" the inner workings of a Meyers cell .

Its a fight against time remember ...

once you are tired of monkey-ing around installing magnets , I have the answer to meyer for 350$ haha , and its for real .

[Farrah Day]

So-called armchair posters are no worse than blind experimenters.  Though typically lacking in practical experience, armchair posters often apply far more grey matter to the issue than the blind experimenters who blunder along without giving any consideration to controlled experiments, and who do not know how to interpret results even when they have them.

Armchair posters often proffer very valid information and can provide valuable comments, which sadly are often simply ignored by so-called hands-on experimenters.

Logic dictates that a balance has to be struck between the two.

I'm not really sure where this thread is headed, because while those of you believe that voltage alone can pull water apart (into what exactly?), it is clear that no-one possesses the necessary chemistry background to even hypothesise on what interactions and reactions could possibly be happening at molecular level for this to occur.

Rather than blindly experimenting as most people seem to do, it is far better to devise specific experiments to prove or disprove theories and so provide valid arguments.

[peterpierre]

Ok Farrah Day has definitely a point there, I agree ... and I am trying to draw a balance of hands-on, blind & armchair experimenters ... generally nothing wrong with neither kind - however then there is the 4th kind which just adds answers / topics to a thread which really have nothing to do with the actual experimental subject matter ... and thats normally what annoys the crap out of me

[peterpierre]

Its a fight against time remember ...

once you are tired of monkey-ing around installing magnets , I have the answer to meyer for 350$ haha , and its for real .

Dankie ... hmmm ... thats a really tempting offer but one thing does not add up with it lol ... if the answer you have is so true and so real you would not be here. Here is the way I figure: a)Either you would be unimaginably wealthy and you could give a fuck about this board and anybody on it - let alone you asking for only $350 for something like this - this would be the best-case scenario (which I doubt would ever happen - to you anyways) or b) you would not be here because somebody took you 6 ft. deep and that somebody would not have to answer to no DA or court or law enforcement for what they did because they would be either directly or indirectly working for the government ...you're a funny guy dankie ... very very very funny ... I'm ROFL about this ...

[Farrah Day]

Hi Loner

Other than having a play with the genius that is 'Inexplicably STupid' on another thread, I've not input anything of late as most of us seem to be going off at tangets to each other, with no two people focussing on any one issue.

But just to comment on your last post:

So, the simple solution is, put a large enough voltage across the water to break the bonds, without flowing any current.

Just wondering exactly what bonds you think would break?  Many people seem to assume that if you do this the bonds will break nice and conveniently into 2O and H.  If this happened then of course no current would flow at all but the gases would evolve straight from the water.

I on the other hand I firmly believe that the bonds will break (like a chain at it's weakest link) into OH- and H+. Or normal ionisation as we know it.  And, if it's HV pulsed dc then current will flow if the electrodes are not fully insulated.  If the electrodes ARE insulated then the water will still be ionising, but the ions will have nowhere to exchange charges so no current will flow - nor will any gas evolve.

My current thinking is that the higher the pulsed dc voltage, the more water is induced to ionise, and yes this reaction is effectively caused by voltage alone, however the key is to allow these ions to exchange charges with a source other than the pulsing supply circuit.  A HV dc pulsed across water should create areas of -ve and +ve ions near the respective -ve and +ve electrodes (completely insulated from the water), so in theory all we need to do is provide a conductive path (additional electrodes connect via a wire link?) between the areas of greatest charge difference, between HV pulses and before the ions recombine. This way the OH- and H+ ions will be exchanging with themselves - it will be a closed circuit requiring no additional energy. 

Effectively then we will be using voltage pulses to ionise the water, while allowing the ions to exchange charges with themselves and so evolve gas when doing so.  The greater the pulsed electric field, the more ionisation is induced, the more current will flow in the closed cct - none of which will be seen by the PSU.

Faraday's law of electrolysis will still fully apply in this scenario, but the current would not be being drawn from the power supply.

A further point of note: Some people seem to think that electrons can flow through water by themselves, they do not.  Current flow through liquids is ionic, and unlike electron flow, it's a two-way current; +ve ions going one way and head-on against the flow of -ve ions coming the other way. Solitary, that is 'unbound' electrons do not flow through liquids.

Something else that has played on my mind for years, but which most people seem to simply accept without question is:

What do the ions of an electrolyte that play no part in the final reaction actually do?

It's down to basics I know, but this is where everything is happening. Unfortunately it is also where few people are inclined to look any deeper, simply accepting the simplistic view of high school chemistry.

Electrolyte ions then - what do they do if they do not take part in the final reaction?

Put simply all they do is charge through the water, drawn by the voltage at the electrodes.  What this achieves however is collisions and near misses with water molecules creating electric fields that add energy to the water molecule inducing it to ionise.  To my mind this is where a lot of energy is wasted - better to provide the electric field ourselves and far more efficiently, directly through HV pulses.

Something else that electrolyte ions must surely do, is polarise the electrodes and in doing so hamper OH- and H+ ion charge exchange.

In fact the more you delve into it the more inefficient drawing a current through water containing an electrolyte appears to become.

Ionisation is an endothermic process, so taking energy from it's environment. Yet normal electrolysis containing and electrolyte quickly heats up the water, again emphasising just how much energy is being wasted by chunky electrolyte ions barging and banging their way through the water and more than offsetting the endothermic reaction of water ionisation.