The Bob Boyce challenge

[Farrah Day]

AC said

but the best inventors follow rigorous scientific principals

Exactly my point - and this is often lacking with backyard inventors and tinkerers, which is often why credibility is lacking.

Hi Loner

I had a feeling you might drop in.

I know we seem to be at odds with Meyer, but that is not to say I have totally rejected the possibility that he achieved something interesting.

It's odd really, because I was more-open minded about Meyer until I watched the video lecture clips and read through the, 'Hydrogen Fracturing Technical Brief'. It was from then on that I began to have serious concerns and in my eyes Meyer lost a great deal of credibility.

I found nothing in the lectures made any scientific sense, and little things, like his mannerisms and the somewhat patronising way he spoke to the audience began to ring alarm bells. To me there was something of the 'teacher giving a lesson on a subject he was not wholly familiar with and so making things up as he went along' about it.

His audience were also obviously laymen as no one asked any key questions - I only wish that I had been there!

You don't need to be a genius to find the flaws and inconsistencies in the technical brief - you don't need to be a scientist to see that it is padded out with pseudo-technical jargon and often inappropiate or irrelevent formulae.  No, you only need to be versed in basic science and electronics to see that things do not quite add up.

I really am puzzled why the Meyer Technical Brief is like a Bible to so many people, and can only assume it is because they do not possess the background in science to question it.  Problems start right at the beginning of Meyer's Technical Brief, page 1-1, where Meyer gives the dielectric constant of water as being 78.54 @ 25c, and then uses this figure for any rellevant calculations throughout - even though in his videos he clearly states that his WFC can use any available source of water!

And, why does he refer to it as the Hydrogen Fracturing Process... and not the water fracturing process which it would surely be?  I detect a bit of marketing hype - it sounds more impressive to be fracturing hydrogen than plain old 'water'.

But hey, this is only my opinion, each to his own.

I would ask just one thing of anyone that believes whole-heartedly in Meyer, that is:

Please explain to me how pulling electrons off the water molecule can lead to the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

As simple balanced chemical equation will suffice!

[aussepom]

Hi guys
I stumbled onto this thread while looking for a line on 'seamonkey's earlier project.

Now Paul R
                     Don't make comments on a project that you have not built if you have some experience on building cell ok but you need to built a big one and have one of the 'F' or 'G' boards, not that it will do you any good.
This could well  be the same for you newbie123.
If you have read the D9 and the 10 both are from the same guy, Pat Kelly, both have many flaws.

So to Pat Kelly most of the upsets come from you printing false, and or misleading information, do not print any thing that you can not with out a doubt know it's true. Printing stuff that has not been verified is in it's self is a fraud unless you state that it is untested. 'Proof of concept' means that the process has been verified to work. That it has worked and done as you have stated.
Another thing if you are reporting thing make sure you have the correct information or do not print it at all.

Here is a couple of posts may be of interest

Hi Wouter
                     I have been to busy to go there for awhile.
I have not name called Bob or have set out to 'assassinate his character' so why am I being attacked in this manor.
Bob said what I had predicted he would say, and is finding ways to explain away things.
Many  of the posts are saying that we did not follow the 'instructions' all the building of the cell,
That is not true, all the instruction were followed and I have full confidence in Ian that it was done correctly. I did not put it together or do the initial testing and conditioning of the cell that was done by Ian at his workshop where the vid was made.
In being part of a group of dedicated people that are trying to make a difference, I was asked for my services to help do the final testing.
Bob is no different to me in one respect as he has stated in his post.
I am an invalid pensioner, just because I can walk and 'look normal', I am on a pension, I do not own a home, it is a Government one, I pay high rent, and I do not have any superannuation.
I do not have an elaborate work shop such Bob has, fitted out with so many instruments.
All that was asked was to post his data and results, so even if he did not want to continue many of us may be able to.
All I have got is abuse, at least I did post and share the information that I found out, more could have been gained with a least a true circuit, that matched a board. This would have allowed fault finding if there was something not working. It is no good Pat Kelly stating that the 'G' board is ok and you do not need a circuit, how else can you fault find problems with out one.
What do we do chuck it in the bin and buy a new one?
I will have to write a reply on the watercar site but it may never see the light of day.
Ian has asked me to see if there is any thing that can be doe to save any thing.
With out full circuit information to match the board, we will have to start with a 'fresh board' or even try Les Banki's on it.   We know that the out put was there on the toroidal when set up on the bench with the 240v 20w lamp load, and it was lined up. There was over 300v on the output with the lamp load, not enough current to fully light the lamp.
Some post are saying and did Pat Kelly that I should have had 200v on the cell, but in one post of Bob's he stated that it was to be 1.5v per cell 150v. and there should be about 200mA, this is why it was set up that way, we got 14ltrs a min from the cell at 204v 10amps. This was after the cell had been conditioned.

And this one

Hi guys
           I have been sick for a few days and still am, but I went back to the topic in question, it was on about phases, To me in some of it Bob was talking like a politician, saying a lot meaning nothing, it seem Bob had help but was not listening to some of the others.
They went on for awhile then recon some other group was on to them and they stopped the thread, this may be what you were talking about Wouter.
' nature of the phenomena'  well in the earlier bits they were on about three phase 'phenomena'
Bob did not really catch on, I think on what may well have been the 'phenomena of the Triplen effect' with the third and fifth harmonics. Then there was an interesting bit,

Bob Boyce Quote
'There are two modes of operation of a true 3 phase toroidal power system. One is pulsed mode, and one is rotational mode. Each has different timing and phase requirements.

Pulsed mode is where the timing of the pulses are such that the entire toroid pulsates at the same frequency, all nearly in phase.

Rotational mode is where the timing of the pulses are about 120 degrees out of phase. These are driven in a Wye configuration.' End

The E and F boards to me only will try and do the pulsed mode, so if all the pulses are lined up and fired so that they appear in the secondary at the same time, is all it will achieve.
This is what I did with no effect, the pulse width I had it just operating, having the scope on then just turning the 'pulse width pot' until you just see movement, this would be the minimum pulse width that you could get, you must keep an eye on the ammeter in the primary coil line as well, you can let it go just past the 'calculated current' be careful to far it will shoot up like a rocket.

But the quote below tells us why we have been having problems.

Bob Boyce quote
'The PWM3 series waveform generator boards that I put into the public domain were to allow others to experiment with the 3 phase toroid for powering their cell stacks, but they are really just proof of concept devices with no phase control. This allowed them to be safer for others to experiment with, as it is difficult to accidentally happen upon an avalanche without precise control of phase. The NE556 was a poor choice, which I now regret, as the TL594 would have been more suitable back then. The HexController is the newer device on my bench. It is based on an Atmel AT-Mega48 microcontroller chip. At this time, that board is still proprietary, but I do have a couple of alpha testers working with a version that I intent to release into the public domain if all works out well with it. That board allows precise control of frequency, phase, and pulse duration.' end

Some where one of them also mentioned, the same thing that a colleague of my said, 'if the opto-coupler does not go to zero'   
The concern here is that the Fet will stay on and may miss a pulse. This will set up a higher  current pulse.

It is all quite obvious that Bob has been into the Jin labs a lot, and Shinichi Seike, and of cause SM, now is this seamonky? he was taking a lot of interest in his work, much looks familiar?

Yes scalar waves may be around but none on this project, I think that Bob was tying to reproduce the effect you see in the diagram, if it posts.
I expect the thoughts are that it may be able to be reproduced with the toroidal.
I did achieve the 'similar looking result' but it of cause could not be scalar.
it also evident  for Bob to use the second statement he would need phase shift control as well and that is not in the PWM series.
I am not sure but I think that it is possible with the hex controller if so programmed.
If you are manipulating harmonics and are using 'three phase' principals then as you get towards the 120deg you may get the 'triplen' effect, this will give out a large amount of power, and may snowball with dramatic effect when using toroidal. The lining up of the currents and voltages can destroy and bend metal, I have seen the effects my self in a generator.
With this all in mind then may be a new board design is needed, but are you going to try and use the triplen effect of go after 'scalar'. The triplen is there we know for sure but can we control it, and if so will it be any good used on a 'cell'.
I also read his earlier report on his version of the 'alternator' I don't buy his explanation, the only way would be to duplicate a short and an open circuit, but again is it worth the effort.
Now on the subject of the MIB, if as you say Bob revealed every thing, then they would have no effect on the out come.
I have made it well know who I am where I can be found, I have also made it clear that there are copies of my work in secure locations, one in a security vault and it is not in Australia with a security firm who I do not know the name either. If any thing happens to me all the work will be sent out to a large number of email address. It is better for them for me to stay 'alive' and to slow my progress to production, or pay me off.
So far neither has happened, but when the testing for real starts that will not be long, then if a successful test is made and proof of concept is made, then I expect to see some movement if they are interested in stopping me.
This is why I have stopped working on the Bob Boyce project and gone back to my own, it will have a more effect on the saving the environment than any thing else. There is a big danger when you look like shutting the coal and oil burning furnaces down. I think that the US and Australia  would be more worried if the Chinese got hold of the technology.
I am referring to the 'OZ Injector'.
aussepom

Does this look familiar

[CrazyEwok]

LOL... This thread while being broken down from a chellenge into reviewing the process of how science works while all very interesting is swaying from the original idea. Dankie calling out a claimist, and being told he is dreaming. I am failing to see how Daniel Dingel and "the Sri Lankan kid" (Sounds like a C grade comic book duo) or even the "great" Stan Meyers are not counted in your calling out (well stan is dead so will forgive you on that, but being dead doesn't mean being right).

I read in a previous post that "electricity and magnetism are very well understood". Is there effects on the polarity of molecules understood??? if so can you please point me in the direction of this knowledge???
I posted a while ago some interesting links, don't know if anyone read the information but eh. There was one "speculation" that i found very interesting. It is thought that the introduction to "intense" localised magnetic fields, like those created in "brute-force" electrolysis, actually cause the bond between the Hydrogen and Oxygen. The artical also said that this was simply a majority hyposythis (bad spelling i know) for the team that studied this. If, and please note the IF, this was true it would explain a lot of the phenomena. Like why puling the power to the cell is increasing efficientcy (no power = no field) but there would need to be a delay or lag in field "production" to electron movement for this to be true. Doesn't explain resonance thou. Worth looking at if your interested in this sort of thing...

[HeairBear]

Please explain to me how pulling electrons off the water molecule can lead to the production of Hydrogen and Oxygen.

As simple balanced chemical equation will suffice!

The electrons are not pulled off of the water molecule. They are pulled from the liberated gasses...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6677701/stanmeyer-section5

[Farrah Day]

The electrons are not pulled off of the water molecule. They are pulled from the liberated gasses...

If so, what is supposed to be happening at the water capacitor stage?

Besides this is not the case according to page 1 -7 of the Technical Brief, which states: Quote:

"The stationary "positive" electrical voltage field (E1) not only attracts the negative charged oxygen atom but also pulls away negative charged electrons from the water molecule. At the same time, the stationary "negative" electrical voltage field (E2) attracts the positive charged hydrogen atoms. Once the negative electrically charged electrons are dislodged from the water molecule, covalent bonding (sharing electrons) cease to exist, switching-off or disrupting the electrical attraction force (qq') between the water molecule.

The liberated and moving atoms (having missing electrons) regain or capture the free floating electrons once the applied voltage is switch-off during pulsing operations."

The more I read Meyer's technical brief the more the mumbo jumbo becomes apparent.