Everyone,
  I notice a handful of people (maybe a dozen) appear to be active/regulars.  I know this site is more than just meyers research.
After expending (like many of you) countless dollars and countless hours, I am wondering how much of what we are doing is spinning the same wheel?

  There is a TON of information spread throughout various threads.  Some absolute garbage and links to very questionable pieces of information, and other true gems...

  What I am looking for is for people to chime in on THEIR progress to date, and where their successes have been, and what PIECE of "Black Magic" is needed for them to create the "Meyers Effect"
I am also coining that phrase to mean the basic disassociation of H2 from 0 without current, as exmemplified in "It runs on water".  His simplest device.  Regardless of the device used.

  My goal is to ascertain:
- Where we are at (as a group and individually)
- What skills/interests are available to the group (for leveraging, if possible)
- What technologies worked, and which ones should be avoided (and why)
- What we can do so that everyone can actually create The "Meyers Effect" on their own

  After that, everything else becomes easy...

Let me start off:
- I have an 8 Tube Set (4 active, 1 of which is insulated with a clear coat)
- I have a Function Generator, Rigol Scope, Variac, 2 power supplies, and a custom circuit pushing the power with  Gating via the function generator
- My background is Software Development, and Skunk Works (creating highly successful projects with very few people, by focusing the right energies in the right direction)
- My degree is Comp Sci, with a minor in Math
- I am learning the electronics, etc. [One of the hardest parts for me]
- I try building things in components that I can re-assemble in different orders for testing (my circuit board is mostly stand-off mounted devices/wires so I can plop it in my box and replace it/components easier.

I have seen/generated the VERY BASICS of the Meyers Effect with my INSULATED Tubes and lower voltage.  You can literally see a spontaneous Voltage Drop with a release of HHO, and then the charging of the Capacitor from the Inductor (even if pulsing is turned off).

I am *Desperate* to get High Voltage going into the cell (I just discovered the Diode I was using only handles a back voltage of about 280V and that was the limit of my circuit).
I do NOT have a transformer IN PLACE.  I am going straight into Inductors/WFC.  So, there is a bit of a lack of isolation, and the first problem for the Diode.

I am also looking for the PROOF/NUMBERS of current and Voltage Meyers was actually consuming.  There are numerous threads out there that he overstated his results.  One issue with his BASIC design was that his ammeter was placed AFTER the pulsing Diode.  This is great if you are measuring Amps in the circuit.  It is HORRIBLE if you are measuring the power being pushed into the system, especially if coming from a Variac, where you could be drawing 5-10 Amps at 100V (I get IMPRESSIVE Output at about 50V from the variac (through a bridge rectifier).  Even scary output).

Finally, I would like to get things organized a bit, so that we are constantly boiling things down to the basic ideas/circuits/patterns that work.  And some standards so we can tell if something goes from 80% efficient to 85% or 70%...  (gpssonar started a great thread on calculating the Lx/Cx Impedance matching).

Anyways, I would like to ask that EVERYONE ELSE SOUND OFF and chime in with where you are at, what you have, etc. in the hopes that we an all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and get there faster!

Kirk Out!

First I have to ask, what is goal number one?  Do you want 10 LpM of HHO pulling only 100 watts if DC input power?  I ask this for the following reasons:
[list=1]

• Are we trying to replicate Stan's work or are we trying to develop something very specific?

• Are we after overunity?

• Are we sure overunity can only be had by the generation of the gas instead of by the consumption of the gas?

• Do we even fully understand how brute force electrolysis works?  To the point where we know how to improve upon it?  One can say things like covalent bonds and electron entrainment, but does it really describe the required circuitry?

• In highly technical terms, what is the Meyer's Effect?

• Resonance is everywhere.  Do we know exactly what frequencies will pull HO ions apart or whatever it is that turns water into gas?  Can we even get to those frequencies?

I have yet to see anyone definitively demonstrate operation that clearly surpasses Faraday's 140 watts per liter per minute limit.  I have on the other hand seen very polished brute force plate cells come very close to that number, consistently and repeatably.  This leads me straight into my next question.  What are you going to use the Brown's gas for, once you have it?  A reciprocating internal combustion engine?  A jet engine?  Some other kind of engine?  A heater element?  What?  Whatever it is, that needs to be goal number two.

What we are missing here is a complete system design with engineering goals and methods to get from where we are, to those said goals.  Playing around is what takes place when you don't have focused goals and people with clear expectations, which is where I think most of us still are.  One can put the side blinders on only when they know exactly what to do and how to do it.  We are not there yet, so in the meantime, we need to define some things and keep an open mind as to what is doable right now and what we need to learn.  Once we figure out the missing pieces and can explain them well enough for others to learn from, then the fun part of actually building a working prototype can begin.  That's when we can all pitch in and build our own units and share notes of little tweaks here and there that overall improve upon the basic understanding.  We have to get this basic understanding first.

Yes, I have read Stan Meyer's patents and listened to all of his videos and I still have my doubts about what he actually accomplished.  I also know the language he used left a lot to be desired.  For instance if he meant Nitrogen, why did he call it non-combustible gas?  There is a ton of room for misinterpretation in his various patents and lectures.  And because of this, I think it wise to only use Stan's work as a guide and not a literal guide.  Only a guide where much of your own discernment be used.

So yes, I'm in a similar boat as you.  I have spent countless hours, bought thousands of dollars in test equipment, materials and machine work only to have a Stan Meyer WFC sitting in an old cardboard box in the corner of the garage.  And after I die, I'm quite sure my wife will pitch the thing in the garbage.  It is most frustrating, even to the point where one starts to consider the whole thing a big scam.  It still could be, but I lean towards simply not understanding.

You know computers.  Imagine giving a sophisticated Turing Machine to a child and ask them to build another one, only you left a few things out, but told them what it should do when it's finished.  Isn't going to happen until the child is smart enough to fully understand Turing Machines and is able to decipher the codes and fill-in the missing pieces.  It's the same with us and Stan Meyer.  We can't get there until we have a clear understanding of the framework.  What's more difficult is that I'm not sure Stan even knew fundamentally what he was doing--didn't stop him from inventing the language to explain it though.  And that's all we have to work with.  It's going to take a lot more--work, understanding and communication.

After having read the Meyer patents and seen the videos together with all the posts and threads in the matter, I have now
decided to only go for the very core of all this, that which Kirk calls "The Meyers Effect", as all other things (electronics,
generators, etc etc) are, in my humble opinion, nothing but a meaningless waste of time.

Actually, I'm about to finish my mark II setup in my quest here and once that one is up and running I'm going to post a thread
outlining the way I'm going about all this, for all to give critical comments to, as compliments won't do anything to get me
moving in the right direction.

If i would do Meyer stuff it would only be on maximising hho production via resonance and pulsing.

The rest is putting stuff on stuff and making everything complicated. And he is not worth so much effort. He invented the EPG, something that will never work as i understand the workings.
And he made 4 or 5 versions of the same, non working device..so he was stobbern to.

His results are unclear and no one has really positive results, so better do a doable overunity device and let Stan to some future generation that already solved the issue's to look back and see if he was on to something or not.

I think that with all the energy put into Meyer, we could have had a lot of doable's running already.

Quote from Dog-One on March 7th, 2013, 10:05 PM

First I have to ask, what is goal number one?  ...
...
You know computers.  Imagine giving a sophisticated Turing Machine to a child and ask them to build another one...

Dog, great reply, let me focus it down.
I am ONLY Interested in the Meyers Effect.  Anything else right now is like trying to do Advanced Calculus, without Algebra/Geometry.

Ignore Turing, imagine Encryption/Decryption and Meyers Encrypted a message.  But never told you what the message said.  How do you know he did not encrypt ")XHEN@&$%"?  We agree...

But, having led a 2 man team to create an excel compatible spreadsheet component many years ago, knowing nothing about it when I started...  Nothing beats a good scientific approach.
BTW, we first made the spreadsheet, then MSFT file formats made more sense, and we handled that last...

So, I am doing this to get back to basics.
We need to do a Skills/Risk assessment.  Where do we need to spend our time.  What tests can be performed.  What tests have been performed and reproduced.

Finally, what does success look like?  Seeing and Recreating The Meyers Effect.  At will.  My goal is to be able to take ANY WFC, take some measurements, and add what we need to see the effect.
When we can do that, we can claim the first leg of success...

If some people are there, and nobody knows how...  Then this isnt working well...  If nobody is there, but willing to test and report back, then we can get somewhere.

Every difficult problem can be broken down into simpler problems, each of which, when well understood, can be put back into the final outcome.

Thanks,

Kirk Out!
PS: Everyone, Keep Replying to the main thread please.  Even if you are FED UP, just try to keep it positive and focused on what YOU are here to contribute/learn.  If we had ONE expert in transformers,
one in circuitry, one in physical setups, one in testing process, etc.  We could align our efforts better (some great work went into the VIC Transformer this way, and the results of that are kinda unknown, the feeling being they did not work, or not work well, or were not the key, who knows? (tell me, if we know)).
If we UNITE enough just to Capture the state of the Art, and to Focus our energies better, we will be more successful.

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 05:47 AM

..........Finally, what does success look like?  Seeing and Recreating The Meyers Effect.  At will.  My goal is to be able to take ANY WFC, take some measurements, and add what we need to see the effect.

There are a few parameters that I consider important here, for the time being I'm going to assume that they are in fact necessary to have in a Meyer WFC.
1) High voltage. This would be the voltage over the cell itself.
2) Low current. This would be the current going to the cell.
3) Maximum output of gas. This would then occur at "resonance", which would manifest itself during tuning the frequency of the pulsed DC voltage over cell.
4) No heat developed during the process. This is IMO perhaps the most important parameter of all these, it indicates that there's (almost) no traditional water
electrolysis going on in the process.

Anyway, I know there's different takes on this, but these are the parameters I believe to be crucial to achieve, all at the same time, in order to be able to say that I've been successful in replicating a working Meyer WFC.
So far I haven't seen anything convincing me to reconsider this.
However, the ultimate test of my 'supposedly' working Meyer WFC would in the end be to have it power my car while feeding the WFC with nothing but tap water and have all the electrics/electronics needed to sustain the process taken from the car itself, through the alternator & battery.

Quote from Lynx on March 8th, 2013, 07:17 AM

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 05:47 AM

..........Finally, what does success look like?  Seeing and Recreating The Meyers Effect.  At will.  My goal is to be able to take ANY WFC, take some measurements, and add what we need to see the effect.

There are a few parameters that I consider important here, for the time being I'm going to assume that they are in fact necessary to have in a Meyer WFC.
1) High voltage. This would be the voltage over the cell itself.
2) Low current. This would be the current going to the cell.
3) Maximum output of gas. This would then occur at "resonance", which would manifest itself during tuning the frequency of the pulsed DC voltage over cell.
4) No heat developed during the process. This is IMO perhaps the most important parameter of all these, it indicates that there's (almost) no traditional water
electrolysis going on in the process.
..

Lynx,
  Right on.  High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT!  This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition).
Which means. Anything we report should include THESE items as measurements.  We can discuss the BEST/SIMPLEST way to measure as we get started.
But we all need a CONSISTENT measuring system so we can compare results.  If the state of the art is only 80% efficiency, it would be nice to know when  we hit 99%
And heat is the best one for me, because if it is there, the process is wrong!

Keep it coming everyone.  Lets make 2013 the year we formalize this.

Kirk Out!

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM

Right on.  High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT!  This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition).
Which means. Anything we report should include THESE items as measurements.  We can discuss the BEST/SIMPLEST way to measure as we get started.
But we all need a CONSISTENT measuring system so we can compare results.  If the state of the art is only 80% efficiency, it would be nice to know when  we hit 99%
And heat is the best one for me, because if it is there, the process is wrong!

Seems to me you would also want base performance better than 140 watts per liter per minute.  If you can't run better than that, there's really no point in the added complexity.  Off the shelf brute force electrolyzers should be the baseline for comparison.

Measurement is tricky, especially if you are talking very low volume production (< 0.5 LpM).  Seems to me you would want some minimum design goal that will reasonably scale up.  Having 400 WFCs to power my car is unreasonable, which is why I stressed design goal number two--what are you going to use the Browns Gas fuel for?  Anything that I can think of would need a minimum of 1 liter per minute.  Measuring this with the 1 liter bottle in a clear pipe seems plenty good to me at standard atmospheric pressure and temperature.  If the measurement takes longer than 60 seconds, back to the drawing board.

I think all power measurement should be on a filtered DC input where a steady voltage times amperage (wattage) figure can be compared against gas production rate.  When I say filtered, I mean connecting capacitors in parallel to the input supply so that ripple is negligible.  Again, if you are over 140 watts per liter per minute, back to the drawing board.

There should be no cell type restriction either.  If the Meyer Effect works with tubular cells, it should also work with any other design unless it can be proven that a resonant cavity is absolutely essential.

Quote from Dog-One on March 8th, 2013, 08:15 AM

............I think all power measurement should be on a filtered DC input where a steady voltage times amperage (wattage) figure can be compared against gas production rate.

Lab power supplies, frequency generators, variacs and basically all things powered through wall sockets, which in turn are used to power all the electronics and the WFC, should have the total active power measured directly at the wall socket, using a standard wattage/kWh meter.

Of course everything powered by the wall socket will be replaced with battery operated electronics (?) in the final design, so then it will be a simple matter of
measuring the voltage over the battery and multiply it with the current going out of there in order to get the active power needed for the process.

Of course, another way to determine if the active power to the design at hand is less than what a combustion engine powered by the HHO from the WFC gives in terms of cranking an alternator around that which in turn feeds the circuitry would be to actually put the whole shebang to the ultimate test, and integrate it in say a modified lawn mower, which is equipped with an alternator at the crankshaft.
If the damn thing keeps itself up and running =

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM

Quote from Lynx on March 8th, 2013, 07:17 AM

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 05:47 AM

..........Finally, what does success look like?  Seeing and Recreating The Meyers Effect.  At will.  My goal is to be able to take ANY WFC, take some measurements, and add what we need to see the effect.

There are a few parameters that I consider important here, for the time being I'm going to assume that they are in fact necessary to have in a Meyer WFC.
1) High voltage. This would be the voltage over the cell itself.
2) Low current. This would be the current going to the cell.
3) Maximum output of gas. This would then occur at "resonance", which would manifest itself during tuning the frequency of the pulsed DC voltage over cell.
4) No heat developed during the process. This is IMO perhaps the most important parameter of all these, it indicates that there's (almost) no traditional water
electrolysis going on in the process.
..

Lynx,
  Right on.  High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT!  This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition).
Which means. Anything we report should include THESE items as measurements.  We can discuss the BEST/SIMPLEST way to measure as we get started.
But we all need a CONSISTENT measuring system so we can compare results.  If the state of the art is only 80% efficiency, it would be nice to know when  we hit 99%
And heat is the best one for me, because if it is there, the process is wrong!

Keep it coming everyone.  Lets make 2013 the year we formalize this.

Kirk Out!

The definition "High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT! This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition)" should also include "no electrolyte".  Too many people confuse things by including electrolytes in the water.  
I am still in the "research phase" but will soon be putting what I have learned into experiments.  I will post what I find works.

Quote from dlpatte on March 9th, 2013, 02:08 AM

The definition "High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT! This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition)" should also include "no electrolyte".  Too many people confuse things by including electrolytes in the water.

Spot on, could even be revised to "Only water used and nothing else", indicating
that unadulterated water indeed is a prereq to a Meyer WFC.
There are already tons of such electrolyte added brute force cells out there, but to
my knowledge no "true" Meyer WFC, atleast nothing open source that is.

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM

Right on.  High Voltage, Low Current, Gas Production and LACK OF HEAT!  This is the Meyers Effect (to me, by definition).

I'll third that statement as a goal. :D :cool: :P

The definition is "100%-500% efficiency,0% heat(Power loss to heat)".

attached picture:you see,if restrict amp = maximum 1 amps but change voltage to higher,it don't mean =no consume power.example 1 amps*1000 voltage=1000watts.but 1 amps * 10000 voltage=10000watts.  

thanks
geenee

Awesome Everyone (although not as many people chimed in as I hoped).

And yes. Meyers did not use Electrolyte, so that was assumed.

As for measuring power.  Lynxx has it right.  Measure at the wall or the power system feeds for now.

Gas production is the toughest measurement, especially in what I envision to be our brute force attacks on frequency.
Where we computer control the frequency generator (in case you wondered why I made that a separate component), and then let the frequency site for a PERIOD of time, measuring the Amps/Voltages (via a device connected to USB), and record it.  ALONG WITH Some Semblance of gas production.  But the goal for me is to let this puppy run for 24hrs straight, logging results at various frequencies, and trying to drill into (search) for what we determine.  If this means I need a digital pressure guage, AND a solenoid release valve I can pulse as I switch frequencies, that is fine.  I am sure someone here can find one or we can build one.  But we will jump off that bridge when we get to it.

Geenee, I am not sure I want to make 500% the number at this point.  IF we accomplish ALL of the other pieces for this goal, and we can only get 150% efficiency, it would SUCK, but it would COMPLETE this PHASE of the build/understand process.  No water heating, etc. etc.  After that, we will have EDUCATED ourselves to the point of being able to sit down, and draw some new lines in the sand, and think hard about how to get where we are going...

Although, looking at that page, I just noticed the comment:


Really, the resonant cavity surfaces remain constant...  (Is that for the AMP Leakage part, or the general concept???  Anybody???)
===

Again, if anyone else wants to chime in...  Please do so.  My goal is to get some very direct focused problem solving going on.  To determine WHAT the state of the art is...  And to create some very specific experiments to allow us to understand what is going on...

Thanks again.

Kirk Out!

Quote from Dog-One on March 8th, 2013, 08:15 AM

...
Seems to me you would also want base performance better than 140 watts per liter per minute.  If you can't run better than that, there's really no point in the added complexity.  Off the shelf brute force electrolyzers should be the baseline for comparison.
...
There should be no cell type restriction either. If the Meyer Effect works with tubular cells, it should also work with any other design unless it can be proven that a resonant cavity is absolutely essential.
...

If we can accomplish the core goal of The "Meyers Affect".  Then scaling, etc. will find a way.  

Cell type restriction: Absolutely we have one for now.  Tubes/Tubular Array.  Not Plates.  I can name at least 2 physical characteristics that could MASSIVELY AFFECT performance using a plate based design.  The first being Dielectric Avalanche Breakdown (we NEED the H and O to rise up to the top, and BUMP INTO the other statically held (semi crystaline) water molecules, having that shoot out the sides is probably EXACTLY why meyers went to a tube).  The second being the potential "Antenna" affect of a tube inside a tube and bouncing some resonance off of each other.  (the difference between a NORMAL E core transformer and a Torroid Transformer comes to mind as an example).  

Dog, you must simplify and simplify and simplify the goal.  AFTER we get it working, and we know the variables.  I FULLY INTEND TO TEST a plate based version (because it lowers costs and reduces the size, significantly.  And Meyers mentioned the Law of Economics SO MANY TIMES, that I would be SHOCKED if there was a MUCH CHEAPER way to do it right, not that there isnt).  But for now, I am only considering test results from Tube style WFCs...

If we cannot build the simplest of structures, and learn all of the variables for tuning, etc.  How can we add variables and even HOPE to be successful?

again, ONCE we can get the Meyers Effect.  Get others to get the Meyers Effect.  Then the number of people on the sidelines waiting to jump in will escalate, and those other issues can be worked on.

Honestly, if we had a working cell that was EXACTLY 100% efficient, and met all of the other criteria, I would say we were FAR BETTER off than I feel we are today.  Then it is a matter of testing/adjusting, to see if we can get to 110% or higher...  But I think the measurements and other BASICS need to be in place to show this, and to replicate it.  NO HHO Production being used today, is 100% efficient!  I believe 80-85% is the best in the big production facilities.  (And at some level, I fear that the final answer will be a carbon-nanotube membrane Hydrogen filter.  It holds the Oxygen in the structure, and lets the H slip through, under an electric field to weaken the covalent bond.  But this is far beyond MY State of the art to work on).

anyways...

I hope this is serving to focus us in...

At the end of the day, regardless of what "key" parameters one could come up with, the ultimate test would be to, for example,
have your cell feed a combustion engine, which in turn cranks an alternator, which in turn provides enough electric effect to
sustain the process of converting, let's for arguments sake say tap water then, into hydrogen and oxygen, which in turn then
fuels the engine.

It's not until that happens that you could say that you've been successful in your quest.

Also, should it be the case that you indeed find that the voltage to the cell is high, the current to it is low and that there's no heat
developed in the process as it converts the tap water into hydrogen and oxygen in this particular case, well then I guess you
could say that it is in fact a genuine Meyer WFC that you've managed to replicate.

JMO.

Lynx,
  I agree, that we ultimately want more out than we put in...  But I will settle for 100% no loss efficiency (since that is a great next step) and replicable.
But their has to be an expectation that the output is "not insignificant" like what I can produce right now, without really trying...NEXT QUESTIONS:

- Who has what reproducible Voltage going across the plates? (Above 240V, which is where I am)
  [I am not using a VIC transformer yet (Waiting on testing of the 1650R by Emu/Gps) before I buy that (have a flyback I will play with soon)]

- Who has what looks like a step- charging pattern across the WFC?  [I do, and I can tell you that I can now measure ONE variable that forces Amp Consumption.  Which is the length of time the High Voltage SPIKE exists.  I just proved this.  Picture a pennant and a Pole holding it up.  If the width of the pule is too wide, AMP DRAW.  This is controlled by Pulse Width and Pulse. Frequency.  Right now, my pennant is too small in amplitude, and is SCREAMING to use Higher Voltage.  (12V - 31V results in same Max voltage[Pole Height], but different Pennant Height)

- Who has balanced the Impedances over their Inductor(s) vs. their Capacitors?

- Who has suggestions on Step Up transformers?

What would realy be helpful is finding someone in the feild of PULSE TRANSFORMER DESIGN. http://www.butlerwinding.com/store.asp?pid=28198&catid=19973&gclid=CKr66b2q8rUCFQSnnQodOC8AkA
If someone is around Butler Pa. maybe they could call or stop in and have a talk with someone there and get some insight on how to design what we need, and maybe even encourage someone there to join the forum and help us out. These transformers were used in Radar electronics which Stan knew alot about. The problem that everyone is having with Stan Meyers effect is, no one knows how this type of transformer works or how it is designed. Find this information out and you will find the solution to the Meyer Effect. As you can see from the photo below there is alot of design that goes into a Pulse Transformer.

Hi Captain Kirk,
Here is my take on things. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that a fundamental error is being made by all of us. I've been studying Meyer patents and the art for quite some time and lots of people have replicated the schematics of Meyer to a high degree of accuracy and still failed to produce any reasonable results. My gut feeling is that the problem doesn't lie with errors in schematics or transformers or coils but the cell itself.
There are literally thousands of people trying all sorts of resonant LC circuits, tank circuits between the capacitor and the resonant charging chokes and the transformer for that matter with little difference. All sorts of frequencies, choke types, transformer types and circuitry so on and so forth. Nothing seems to get in the ball park so I would suggest one of two things is happening here. Either Meyer was full of it or we are all making a fundamental error somewhere along the line.
personally, I believe there is not an exact frequency at which this technology works, nor an exact voltage across the cap or exact number of windings in any coil. I believe it can be achieved with a vast array of different parameters providing we get the essentials correct in the cell itself.
If you read about Gerald Pollack and his work on electrically structured water you will find out that the PH of water is very important in this field and the water exclusion zone that Delrin creates together with other such like materials gives you an head start.
Meyer has always stated in his lectures and patents that he is creating an high energy electric field between the capacitor plates that acts like a magnet. The negative plate attracts the H and the positive attracts the O pulling them apart, the higher the field you create the more gas is created. he also states that current does not cross the dielectric from one plate to another.  The problem with this IMHO when people try to replicate it is that we get a dielectric breakdown across the water and the current passes which induces conventional electrolysis and high current low voltage.
We must never allow that to happen and you cannot possibly have voltages across those plates that is infinite without creating a dielectric between them. That is why people have started experimenting with coated layers on one or both plates. I would suggest coating the negative plate with Delrin because it creates an exclusion zone and an high PH, this aligns the H with the negative plate and the O with the positive plate facing the correct direction for separation. Once an electric  field is placed across the water exclusion zone it may well begin to work.
There are two things that lead me to believe that this is the way to go.
1. Stan Meyer mentions Delrin in one of his Canadian patents which is not coincidence.
2. Gerald Pollack in his work on the water exclusion zone mentions that the zone can be increased by a factor of 10 by shining certain light frequencies into the water around the zone including infrared. That means the high PH layer is increased by a factor of 10 and you have a lot of water facing the right direction ready for separation. Isn't it strange that on one of Meyers patents he increases his yield in the fuel cell by shining a Laser diode in?
Too much coincidence for me, I believe Meyer was using a dielectric Delrin type material on his negative plate.

I tend to agree nav.  Those exclusion zones essentially create an electrolyte with the pH altered from neutral water.  This leads me to believe that any water can be used.  Gerald's research also tells us more information about water itself which is what I have been harping about for some time--we need to understand the material we are trying to manipulate.  Forget Stan Meyer for a moment and lets understand water and how basic electrolysis works, then we can build an environment that will optimize the fracturing of water into gas.  Right now I am able to recognize electrolysis when I see it, but I do not have an in-depth understanding what is happening at an atomic, electrical and magnetic level.  This knowledge is fundamental to going any further.  We need to fully understand the forces at work that hold water together in a liquid form, maybe then we can see what fields need to be generated, where and how strong to pull the water apart.

Sorry guys, like a dog with a bone, I cannot let go of this and will continue to re-iterate it until I see a detailed technical explanation that satisfies my understanding.  This explanation just seems far to simplistic to me:
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19179

Hi all,
In reply to Dog-one's questions on what and where we should be concerning the whole of this problem I would like to comment:-
Regarding frequency: I do not believe for one minute that there is a frequency at which water falls apart. If there were we would be able to aim high power frequency generators into water fuel cells and have lots of fun. It doesn't happen.
Frequency is important for only one reason in my opinion. It allows us to create a tank circuit between the cap and the choke which can be 'topped up' via the same frequency from our supply for very little energy used.
This is the first time that we have used a cap where the work is done inside the cap plates and not by discharging the cap via conductors into another load. We will struggle with the concept at first then we will progress.
Over Unity: We are no where near it, this is not some kind of wizardry. The only way Meyer technology can be over unity is for you not to use even half an amp then end up with more water than you originally set off with. Remember mass and energy are inversely proportional, Meyer is well under unity and so will we be.
His system is about 1600% more efficient that conventional electrolysis - that doesn't mean its over unity.
IMHO all Meyer is doing is converting water into fuel at a cheap cost. The cost is half an amp or so.
Meyer gets it cheap because he is phasing his supply with his tank circuit and not inducing current across the cap. That way you end up with high an voltage low current situation. His electric field when it spends its energy in the water doesn't induce current flow because its phased to only spend energy when the current is switched off by the use of a half rectified pulsed voltage. The diode stops the resonant chokes from doing what they like to do naturally which is to flow in the opposite direction from which they were charged. Only one way for them to flow when the switch is off - cap. Tank circuit is isolated during switch off time and so the tank circuit is a free ride. Current gets switched back on and the cap tells it to go away being fully charged. Meanwhile the chokes are stealing current from the current train while the power supply and the cap are having an argument. Switch goes off again and the chokes send some more free voltage to the cap which it stole from the stationary current. Free ride, everyone's a winner.
All we need to do now is correctly spend the energy in the water using the right tackle. Jobs a good en.

Quote from nav on March 10th, 2013, 02:56 PM

Hi Captain Kirk,
Here is my take on things. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that a fundamental error is being made by all of us.
...
1. Stan Meyer mentions Delrin in one of his Canadian patents which is not coincidence.
2. Gerald Pollack in his work on the water exclusion zone mentions that the zone can be increased by a factor of 10 by shining certain light frequencies into the water around the zone including infrared.
...
Too much coincidence for me, I believe Meyer was using a dielectric Delrin type material on his negative plate.

Nav,
  Oh how I agree.  The reason I am reaching out, is simply that I want to know what others have tried and FAILED to get working, and what key pieces others have used that are reliable, like a transformer that behaves well when pulsed, even at low frequencies.  (Mine all tend towards looking like a DC short at lower frequencies).

  The EZ's could be created by MANY materials, that was interesting.  Some were better than others.

  Honestly, there is a 5-10% odds that Meyers was full of it, and his production numbers were never possible.  For example, in his original device, he does not include the AMPS needed to turn the alternator he had plugged in/running.  And his device shows he measured amps on the way to the diode, after the pulse.  Woefully inaccurate IMHO.  

  If that isn't enough, consider the attached file which deals with dielectric losses.  University of Singapore....  Interesting they are talking about KV/cm  ...  AND the fact that WATER will change its REFRACTIVE INDEX while IN SUCH A STATE, such that it will ABSORB LIGHT of specific frequencies (it ends there, but Pollack picks up there)...

  About coating the tubes.  One of mine is coated, and IT HELPED me to STUDY the effects on the scope.  I could see the inductor discharge into the capacitor, and the voltage build and then a sudden drop in voltage, increase in amps (0.01 Amp @ 15-30V range) and flip back down quickly, and the voltage would start to build back up again.  I call it "Training Wheels" version, and if it helps me get where we are going, then I am okay with it.

  Geenee pointed out that Meyers was using 300-360V pulses in 3 different variations of his design (12V -> 30:1 Transformer, 100V -> 3:1 transformer, etc).  We may need low current, and high voltage, and based on the pattern I get at 30V, I certainly see a huge difference @ 10V -> 60V in the inductor oscillation, vs. NO DIFFERENCE in the overall Circuit Voltage (or little difference, roughly 230-256V).  Also, as I lower the voltage to MAINTAIN the system, the amps drop too, and the voltage potential is maintained.  This is probably the most encouraging.

  So, back to my requesting a state of the union...  Until I get a transformer that lets me get 300 -> 360V out...  I cannot test that.  My Variac does 250V AC which is beyond my MOSFETS 200V absolute maximum.  I am willing to try 150V through my circuit, and am building it to get me there.  HOPING a 2:1 or 3:1 Transformer can be found to get me the rest of the way at those voltages and the proper frequencies.  Or I get my flyback transformer under my control.  But it would be nice to know IF others were pulsing with 300+V and what their max voltage over the cell was, and what they "saw/experienced", or is that the one part people never got passed?  (I don't know).

Thanks...

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 10th, 2013, 05:09 PM

Quote from nav on March 10th, 2013, 02:56 PM

Hi Captain Kirk,
Here is my take on things. Firstly, it seems obvious to me that a fundamental error is being made by all of us.
...
1. Stan Meyer mentions Delrin in one of his Canadian patents which is not coincidence.
2. Gerald Pollack in his work on the water exclusion zone mentions that the zone can be increased by a factor of 10 by shining certain light frequencies into the water around the zone including infrared.
...
Too much coincidence for me, I believe Meyer was using a dielectric Delrin type material on his negative plate.

Nav,
  Oh how I agree.  The reason I am reaching out, is simply that I want to know what others have tried and FAILED to get working, and what key pieces others have used that are reliable, like a transformer that behaves well when pulsed, even at low frequencies.  (Mine all tend towards looking like a DC short at lower frequencies).

  The EZ's could be created by MANY materials, that was interesting.  Some were better than others.

  Honestly, there is a 5-10% odds that Meyers was full of it, and his production numbers were never possible.  For example, in his original device, he does not include the AMPS needed to turn the alternator he had plugged in/running.  And his device shows he measured amps on the way to the diode, after the pulse.  Woefully inaccurate IMHO.  

  If that isn't enough, consider the attached file which deals with dielectric losses.  University of Singapore....  Interesting they are talking about KV/cm  ...  AND the fact that WATER will change its REFRACTIVE INDEX while IN SUCH A STATE, such that it will ABSORB LIGHT of specific frequencies (it ends there, but Pollack picks up there)...

  About coating the tubes.  One of mine is coated, and IT HELPED me to STUDY the effects on the scope.  I could see the inductor discharge into the capacitor, and the voltage build and then a sudden drop in voltage, increase in amps (0.01 Amp @ 15-30V range) and flip back down quickly, and the voltage would start to build back up again.  I call it "Training Wheels" version, and if it helps me get where we are going, then I am okay with it.

  Geenee pointed out that Meyers was using 300-360V pulses in 3 different variations of his design (12V -> 30:1 Transformer, 100V -> 3:1 transformer, etc).  We may need low current, and high voltage, and based on the pattern I get at 30V, I certainly see a huge difference @ 10V -> 60V in the inductor oscillation, vs. NO DIFFERENCE in the overall Circuit Voltage (or little difference, roughly 230-256V).  Also, as I lower the voltage to MAINTAIN the system, the amps drop too, and the voltage potential is maintained.  This is probably the most encouraging.

  So, back to my requesting a state of the union...  Until I get a transformer that lets me get 300 -> 360V out...  I cannot test that.  My Variac does 250V AC which is beyond my MOSFETS 200V absolute maximum.  I am willing to try 150V through my circuit, and am building it to get me there.  HOPING a 2:1 or 3:1 Transformer can be found to get me the rest of the way at those voltages and the proper frequencies.  Or I get my flyback transformer under my control.  But it would be nice to know IF others were pulsing with 300+V and what their max voltage over the cell was, and what they "saw/experienced", or is that the one part people never got passed?  (I don't know).

Thanks...

Hi Captain,
If you look at Meyers patents you find all sorts of inconsistencies in the pulse generation and voltage/frequency side but most of the fuel cells after the voltage intensifier stage are the same. You have the current blocking diode, the 2 resonant chokes and the cell (cap). This part of the circuit is the important part and the gating could be critical in the pulse train. For this system to work the cap has to reject most of the charge voltage from the supply being equal or only slightly lower voltage than the supply BUT when the current is switched off except charge from the resonant coils on to the negative and positive plates. Now that would suggest naturally that you would need a parallel resonant tank circuit between the coils and the cap but its in series. It may well be that the chokes are magnetically coupled to create a parallel circuit. The chokes, for them to offload voltage into the cap during 'off' is done by choking their current path back to the secondary of the transformer via a diode. If the cap forms a tank circuit with that transformer when the current is switched back on then you've lost the battle because you induce current.
So my rule of thumb would be have the cap and the 2 chokes in a resonant tank circuit that you can replicate on a PWM or frequency generator, only allow the cap to take current from the chokes by ensuring the cap voltage is always equal or slightly lower than the transformer voltage allowing the transformer to leave current in the chokes when the switch goes back to 'off'. All this is done by timing and timing alone with the gated pulse.
If the voltage were massively high on the cap then none of this can work so I would go along with the 300v kind of range and no Kv's.

Quote from nav on March 10th, 2013, 04:31 PM

...
Over Unity: We are no where near it, this is not some kind of wizardry. The only way Meyer technology can be over unity is for you not to use even half an amp then end up with more water than you originally set off with. Remember mass and energy are inversely proportional, Meyer is well under unity and so will we be.
His system is about 1600% more efficient that conventional electrolysis - that doesn't mean its over unity.
IMHO all Meyer is doing is converting water into fuel at a cheap cost. The cost is half an amp or so.
...

Nav,
  Over Unity is an issue for me (If the box is big, it does not exist.  Make the box small, and a Solar device is over unity, just exclude the energy from the sun).  I don't care about that.  If you can get more out of the HHO than it takes to spit, it is worth while (1600% or 16 Times Faraday number) gives you that, probably by a factor of 5-10.  [Failure to get more out means we should give up now.  How can we run the unit, and the car? or any other piece of equipment]

  I am not against 1600% being achievable, despite being over what "UNITY" represents via Faraday.  But Faradays Equation did not take pulsing systems, and AMP CHOKING into consideration.
The Meyers Effect is better than Faradays Estimation, based on reasonable science at the time...  Just as Newtonian Physics is close, but not perfect.

  Finally, the whole point of the water not heating as a requirement IS because We KNOW that the  drop in voltage V, should come ONLY FROM:
V = Q/C  (where Q is the charge, and C is the capacitance).  A sudden dielectric breakdown of Q, results in a voltage drop over the capacitor (like a spark gap, if you will), and then there is a pull on the Inductor, which will SLOWLY release its Voltage.

  But this should be a HEATLESS transaction.  Despite the Q drop, and the REQUEST for Amps.  The request should be choked off, and slowly provided.  I have noticed that my cell continues to produce a dribble of bubbles until the voltage drops all the way to near zero.  So timing is important.  But no heat, means NO WASTE, and "Meyers Effect" or Q Drop based HHO production.  The fact that I can get this on my coated tube (I believe because it slows it down enough that an OAF like me can see it), is very encouraging.  I literally see the Voltage Drop, the Amps bump, the voltage rise, and then the HHO comes out.  But it is clear that I get the voltage drop across the plate first.  And it appears to be slightly across one plate more than the other, first.  Which is VERY interesting...

And the cost is a HALF of an AMP...  At what voltage?  (because it is far cheaper if I can use 1/2 an amp at 4V than at 40,000V)

Kirk Out!

Something Interesting on Water I just saw: http://www.lifeunlocker.com/168/water-and-your-resonant-frequency/
Your thoughts/emotions may affect water???  Interesting...

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 10th, 2013, 07:41 PM

Something Interesting on Water I just saw: http://www.lifeunlocker.com/168/water-and-your-resonant-frequency/
Your thoughts/emotions may affect water???  Interesting...

So I ask again, do we really understand the medium we are working with or not?