Hi all,

I have spent some time looking at video's with Stan's dune buggy actually running or at least the engine running. Now I must say that I have no sound on this computer, so perhaps I overlooked one, but so far I have only been able to find ONE single video wherein the buggy is actually running:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

In this 1992 video, I can't see the engine running, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXTzBuIrVj0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXTzBuIrVj0


This raises a number of questions, but the most important one is: Why can't I find any footage showing a running dune buggy except this single one?

I also took a look at some of his patents. The resonant cavity one dates from 1982 (priority date, date of first filing). The pictures in the dealership manual are all dated between 1981 and 1983:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Stan%20Meyer%20Dealership%20Sales%20Manual%201986%20OCR%20CONVERTED.pdf

There is a "hydrogen gas injector" patent with a priority date of 1982, but that one is not the all-in-one injector intended to replace a spark plug, but appears to be a system to inject the gas into the air intake system of the engine:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Hydrogen%20gas%20injector%20system%20for%20internal%20combustion%20engine%20-%20EP0086439A1.pdf

That what we know as the injector, though, has a priority date of 1991:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Water%20Fuel%20Injection%20System%20-%20WO9222679A1.pdf


So, it appears to me we are looking at a working dune buggy somewhere around 1980 - 1985, while I can find no evidence whatsoever that the car ever ran after that time frame.

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

If it did, why can we find videos of Meyer explaining and showing the car, but not a single one wherein the car is actually running? Why would he not show the car running, unless it was uncapable of doing so?  

Take this video, for example, a documentary aired by the BBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6AkSE2JCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6AkSE2JCk


This has been aired in 1994 (http://www.hho4free.com/stan_myers.htm ).

I mean, come on!  You get the BBC visiting you for a documentary, THE chance of a lifetime, and all you can do is push your car out of your garage? Yes, the car is shown running in there, BUT that is OLD footage from the Ohio TV program, which probably aired somewhere around 1981 - 1985.

So, how come Stan had a running car somewhere around 1981 - 1985 and never ever got it running on water again? Cause, that's what you reasonably have to conclude, given the footage we got.

Of course, one can also conclude that the whole thing was a scam, but I don't believe that, given the replications of a/o Ravi, Lawton and Cramton. And of course, I have a decent theory which explains exactly why these replications were successful:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1168

My basic conclusion is that the system won't work as specified, unless he would have used electropolished stainless:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1372

I also received some private messages at the energetic forum:

Quote

the stainless tubes were of differing gauges and likely purchased or obtained as scrap. (See magnifiied images and photogrammetry at ionizationx)

A common place to get scrap metal at the time was the Joyce Ave Scrap Co. located in Columbus
 
In fact look at p 40 of the IITER report and he used a company called Materials Joining Company Col-x locacted at 901 East Hudson which is just a couple miles from the scrap yard the characteristics of the samples stan provided are listed

According to Charlie Hughes when Stan was running the tractor at the farm, it had about 50 exciter tubes (listen to phone interview)

Googling for that name, I find another dated photograph:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

Quote

Stanley Meyer during a test of his dune buggy, about 1980. This screen shot was taken from a DVD sent to The Dispatch by his twin brother, Stephen Meyer.

I can't seem to find the interview mentioned. Perhaps one of you has it?

When we add all this together, I think we can reasonably conclude that Stan got his car running ONLY during the early 80's and that it is likely that he used scrap components. So, it is entirely possible and even likely that he just happened to get his hands on a set of scrap electropolished stainless tubes, whatever the source of these might have been.

Why, oh why, is there a chemical analysis of the stainless he used dated december 22, 1982?

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/WFCreport.pdf
(page 46)

Why did he also let them test his water sources?

Because he got a set of working tubes, but was unable to repeat his results with other tubes, that's why! And he had no idea what the heck was so special about these working tubes.

But we know almost certain why. This special set he had analysed for it's chemical composition happened to have been electropolished and thus contained a thicker layer of Cr2O3 as usual. A tiny little detail which would not show up with chemical analysis....


Therefore, I am tempted to conclude that he only got ONE single set of tubes working due to a "lucky shot" and that the injector system never actually worked. And I actually think it will never work either, because the surface area with the dielectric which does all the magic is much, much smaller than in an electrolyser system.

You sound very sure of yourself lamare, so I have some questions to throw out there:

IF you had a single electropolished piece of stainless, say 18 gauge, one inch square, would that be enough to test your theory?  Could you get high voltage step charges that produce HHO at a rate exceeding overunity?  Or would it take more?  Would you need tubes?  Would they need to be tuned?  If electropolishing is the secret, is it the only real secret?

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

Hi all,

I have spent some time looking at video's with Stan's dune buggy actually running or at least the engine running. Now I must say that I have no sound on this computer, so perhaps I overlooked one, but so far I have only been able to find ONE single video wherein the buggy is actually running:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFIlXaABU54

In this 1992 video, I can't see the engine running, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXTzBuIrVj0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXTzBuIrVj0


This raises a number of questions, but the most important one is: Why can't I find any footage showing a running dune buggy except this single one?

I also took a look at some of his patents. The resonant cavity one dates from 1982 (priority date, date of first filing). The pictures in the dealership manual are all dated between 1981 and 1983:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Stan%20Meyer%20Dealership%20Sales%20Manual%201986%20OCR%20CONVERTED.pdf

There is a "hydrogen gas injector" patent with a priority date of 1982, but that one is not the all-in-one injector intended to replace a spark plug, but appears to be a system to inject the gas into the air intake system of the engine:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Hydrogen%20gas%20injector%20system%20for%20internal%20combustion%20engine%20-%20EP0086439A1.pdf

That what we know as the injector, though, has a priority date of 1991:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/Water%20Fuel%20Injection%20System%20-%20WO9222679A1.pdf


So, it appears to me we are looking at a working dune buggy somewhere around 1980 - 1985, while I can find no evidence whatsoever that the car ever ran after that time frame.

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

If it did, why can we find videos of Meyer explaining and showing the car, but not a single one wherein the car is actually running? Why would he not show the car running, unless it was uncapable of doing so?  

Take this video, for example, a documentary aired by the BBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6AkSE2JCk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE6AkSE2JCk


This has been aired in 1994 (http://www.hho4free.com/stan_myers.htm ).

I mean, come on!  You get the BBC visiting you for a documentary, THE chance of a lifetime, and all you can do is push your car out of your garage? Yes, the car is shown running in there, BUT that is OLD footage from the Ohio TV program, which probably aired somewhere around 1981 - 1985.

So, how come Stan had a running car somewhere around 1981 - 1985 and never ever got it running on water again? Cause, that's what you reasonably have to conclude, given the footage we got.

Of course, one can also conclude that the whole thing was a scam, but I don't believe that, given the replications of a/o Ravi, Lawton and Cramton. And of course, I have a decent theory which explains exactly why these replications were successful:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1168

My basic conclusion is that the system won't work as specified, unless he would have used electropolished stainless:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1372

I also received some private messages at the energetic forum:

Quote

the stainless tubes were of differing gauges and likely purchased or obtained as scrap. (See magnifiied images and photogrammetry at ionizationx)

A common place to get scrap metal at the time was the Joyce Ave Scrap Co. located in Columbus
 
In fact look at p 40 of the IITER report and he used a company called Materials Joining Company Col-x locacted at 901 East Hudson which is just a couple miles from the scrap yard the characteristics of the samples stan provided are listed

According to Charlie Hughes when Stan was running the tractor at the farm, it had about 50 exciter tubes (listen to phone interview)

Googling for that name, I find another dated photograph:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2007/07/08/hydroman.ART_ART_07-08-07_A1_4V77MOK.html

Quote

Stanley Meyer during a test of his dune buggy, about 1980. This screen shot was taken from a DVD sent to The Dispatch by his twin brother, Stephen Meyer.

I can't seem to find the interview mentioned. Perhaps one of you has it?

When we add all this together, I think we can reasonably conclude that Stan got his car running ONLY during the early 80's and that it is likely that he used scrap components. So, it is entirely possible and even likely that he just happened to get his hands on a set of scrap electropolished stainless tubes, whatever the source of these might have been.

Why, oh why, is there a chemical analysis of the stainless he used dated december 22, 1982?

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Meyer/WFCreport.pdf
(page 46)

Why did he also let them test his water sources?

Because he got a set of working tubes, but was unable to repeat his results with other tubes, that's why! And he had no idea what the heck was so special about these working tubes.

But we know almost certain why. This special set he had analysed for it's chemical composition happened to have been electropolished and thus contained a thicker layer of Cr2O3 as usual. A tiny little detail which would not show up with chemical analysis....


Therefore, I am tempted to conclude that he only got ONE single set of tubes working due to a "lucky shot" and that the injector system never actually worked. And I actually think it will never work either, because the surface area with the dielectric which does all the magic is much, much smaller than in an electrolyser system.

Hi Lamare,

I don't disagree that there certainly is missing evidence of working water injectors and it's also odd as you say that we never actually see any other footage showing the car running. But the fact that there is missing evidence I would have to argue is not necessarily because the evidence wasn't there to begin with.

You could be perfectly right about the electropolished SS but i'm fairly confident that Stan Meyer would have had the wherewithal to understand why this effect occurred only on the tubes if that's what you theorize occurred.

With regards to the water injector system never working, I would ask the question why then would Stanley Meyer spend thousands of dollars on a non functional patent?
The argument that the electrolyser was too small to work is conjecture. Look for example at a place we commonly find cavity resonances i.e a microwave. Due to it's cavity being tuned to the infared spectrum it produces extremely powerful frequencies as well as very powerful waves capable of turning virtually anything into mush yet the cavity device that creates them is no more than 3cm long.

Also if what you say is true that the first device was a lucky shot why then the further development on a concept you theorize Stan didn't understand?

Just my thoughts...

Don said the owner of the estate told him that the injector worked on the bench,but Stan had problems with the timing and fireing at the right time.

Quote from Dog-One on September 11th, 2013, 05:17 PM

You sound very sure of yourself lamare, so I have some questions to throw out there:

IF you had a single electropolished piece of stainless, say 18 gauge, one inch square, would that be enough to test your theory?  Could you get high voltage step charges that produce HHO at a rate exceeding overunity?  Or would it take more?  Would you need tubes?  Would they need to be tuned?  If electropolishing is the secret, is it the only real secret?

Well, a single plate of stainless won't do, you need at least two...

Other than that: yes, it would be enough to test the theory. Actually, that's one of the first things Stan did. Two plates of stainless mounted in such a way that he could vary the distance between the plates.

And yes, electropolishing is the real big secret, IMHO. This is substantiated not only by the genius work of Prof. Turtur, which gives you the fundamental reasons, but also by practial observations like "the glow" observed with old school rectifiers, Bedini's self charging batteries, spontaneously recharging electrolytic capactors when charged with "radient", etc., etc.  And there are connections to be made to "cold fusion" as well, which is still not understood.

That does not mean that "cold fog explosions" or "HHO" are not useable at all, nor that there is no energy gain with those processes at all. To the contrary, Turtur's work clearly suggests that this is possible indeed, but it is much more delicate and very hard to understand and analyse.

So, Stan clearly hit the jackpot with his first prototype and I am very sure that this is because of the trick with the polarized dielectric layer, which is relatively easy to understand and can be fully controlled with current engineering practices..

You won't need tubes to get a COP much bigger than 1, but if you want to produce a lot of gas with a relatively small electrolyser, you need to keep the fluid in motion. That's a practical problem, which can be solved in many ways. One of these is to keep the fluid in between the plates or pipes in acoustic resonance.

That is what Meyer did and that is why there are two frequencies involved in his apparatus. The high frequency pulses are for keeping the dielectric polarized, the lower frequency by which this "hf" pulse train is switched on and off matches an acoustic resonance frequency of the pipes, which then act as organ pipes.

Another possibility is to simply use a pump to keep the fluid in motion.


To sum this up: the real secret is the question of how to extract energy out of the environment. This can be done by using a polarized dielectric, which converts zero point energy into electro-static energy, which can be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and/or generate HHO.

And since Cr2O3 is a dielectric which is present on all stainless steels, stainless can be used with this trick. The only thing is that the layer needs to be thick enough to have a reasonable electrical resistance, to "limit the current" in Stan's terms. And that is why you need electropolished stainless, because with that particular "passivation" process, you get a layer which is about 10-100 times thicker than with other "passivation" processes used with stainless.

Quote from zaneaussie on September 11th, 2013, 05:59 PM

Hi Lamare,

I don't disagree that there certainly is missing evidence of working water injectors and it's also odd as you say that we never actually see any other footage showing the car running. But the fact that there is missing evidence I would have to argue is not necessarily because the evidence wasn't there to begin with.

You could be perfectly right about the electropolished SS but i'm fairly confident that Stan Meyer would have had the wherewithal to understand why this effect occurred only on the tubes if that's what you theorize occurred.

With regards to the water injector system never working, I would ask the question why then would Stanley Meyer spend thousands of dollars on a non functional patent?
The argument that the electrolyser was too small to work is conjecture. Look for example at a place we commonly find cavity resonances i.e a microwave. Due to it's cavity being tuned to the infared spectrum it produces extremely powerful frequencies as well as very powerful waves capable of turning virtually anything into mush yet the cavity device that creates them is no more than 3cm long.

Also if what you say is true that the first device was a lucky shot why then the further development on a concept you theorize Stan didn't understand?

Just my thoughts...

Hi zaneaussie,

Sure, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

However, actually it is pretty unlikely Stan could have understood the importance of the dielectric layer. Turtur's paper is from 2009, for example:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf

Remember that during the same time frame, scientists all over the globe spent millions of dollars researching "cold fusion", which I'm sure in fact uses the same energy source Turtur described, which they never came to get working, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

The root of the problem is that science, certainly at that time, did not recognize that an electrostatic field can actually be used as an energy source. That realization did not come before 2009 and even today this is considered controversial, although the math essentially speaks for itself and is actually very straigtforward. Even I can understand it. :)

The fact that Stan got his pipes analysed clearly suggest he understood there was something odd with these pipes, but the result of the analysis was that it was ordinary stainless steel. In hindsight, this is very logical, because they analysed the steel itself and not the "passivation layer" wherein the magic occurs.

So, then put yourself in his position. He HAD a working prototype, so he KNEW it was possible. And he KNEW he could do it, because he had done it before. I don't know about you, but I would be determined to do whatever it took to sort this out and get to the bottom of it.

Given that after, say, 1985 the car never ran again, something must have happened to the original tubes. It is pretty likely that they wore out, because the Cr2O3 layer slowly but surely dissolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium(III)_oxide

Quote

Chromium(III) oxide is amphoteric. Although insoluble in water, it dissolves in acid to produce hydrated chromium ions, [Cr(H2O)6]3+ which react with base to give salts of [Cr(OH)6]3-.[7] It dissolves in concentrated alkali to yield chromite ions.

Under normal circumstances, this is not likely to happen with tap water, but this is a situation that the layer is part in a electrochemical system, which makes a lot of difference. I did not look into this in detail, but this is certainly a possibility, especially considering the fact that he also had his water sources tested.

In other words: he was confronted with the situation that his car no longer worked and no one could have told him at the time whay this had happened. The steel had an ordinary composition and there were no chemicals in his water sources which would be associated with wearing of stainless steel by average steel experts. You see, these guys are experts in the behavior of stainless with respect to the presence of various chemicals, but NOT on the subject of the electrochemistry involved.

The same thing goes for the knowledge of the average electrical engineer regarding electrolytic capacitors. You are not thaught the details about these at University. They are not that hard to understand, but you have to spend some time studying the details, before you understand electrolytic capacitors.


So, it is likely that he continued experimenting and ran into the peculiar properties of Brown's gas and the generation thereof, along with the strange phenomena observed with "fog" explosions. While these phenomena do offer the possibility of building COP>1 systems, you are talking about a possible COP which I estimate to be less than about 10, given a number of sources I have seen regarding "cold fusion", HHO systems, etc.

I think he must have been desparate to recreate his earlier success and at some point believed he was almost there. And thus he patented his ideas, confidence that he would be capable of fixing the details later. After all, he KNEW he had done it before....

Quote from adys15 on September 12th, 2013, 01:07 AM

Don said the owner of the estate told him that the injector worked on the bench,but Stan had problems with the timing and fireing at the right time.

That makes perfectly sense. You have to inject the stuff during the intake cycle of the engine, and ignite around the top dead centre IF you have been producing hydrogen / oxygen. If you happen to have produced Brown's gas or a mixture of the two, things get very complicated:

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=1380

Quote from lamare on September 12th, 2013, 02:50 AM

Quote from zaneaussie on September 11th, 2013, 05:59 PM

Hi Lamare,

I don't disagree that there certainly is missing evidence of working water injectors and it's also odd as you say that we never actually see any other footage showing the car running. But the fact that there is missing evidence I would have to argue is not necessarily because the evidence wasn't there to begin with.

You could be perfectly right about the electropolished SS but i'm fairly confident that Stan Meyer would have had the wherewithal to understand why this effect occurred only on the tubes if that's what you theorize occurred.

With regards to the water injector system never working, I would ask the question why then would Stanley Meyer spend thousands of dollars on a non functional patent?
The argument that the electrolyser was too small to work is conjecture. Look for example at a place we commonly find cavity resonances i.e a microwave. Due to it's cavity being tuned to the infared spectrum it produces extremely powerful frequencies as well as very powerful waves capable of turning virtually anything into mush yet the cavity device that creates them is no more than 3cm long.

Also if what you say is true that the first device was a lucky shot why then the further development on a concept you theorize Stan didn't understand?

Just my thoughts...

Hi zaneaussie,

Sure, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

However, actually it is pretty unlikely Stan could have understood the importance of the dielectric layer. Turtur's paper is from 2009, for example:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf

Remember that during the same time frame, scientists all over the globe spent millions of dollars researching "cold fusion", which I'm sure in fact uses the same energy source Turtur described, which they never came to get working, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

The root of the problem is that science, certainly at that time, did not recognize that an electrostatic field can actually be used as an energy source. That realization did not come before 2009 and even today this is considered controversial, although the math essentially speaks for itself and is actually very straigtforward. Even I can understand it. :)

The fact that Stan got his pipes analysed clearly suggest he understood there was something odd with these pipes, but the result of the analysis was that it was ordinary stainless steel. In hindsight, this is very logical, because they analysed the steel itself and not the "passivation layer" wherein the magic occurs.

So, then put yourself in his position. He HAD a working prototype, so he KNEW it was possible. And he KNEW he could do it, because he had done it before. I don't know about you, but I would be determined to do whatever it took to sort this out and get to the bottom of it.

Given that after, say, 1985 the car never ran again, something must have happened to the original tubes. It is pretty likely that they wore out, because the Cr2O3 layer slowly but surely dissolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium(III)_oxide

Quote

Chromium(III) oxide is amphoteric. Although insoluble in water, it dissolves in acid to produce hydrated chromium ions, [Cr(H2O)6]3+ which react with base to give salts of [Cr(OH)6]3-.[7] It dissolves in concentrated alkali to yield chromite ions.

Under normal circumstances, this is not likely to happen with tap water, but this is a situation that the layer is part in a electrochemical system, which makes a lot of difference. I did not look into this in detail, but this is certainly a possibility, especially considering the fact that he also had his water sources tested.

In other words: he was confronted with the situation that his car no longer worked and no one could have told him at the time whay this had happened. The steel had an ordinary composition and there were no chemicals in his water sources which would be associated with wearing of stainless steel by average steel experts. You see, these guys are experts in the behavior of stainless with respect to the presence of various chemicals, but NOT on the subject of the electrochemistry involved.

The same thing goes for the knowledge of the average electrical engineer regarding electrolytic capacitors. You are not thaught the details about these at University. They are not that hard to understand, but you have to spend some time studying the details, before you understand electrolytic capacitors.


So, it is likely that he continued experimenting and ran into the peculiar properties of Brown's gas and the generation thereof, along with the strange phenomena observed with "fog" explosions. While these phenomena do offer the possibility of building COP>1 systems, you are talking about a possible COP which I estimate to be less than about 10, given a number of sources I have seen regarding "cold fusion", HHO systems, etc.

I think he must have been desparate to recreate his earlier success and at some point believed he was almost there. And thus he patented his ideas, confidence that he would be capable of fixing the details later. After all, he KNEW he had done it before....

Quote from adys15 on September 12th, 2013, 01:07 AM

Don said the owner of the estate told him that the injector worked on the bench,but Stan had problems with the timing and fireing at the right time.

That makes perfectly sense. You have to inject the stuff during the intake cycle of the engine, and ignite around the top dead centre IF you have been producing hydrogen / oxygen. If you happen to have produced Brown's gas or a mixture of the two, things get very complicated:

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=1380

Hi Lamare,

Your argument is strong and convincing. It certainly explains a few holes in how things played out. Perhaps electropolished SS really is the key!!! I guess the only way to find out is to do some experiments, I for one am working on a device of my own and hope to have some kind of prototype of in the near future.

I was however under the impression that Stan used Potassium Hydroxide as the dielectric layer and not Cr2O3 did I get this mistaken somewhere?

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 03:39 AM

Hi Lamare,

Your argument is strong and convincing. It certainly explains a few holes in how things played out. Perhaps electropolished SS really is the key!!! I guess the only way to find out is to do some experiments, I for one am working on a device of my own and hope to have some kind of prototype of in the near future.

I was however under the impression that Stan used Potassium Hydroxide as the dielectric layer and not Cr2O3 did I get this mistaken somewhere?

Hi zaneaussie,

I have little doubt it is the key. Everything points in the same direction:

*) replications by Ravi, Lawton, Cramton, Boyce and also Murakami involving "conditioning":
http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt10.html

*) theoretic foundation by Turtur;

*) historic time-line around Stan's buggy, as far as I have been able to reconstruct;

*) old school electrolytic capacitors and "capacitor plague" producing unwanted hydrogen gas;

*) 'the glow"", observed in old school rectifiers as well as some of the more succesfull replicators;

*) Bedini's batteries "cold boiling";

*) spontaneously recharging capactors after having been charged with "radiant", high voltage pulses;

*) electropolished stainless containing a thicker layer of Cr2O3 compared to other passivation methods;

*) Cr2O3 having a similar dielectric constant as aluminum oxide, which is used in most ordinary electrolytic capacitors.

That does not necessarily mean, though, that every single piece of stainless steel which has been electropolished is equally suitable. I think all of these will work, but some may be better than others. I don't know, some surprises may come up, because the processes used are optimized for "passivation" not for this specific application. So, YMMV.


Potassium Hydroxide is soluble in water and is thus used as an electrolyte. It is one of the most used electrolytes in normal electrolysis. It reacts a/o with nickel contained in stainless and thus forms nickel and other metal hydroxides. I first thought nickel hydroxide would be the key, until I found out that Cr2O3 has similar properties as aluminum oxide.

The dielectric layer we need is a very thin layer of insulating material which covers the stainless. It should be in the order of 1 um thick, say between 100 nm and 5 um. Something like that. Because a dielectric is an insulator, such a layer is the actual "current restriction" device Stan talked about.

And besides being an insulator, dielectrics can also be polarized, which makes it emit an electric field. It is possible to create permanently polarized dielectrics, which are called electrets, "electric magnets":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret
 

So:

*)  Potassium Hydroxide is a salt soluble in water, which decreases the electrical resistance of the water, so you can push more curent trough it. This is the electrolyte, the water between the plates.

*) Cr2O3 is insoluble and forms a very thin insulating layer on top of the stainless, which normally seals the metal and this way it protects the metal from rusting. Because this has similar properties as aluminum oxide in terms of dielectric properties, this is what makes the WFC similar to an electrolytic capacitor, hence making the "step charging" process possible.

How hard would it be to electropolish yourself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbEk3pU-hhg

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/threads/38026-Electropolishing-and-cleaning-stainless-steel-and-aluminum

Quote

I did some experiments this afternoon electropolishing stainless steel. It turns out that it is stupid simple to get a reasonable result. I took information from some patents and deciphered the very clever ploy of using the chemical formulae for dish soap and antifreeze and discovered the ingredients of the bath.

1 part by volume of 80% phosphoric acid
1 part by volume of propylene glycol (auto antifreeze)
1 part water
1/4 part ethanol or isopropanol
5 grams liquid dish soap per litre of water

Add to that a SS container for the bath acting as a cathode and the tubes/plates hanging from the anode cable submerged in the solution.
2 car batteries to provide for the juice, the process takes quite some current,

Quote

The process draws a lot of current, anywhere from 25 to 150 amps per square foot

Quote from lamare on September 12th, 2013, 04:21 AM

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 03:39 AM

Hi Lamare,

Your argument is strong and convincing. It certainly explains a few holes in how things played out. Perhaps electropolished SS really is the key!!! I guess the only way to find out is to do some experiments, I for one am working on a device of my own and hope to have some kind of prototype of in the near future.

I was however under the impression that Stan used Potassium Hydroxide as the dielectric layer and not Cr2O3 did I get this mistaken somewhere?

Hi zaneaussie,

I have little doubt it is the key. Everything points in the same direction:

*) replications by Ravi, Lawton, Cramton, Boyce and also Murakami involving "conditioning":
http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt10.html

*) theoretic foundation by Turtur;

*) historic time-line around Stan's buggy, as far as I have been able to reconstruct;

*) old school electrolytic capacitors and "capacitor plague" producing unwanted hydrogen gas;

*) 'the glow"", observed in old school rectifiers as well as some of the more succesfull replicators;

*) Bedini's batteries "cold boiling";

*) spontaneously recharging capactors after having been charged with "radiant", high voltage pulses;

*) electropolished stainless containing a thicker layer of Cr2O3 compared to other passivation methods;

*) Cr2O3 having a similar dielectric constant as aluminum oxide, which is used in most ordinary electrolytic capacitors.

That does not necessarily mean, though, that every single piece of stainless steel which has been electropolished is equally suitable. I think all of these will work, but some may be better than others. I don't know, some surprises may come up, because the processes used are optimized for "passivation" not for this specific application. So, YMMV.


Potassium Hydroxide is soluble in water and is thus used as an electrolyte. It is one of the most used electrolytes in normal electrolysis. It reacts a/o with nickel contained in stainless and thus forms nickel and other metal hydroxides. I first thought nickel hydroxide would be the key, until I found out that Cr2O3 has similar properties as aluminum oxide.

The dielectric layer we need is a very thin layer of insulating material which covers the stainless. It should be in the order of 1 um thick, say between 100 nm and 5 um. Something like that. Because a dielectric is an insulator, such a layer is the actual "current restriction" device Stan talked about.

And besides being an insulator, dielectrics can also be polarized, which makes it emit an electric field. It is possible to create permanently polarized dielectrics, which are called electrets, "electric magnets":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret
 

So:

*)  Potassium Hydroxide is a salt soluble in water, which decreases the electrical resistance of the water, so you can push more curent trough it. This is the electrolyte, the water between the plates.

*) Cr2O3 is insoluble and forms a very thin insulating layer on top of the stainless, which normally seals the metal and this way it protects the metal from rusting. Because this has similar properties as aluminum oxide in terms of dielectric properties, this is what makes the WFC similar to an electrolytic capacitor, hence making the "step charging" process possible.

Hey Lamare,

Thanks for the detailed response. I am aware that Potassium Hydroxide can be used as an electrolyte. I did however read somewhere (looking for the reference now) that Stan used it as a dielectric material by soaking the SS in it for several days and then conditioned the cell by running small voltages and small currents through it to "embed" the material. Similar to what you would do if you used baking soda as the dielectric material i'm guessing.

However in light of the material you mentioned (Cr2O3) it seems it could be a far more powerful dielectric and would allow for better polarization. to this end I guess i'm asking if that is the case then...

1. Wouldn't we need to use extremely high voltages i.e 10KV and above with minimal current as does Tutur? I believe I have seen it mentioned that Stan used Kilovolt ranges and with minimal current so this kind of backs that up.
2. If Cr203 is to be used as the dielectric material how do you propose it is applied to SS tube? According to this reference Chromium Oxide is most commonly used as pigment and is insoluble in water but produces chromium ions in acid.


In short what process or how could this material be applied?

Quote from Lynx on September 12th, 2013, 04:57 AM

How hard would it be to electropolish yourself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbEk3pU-hhg

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/threads/38026-Electropolishing-and-cleaning-stainless-steel-and-aluminum

Quote

I did some experiments this afternoon electropolishing stainless steel. It turns out that it is stupid simple to get a reasonable result. I took information from some patents and deciphered the very clever ploy of using the chemical formulae for dish soap and antifreeze and discovered the ingredients of the bath.

1 part by volume of 80% phosphoric acid
1 part by volume of propylene glycol (auto antifreeze)
1 part water
1/4 part ethanol or isopropanol
5 grams liquid dish soap per litre of water

Add to that a SS container for the bath acting as a cathode and the tubes/plates hanging from the anode cable submerged in the solution.
2 car batteries to provide for the juice, the process takes quite some current,

Quote

The process draws a lot of current, anywhere from 25 to 150 amps per square foot

Hey Lynx,

Great research, that's exactly the type of things we need to know :-)

zaneaussie,

I am very tired now and have a headache. Made it a bit too late last night..

The important thing is that the layer essentially turns a shortcut/ resistor into an electolytic capacitor. You can find many references in the other threads.

High voltages are not absolutely required, but high voltage pulses are benefitial. Stan got the electronics pretty good, as did Lawton with his PLL circuit. Both of these should work. The details are not that important now.

Well I'm going to have a go at it using the phosphoric acid/propylene glycol/water/ethanol or isopropanol/liquid dish soap secret sauce
To be continued.

Lynx, you may want to do this in short bursts checking each time if the resistance is in fact increasing as the oxide layer grows on the tubes.  The reason I say short bursts is because there could be a sweet spot in there that you would otherwise step right over if you do a long run in the chemical bath.  We don't know at this point if more is better.

Also, if you can get any pictures of discoloration associated with the process would be helpful--signs people can follow should they attempt to replicate your work.

Quote from Lynx on September 12th, 2013, 09:28 AM

Well I'm going to have a go at it using the phosphoric acid/propylene glycol/water/ethanol or isopropanol/liquid dish soap secret sauce
To be continued.

Good luck!

BTW, electropolished stainless is used a lot in the food industry, besides medical applications. Changes are pretty high that tubes used in farms for milking installations will be electropolished. So, any local supplier of farming equipment might be a good first candidate for getting industrial processed electropolished stainless, even though the parts which you cut won't be electropolished. However,  you could insulate the cuts with some epoxy paste or something. Should at least do for some first test, IF these tubes are indeed electropolished. They should be, because milk is a food product, but I'm not sure.

I must say, I would like to confirm lamare's theory with some professionally prepared stainless before putting a lot of effort into DIY processes, but either way, hopefully something good comes from all the research.

http://www.delstar.com/electropolishing/metals-that-can-be-electropolished.html

http://www.surgical123.com/dentalinstruments.aspx

Posted some info on electropolishing before on the other thread:

http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1168&pid=17453#pid17453

This one explains the technique in detail:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Electrolytic_Caps_and_Super_Caps/Irving__LC_electropolishing-stainless-steel-implants.pdf

Hi all,

When thinking of the Stanley injector it tends to draw me to the russian "do-able" invention of producing high quantaties of HHO through means of piping 550 degrees hot water/steam through an electric field of 6000 v

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=784&pid=9028#pid9028

This invention also has the timing issue, but as with the injector a simple buffer vessel could solve those issues. (but maybe then the potency goes down?)

I think an electric field formed by the Cr2O3 makes sense, something extra is needed. And i also think that that field should resonate, to even better loosen the electrons.

I don't know if a standing wave will circulate the electrolyte, but one can do a test with a glass of water and a speaker and put a drop of ink in the standing wave.

I do however think that if the fieldstrength approaches the breakdownpoint, there will come shootovers, that also can destroy the layering.

Maybe the standing wave in between the plates has a positive effect on the breakdownpoint. That it becomes less likely that those shootovers occure?

Quote from lamare on September 12th, 2013, 08:20 AM

zaneaussie,

I am very tired now and have a headache. Made it a bit too late last night..

The important thing is that the layer essentially turns a shortcut/ resistor into an electolytic capacitor. You can find many references in the other threads.

High voltages are not absolutely required, but high voltage pulses are benefitial. Stan got the electronics pretty good, as did Lawton with his PLL circuit. Both of these should work. The details are not that important now.

Hey Lamare,

Yeah apologies for the late reply, had to re-install my OS. OK assuming the electronics is fine!

However I am still not understanding how we apply the chromium layer (Cr2O3) or have I misunderstood this aspect in that the layer is as a direct result of the electro polishing process?

Confused...

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 05:50 PM

However I am still not understanding how we apply the chromium layer (Cr2O3) or have I misunderstood this aspect in that the layer is as a direct result of the electro polishing process?

Confused...

You are correct.  Electropolishing creates this chromium oxide layer making the surface resistance go way up.

I have to wonder if a similar black oxide layer on regular steel wouldn't produce similar results.

Quote from Dog-One on September 12th, 2013, 05:58 PM

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 05:50 PM

However I am still not understanding how we apply the chromium layer (Cr2O3) or have I misunderstood this aspect in that the layer is as a direct result of the electro polishing process?

Confused...

You are correct.  Electropolishing creates this chromium oxide layer making the surface resistance go way up.

I have to wonder if a similar black oxide layer on regular steel wouldn't produce similar results.

Hey Dog-One

Thanks heaps for the clarification!

However it still leaves some unanswered questions. The reference I was initially drawing from came from this interesting article.. REF

Where it states the following:

"The same applies to flat plate electrolysers, where Bob Boyce points out that no serious volume of gas will be produced until the stainless steel plates have received a white coating, produced by leaving them to sit unused in the potassium hydroxide solution for a few days. The same applies to this replication of Stan Meyer's electrolysis unit. When the power is first applied, very little electrolysis takes place as the active surfaces of the pipes get covered with bubbles which stick to them. However, if they are left for a while with the bubbles in place, a brown scum forms on the surface of the water. The scum is cleaned off and another short period of electrolysis carried out to cover the plates with bubbles again. After this process has been carried out repeatedly, the the brown scum no longer forms and the active tube surfaces have a white coating. At this point, the 'conditioned' tubes produce the kind of rapid electrolysis shown in the video."

This leaves a couple of questions..

Is it enough to just rely on the electro polishing process to form the dielectric layer? or do we still need to further coat the SS in a material such as the potassium mentioned or other similar material such as baking soda?

There is no doubt Stan was working on different kinds of dielectric layers, but would such a material hamper or assist an electro polished surface?

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

If it did, why can we find videos of Meyer explaining and showing the car, but not a single one wherein the car is actually running? Why would he not show the car running, unless it was uncapable of doing so?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...


Did he use the water injector technology?  yes..

The evidence is clearly documented see attached pic of Gms-unit..
it clearly  shows electronic controls for the injectors.....total of 4..
which by the way was connected on the dune buggy before it was dismantled...

There is video documentation showing step by step of the dune buggy build .. I mean it is like painstaiking evidence of a retrofit operation.. Stan shows in detail how he puts together the different parts of the dune buggy with multiple technicians, machinist and his brother an electronics tech all involved in the operation. its all on the video.

in the attached pic one can see water fuel injector in  Stans hand... in other pic one can see dune buggy with same water fuel injector line...

How many videos of dune buggy running down street do we need to see to convince ourselves that the technology worked?

to me the amount of evidence is overwhelming....so overwhelming that a complete replica of this system will take an individual years to match... who has the technical know how to simultaneously apply multifaceted knowledge in the fields of electrical, electronic, mechanical, machinist, system engineering, etc., etc.,
and not to mention the time and financial  strain imposed upon the individual..
In most of his lectures he mentions he underestimated the amount of work and time it would take to bring together all his ideas it took him over a decade to develop the technology where originally he estimated 6 to 8 months!.

think about that ...and here we are in our garages trying to mimic that work.. We would greatly overcomplicate a "replica" speculating on what if's.. and not sticking to the facts.

We need to give Stan a little more credit...credibility... the guy went after high school and worked for high tech company's..his fields covered heart monitors, validator system for banking institutions, Actar system for the Oceanography field, EBED concept for Star Wars.

Quote from Heuristicobfuscation on September 12th, 2013, 07:04 PM

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...

Once the principle is proofed, the rest becomes oversee-able work. If you build everything to Stan's specs you still have nothing. You have to find his secrets, where does he get his big HHO production from? And such OverUnity keypoints in all these inventions are the ones needed to be understood and can be tested without the rest of the total invention. Atleast mostly the case.

So its not like discrediting Stan, its using deduction to point towards possible clue's.

Its to us if we think its convincing enough to try the elementary test on these clue's.

And i for one thank Lamare that he brings in new perspectives.

Eagerness to shoot down what flies overhead is not prudent.  

Quote from Heuristicobfuscation on September 12th, 2013, 07:04 PM

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

If it did, why can we find videos of Meyer explaining and showing the car, but not a single one wherein the car is actually running? Why would he not show the car running, unless it was uncapable of doing so?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...


Did he use the water injector technology?  yes..

The evidence is clearly documented see attached pic of Gms-unit..
it clearly  shows electronic controls for the injectors.....total of 4..
which by the way was connected on the dune buggy before it was dismantled...

There is video documentation showing step by step of the dune buggy build .. I mean it is like painstaiking evidence of a retrofit operation.. Stan shows in detail how he puts together the different parts of the dune buggy with multiple technicians, machinist and his brother an electronics tech all involved in the operation. its all on the video.

in the attached pic one can see water fuel injector in  Stans hand... in other pic one can see dune buggy with same water fuel injector line...

How many videos of dune buggy running down street do we need to see to convince ourselves that the technology worked?

to me the amount of evidence is overwhelming....so overwhelming that a complete replica of this system will take an individual years to match... who has the technical know how to simultaneously apply multifaceted knowledge in the fields of electrical, electronic, mechanical, machinist, system engineering, etc., etc.,
and not to mention the time and financial  strain imposed upon the individual..
In most of his lectures he mentions he underestimated the amount of work and time it would take to bring together all his ideas it took him over a decade to develop the technology where originally he estimated 6 to 8 months!.

think about that ...and here we are in our garages trying to mimic that work.. We would greatly overcomplicate a "replica" speculating on what if's.. and not sticking to the facts.

We need to give Stan a little more credit...credibility... the guy went after high school and worked for high tech company's..his fields covered heart monitors, validator system for banking institutions, Actar system for the Oceanography field, EBED concept for Star Wars.

The point is that it was running in the beginning of the 1980s and has been shown to run on TV, BUT it has NOT been shown to run after about 1985.

THAT is what this is all about.

Why was it shown running before around 1985 and never ever again??

As for your question of how many videos we would need showing the car running AFTER 1985 to convince ourselves that the LATER (injector) technology has actually ever worked in the sense that they were able to run the car with it:

A single one which can be placed somewhere AFTER about 1985 showing the engine running would do. To me, just a witness testimony of someone who was actually there and saw the car running AFTER about 1985 would also do.

Once again, the point is not that the car never ran. It did, BUT it did in the beginning of the 1980s, NOT after about 1985!



And then the curious testing of his metal in december 1982.

Why?

Why test the metal of his tubes, which he likely got from a scrap yard?


Taken this together, we can speculate that there was something special with the tubes he used in his WORKING car, back around 1980, and he was unable to repeat his success later. The car simply never ran on water again, not even when the BBC came to his place in 1992 to make a documentary.

Why did he not simply restore his old version then and show his car running, as he did before?


Because his original tubes had worn out and it did not work anymore, that's why. And he did not have any idea what caused this, so he had his tubes tested. And since they ONLY tested for the composition of the metal, all he found out was that it was ordinary 304 stainless.

So, what was so special about this first set of tubes?


My theory, based on a lot of observations and a solid theoretic basis, concludes that a dielectric layer needs to be present on the tubes in order to get a process with a COP >> 1:

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=1168

So, then the question becomes: are there "special" kinds of stainless steel, which have such a dielectric layer?

The answer is: yes, electropolishing gives a much thicker layer of Cr2O3 as other "passivation" methods do, which is an insulator and a dielectric, with similar properties as aluminum oxide, which is used in most electrolytic capacitors as a dielectric layer. And the way layers of aluminum oxide are formed in electrolytic capacitors is essentially the same process as "electropolishing".

So, everything adds up and the discovery of Stan having it's tubes tested in 1982 is just one of the many datapoints suggesting that my theory is most likely correct.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 12th, 2013, 07:42 PM

Quote from Heuristicobfuscation on September 12th, 2013, 07:04 PM

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...

Once the principle is proofed, the rest becomes oversee-able work. If you build everything to Stan's specs you still have nothing. You have to find his secrets, where does he get his big HHO production from? And such OverUnity keypoints in all these inventions are the ones needed to be understood and can be tested without the rest of the total invention. Atleast mostly the case.

So its not like discrediting Stan, its using deduction to point towards possible clue's.

Its to us if we think its convincing enough to try the elementary test on these clue's.

And i for one thank Lamare that he brings in new perspectives.

Eagerness to shoot down what flies overhead is not prudent.

Exactly. This is not about discrediting anyone, especially not Stan Meyer. If it weren't for him, we would not even be talking about this. We can only imagine what he must have gone trough when his car stopped working and no one was able to figure out why this happened.

I mean, he went everywhere, even to NASA. He KNEW it worked. He had PROVEN that is was possible, but ran into brick walls everywhere he went.

Yet, he never gave up. All he wanted is to make this a better world for all of us.

And we OWE it to him and our children to make this happen. And now that we understand HOW it works, we have everything we need to do so. We can't change the past, but we can change the future.

And that's what we are going to do, working "open source" together, so NO ONE can stop this anymore. You simply can't kill an idea.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo

Quote

There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 06:27 PM

Is it enough to just rely on the electro polishing process to form the dielectric layer? or do we still need to further coat the SS in a material such as the potassium mentioned or other similar material such as baking soda?

There is no doubt Stan was working on different kinds of dielectric layers, but would such a material hamper or assist an electro polished surface?

Yes, it is enough to form a dielectric layer, although it is not optimized for the application. However, Stan has proven that it can be done with off-the-shelf "scrap" metal. Once that has been proven, there are lots of possibilities to improve the system even further.

The various "conditioning" methods mentioned essentially do grow a dielectric layer on the tubes/plates, BUT these are of a lower quality than what can be achieved with electropolishing. When you look at the electropolishing process, you see that to do it properly, you need multiple steps of cleaning, etc. You need to control the amount of current going trough the metal, which needs to be a considerable current. You need to control temperature, you need to take care of gasses which are formed, which you should not want to inhale, etc. etc.

In other words: a properly performed electropolishing process is essentially a high quality version of the various "conditioning" processes performed by a number of experimenters.



For all I can tell, Stan did not consider dielectric layers being present on his tubes. I am not aware of any information whatsoever suggesting he talked about "conditioning" or insulating his stainless.

Quote from lamare on September 13th, 2013, 12:47 AM

Quote from Heuristicobfuscation on September 12th, 2013, 07:04 PM

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

If it did, why can we find videos of Meyer explaining and showing the car, but not a single one wherein the car is actually running? Why would he not show the car running, unless it was uncapable of doing so?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...


Did he use the water injector technology?  yes..

The evidence is clearly documented see attached pic of Gms-unit..
it clearly  shows electronic controls for the injectors.....total of 4..
which by the way was connected on the dune buggy before it was dismantled...

There is video documentation showing step by step of the dune buggy build .. I mean it is like painstaiking evidence of a retrofit operation.. Stan shows in detail how he puts together the different parts of the dune buggy with multiple technicians, machinist and his brother an electronics tech all involved in the operation. its all on the video.

in the attached pic one can see water fuel injector in  Stans hand... in other pic one can see dune buggy with same water fuel injector line...

How many videos of dune buggy running down street do we need to see to convince ourselves that the technology worked?

to me the amount of evidence is overwhelming....so overwhelming that a complete replica of this system will take an individual years to match... who has the technical know how to simultaneously apply multifaceted knowledge in the fields of electrical, electronic, mechanical, machinist, system engineering, etc., etc.,
and not to mention the time and financial  strain imposed upon the individual..
In most of his lectures he mentions he underestimated the amount of work and time it would take to bring together all his ideas it took him over a decade to develop the technology where originally he estimated 6 to 8 months!.

think about that ...and here we are in our garages trying to mimic that work.. We would greatly overcomplicate a "replica" speculating on what if's.. and not sticking to the facts.

We need to give Stan a little more credit...credibility... the guy went after high school and worked for high tech company's..his fields covered heart monitors, validator system for banking institutions, Actar system for the Oceanography field, EBED concept for Star Wars.

The point is that it was running in the beginning of the 1980s and has been shown to run on TV, BUT it has NOT been shown to run after about 1985.

THAT is what this is all about.

Why was it shown running before around 1985 and never ever again??

As for your question of how many videos we would need showing the car running AFTER 1985 to convince ourselves that the LATER (injector) technology has actually ever worked in the sense that they were able to run the car with it:

A single one which can be placed somewhere AFTER about 1985 showing the engine running would do. To me, just a witness testimony of someone who was actually there and saw the car running AFTER about 1985 would also do.

Once again, the point is not that the car never ran. It did, BUT it did in the beginning of the 1980s, NOT after about 1985!



And then the curious testing of his metal in december 1982.

Why?

Why test the metal of his tubes, which he likely got from a scrap yard?


Taken this together, we can speculate that there was something special with the tubes he used in his WORKING car, back around 1980, and he was unable to repeat his success later. The car simply never ran on water again, not even when the BBC came to his place in 1992 to make a documentary.

Why did he not simply restore his old version then and show his car running, as he did before?


Because his original tubes had worn out and it did not work anymore, that's why. And he did not have any idea what caused this, so he had his tubes tested. And since they ONLY tested for the composition of the metal, all he found out was that it was ordinary 304 stainless.

So, what was so special about this first set of tubes?


My theory, based on a lot of observations and a solid theoretic basis, concludes that a dielectric layer needs to be present on the tubes in order to get a process with a COP >> 1:

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=1168

So, then the question becomes: are there "special" kinds of stainless steel, which have such a dielectric layer?

The answer is: yes, electropolishing gives a much thicker layer of Cr2O3 as other "passivation" methods do, which is an insulator and a dielectric, with similar properties as aluminum oxide, which is used in most electrolytic capacitors as a dielectric layer. And the way layers of aluminum oxide are formed in electrolytic capacitors is essentially the same process as "electropolishing".

So, everything adds up and the discovery of Stan having it's tubes tested in 1982 is just one of the many datapoints suggesting that my theory is most likely correct.

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 12th, 2013, 07:42 PM

Quote from Heuristicobfuscation on September 12th, 2013, 07:04 PM

Quote from lamare on September 11th, 2013, 01:16 PM

This begs the question: did the injector system ever work?

The fact is that the dune buggy worked!  "it was running"!..we se it on that first video posted...

Why there is no more documented  video of the dune buggy working ? Who knows?  We can only speculate as to why...can we provide speculation as fact? I hope not, we would be chasing our tales...

Once the principle is proofed, the rest becomes oversee-able work. If you build everything to Stan's specs you still have nothing. You have to find his secrets, where does he get his big HHO production from? And such OverUnity keypoints in all these inventions are the ones needed to be understood and can be tested without the rest of the total invention. Atleast mostly the case.

So its not like discrediting Stan, its using deduction to point towards possible clue's.

Its to us if we think its convincing enough to try the elementary test on these clue's.

And i for one thank Lamare that he brings in new perspectives.

Eagerness to shoot down what flies overhead is not prudent.

Exactly. This is not about discrediting anyone, especially not Stan Meyer. If it weren't for him, we would not even be talking about this. We can only imagine what he must have gone trough when his car stopped working and no one was able to figure out why this happened.

I mean, he went everywhere, even to NASA. He KNEW it worked. He had PROVEN that is was possible, but ran into brick walls everywhere he went.

Yet, he never gave up. All he wanted is to make this a better world for all of us.

And we OWE it to him and our children to make this happen. And now that we understand HOW it works, we have everything we need to do so. We can't change the past, but we can change the future.

And that's what we are going to do, working "open source" together, so NO ONE can stop this anymore. You simply can't kill an idea.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Victor_Hugo

Quote

There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.

Quote from zaneaussie on September 12th, 2013, 06:27 PM

Is it enough to just rely on the electro polishing process to form the dielectric layer? or do we still need to further coat the SS in a material such as the potassium mentioned or other similar material such as baking soda?

There is no doubt Stan was working on different kinds of dielectric layers, but would such a material hamper or assist an electro polished surface?

Yes, it is enough to form a dielectric layer, although it is not optimized for the application. However, Stan has proven that it can be done with off-the-shelf "scrap" metal. Once that has been proven, there are lots of possibilities to improve the system even further.

The various "conditioning" methods mentioned essentially do grow a dielectric layer on the tubes/plates, BUT these are of a lower quality than what can be achieved with electropolishing. When you look at the electropolishing process, you see that to do it properly, you need multiple steps of cleaning, etc. You need to control the amount of current going trough the metal, which needs to be a considerable current. You need to control temperature, you need to take care of gasses which are formed, which you should not want to inhale, etc. etc.

In other words: a properly performed electropolishing process is essentially a high quality version of the various "conditioning" processes performed by a number of experimenters.



For all I can tell, Stan did not consider dielectric layers being present on his tubes. I am not aware of any information whatsoever suggesting he talked about "conditioning" or insulating his stainless.

Hey again Lamare,

All very good points and also informative. If there is no other dielectrics needed to further condition the tubes then do you think that a DIY (Do it yourself) process for electro polishing is sufficient or does it have to be done professionally in which case it could become expensive depending on the amount of SS one is coating?

Quote from zaneaussie on September 13th, 2013, 01:43 AM

Hey again Lamare,

All very good points and also informative. If there is no other dielectrics needed to further condition the tubes then do you think that a DIY (Do it yourself) process for electro polishing is sufficient or does it have to be done professionally in which case it could become expensive depending on the amount of SS one is coating?

Well, there is no reason why one could not use a DIY process, provided one works carefully and precise and takes care of personal safety, because it appears (poisonous?) gas does come free during the process.

When one considers that even low quality conditioning processes work, one is tempted to conclude that any reasonably performed DIY electropolishing process should be perfectly adequate for proving the concept. Also consider Bedini's batteries, for example. These also show the wanted behavior without any attempt to consciously create a suitable layer.

The quality of the layer does not have to be extremely high in order for the concept to work. The higher the quality of the layer, the less current will be needed. But who cares whether one needs, say, 500 milliamps or, say, 100 milliamps???


As a matter of fact, when you DIY, you have the opportunity to tune the process to the application and thus can improve the system that way.

However, the easiest way to test this, is to find a source of off-the-shelf electropolished stainless. Since this used all over the place in the food processing industry, including farmers' milking installations, chances are pretty good one can find suitable tubes for reasonable prices at various stores and shops. The problem is that these are specified in terms of roughness, etc. and not in terms of thickness of the layer, so it may be challenging to figure out which particular items can be used and which not.