Lamare, you are obviously putting a good deal of time and effort into attempting to substantiate your theory regarding what you consider to be Meyer's secret, and I applaud you for that, but I really do think that you are, 'barking up the wrong tree', so as to speak. I do feel strongly that your faith in the oxide layer being the magic ingredient is somewhat misplaced and I rather hope that you won't be expending too much time and money on this line of inquiry.
I should add that I do not say this on a whim, I do not say this lightly, rather I say this because my research and involvement in this area over the many years has led me to a much better understanding of the various processes taking place. Rather like yourself then, I too believe that I finally understand what is happening in Meyer's WFC, and indeed the science behind it.
So, where to start? And how do I go about this without upsetting people?
Okay, not sure I can actually do this without upsetting some people so I'll just be my regular old, blunt, straight-to-the-point, self.
For me it all started with Stan Meyer, he was the one that got me interested, got me thinking, and when I first got my hands on a copy of his HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS Technical Brief, I thought all my birthdays had come at once, I thought I was holding the Holy Grail. However, my excitement was pretty short-lived when I began to see rather blatant flaws in not only the science therein, but also the electronic theory he put forward to support his claims. The more I read, the more in-depth I looked, the less comfortable I became, until sadly I finally came to the only conclusion open to me: Meyer's Technical Brief was all meaningless gobbledegook!
Now, before you all jump down my throat, let me say this: I'm not saying Meyer did not have a working WFC, I'm not even saying he did not have a WFC running his buggy (though I am highly sceptical). No, what I am suggesting, is that Meyer had very little education in science or electronics and so ended up simply making it up as he went along. A little harsh maybe, but there is really no point in looking at it through rose-tinted glasses. Clearly Meyer's explanation of how his WFC works and indeed the science he forwards to support it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because although his Technical Brief may at first seem to be a comprehensively detailed work of great value, it is flawed to such a degree as to be at best an irritation and at worst a great hindrance to progress. Ultimately, for some people, Meyer's insistence on writing pages and pages of nonsensical pseudoscience have led to many years of wasted time and sheer frustration.
I know it's a big step to trash Meyer's Technical Brief, but unfortunately if you really do want to progress, if you really do want to move forward, then you really do have to get over this hurdle and totally disregard most of what Meyer has written. Put bluntly, just file the Technical Brief in the bin, stop being bogged down with all the nonsense therein and start looking at things from a new and fresh perspective.
So now that I've got that off my chest and no doubt made some new friends in the process, let me tell you how I see things and provide you with a little science.
First, let me say that I am not convinced that Meyer's WFC was using any kind of free, or zero point energy as has been proposed in the past.
For some reason many people seem to think that anyone achieving over-Faraday results, must be tapping into zero point energy, and indeed at one time I was also giving consideration to this possibility. However, there is more than one way to dissociate the water molecule, and most are more efficient than Faraday.
To achieve over-Faraday results from an electrolyser you have to produce an effect that is not governed by Faraday's laws. With Faraday's laws, 2 electrons will produce a hydrogen molecule at the cathode; one electron is not enough, three is one too many. There is no way around this; whatever else is going on, however efficient or inefficient the electrolyser, we always need 2 electrons in order to produce a hydrogen molecule. It really couldn't be any simpler, and that is why I always insist that Faraday electrolysis can be nothing less than 100% efficient. This is not to say that gas output can't be improved upon, because a poorly designed or incorrectly built electrolyser may have side reactions occurring that detract from gas output and also be very power inefficient. But the key thing is, that Faraday's laws are governed by charge and charge exchanges at the electrodes.
Straight DC will really only provide standard Faraday Electrolysis, irrespective of electrode cross hatching or cell conditioning. Electrode cross hatching or etching is never a bad thing as it can greatly increase the surface area exposed to the electrolyte, it also provides a surface key for the build up of a mineral coating, if required.
Initial cell conditioning is mainly all about the removal of impurities and reactive metal from the electrode surfaces. Until this is achieved, such side reactions may well take precedence over the preferred reactions, so limiting gas output, and of course you get crud precipitating into the electrolyte. As any reactive surface metals are removed, more chromium is exposed to the water which immediately reacts with oxygen to become chromium oxide. So basically what happens is that the integrity of the protective chromium oxide layer is improved upon. Note though: this protective layer is only atoms thick and does not become thicker as such, because it relies on contact with oxygen, so only the chromium atoms exposed to oxygen reacts to form the protective oxide layer.
This is why I struggle to understand the logic behind the electropolishing that Lamare is suggesting. It may well improve the structural integrity of the oxide layer, but also, on a microscopic scale, it reduces surface irregularities. Therefore, in my opinion, all that will be achieved is a vast reduction of the electrode surface area. But time will no doubt tell it's own story on this.
DC pulsing electrolysis, is however a completely different story. Unlike with standard DC electrolysis, the cell can act far more like a capacitor, and this in itself can change things immensely.
High voltage pulses can charge up the electrodes simply because usual Faraday charge reactions at the electrodes cannot take place fast enough, this effectively creates an Electric Double Layer Capacitor. But note that the dielectric is not the chromium oxide layer, not a mineral layer, nor is it the water or electrolyte itself: it is actually just the interface between the charged electrode and the water or electrolyte. This interface acts as a dielectric, and being only nanometres thick, can result in a very high capacitance.
If a single high voltage pulse is applied to the electrodes, this electric double layer phenomenon is induced, but then quickly discharges when the pulse elapses as the reaction of Faraday charge exchanges continue until neutralised. The time it takes the electrodes/electrolyte to discharge is heavily dependent upon the amount of ions within the electrolyte, so obviously discharge will take place far more quickly through a solution of KOH than it would deionised water.
I should just add that voltage pulses do not necessarily have to be that high in order to create an electric double layer capacitor phenomenon, as it only requires that the charge exchange rate between the electrode and the electrolyte is exceeded. Obviously for this to happen, a higher voltage pulse would be required, by, for example an ion rich KOH solution than would be required by deionised water.
Things become a little more interesting when we apply continuous fast, high voltage pulses. Now, the relaxation time between pulses may not allow the electrodes to fully discharge and so we can see the possibility of a step-charging process taking place. Now, we can get an extremely high voltage building up across the electric double layer capacitor, and this is where Faraday's laws begin to fail, because the gas evolving is no longer dependent on the current flowing through the cell.
So, what happens is that there inevitably comes a point at which the density of charges and hence the potential across the electric double layer capacitor reaches critical mass, at which time, electrons (when considering the cathode) solvate into the electrolyte and react with neutral water molecules to produce OH- and H. So now, all of a sudden we have hydroxyl ions and hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen atoms link to become a hydrogen molecule and evolve as gas, whilst the hydroxyl ion can donate its extra electron back to the cathode, which is now more positive than the ion rich area next to it. This releases the oxygen atom, which then unites with another to evolve as O2. So with this process, rather unusually, we can get both hydrogen and oxygen evolving at the cathode.
So forget all about voltage doing all the work and literally pulling the water molecules apart as Meyer would have you believe, because this is just plainly an exercise in ignorance, and as can be seen, the reality is a little different.
And here's something really interesting, and something that has baffled people forever and a day, (mainly I should add because of Meyer's continual reference to resonance): The infamous Blocking Diode.
Well, this is why it's there and what it does: The Blocking Diode serves to stop the electrons that build up on the cathode from discharging backwards into the circuit. Without this semiconductor in place, the step-charging effect can not be produced and charges on the electrodes can not reach a point at which they will effectively discharge through the electrolyte to interact with water molecules as described above.
Meyer used the term resonance frequently, which was something else that has mystified people, because clearly his circuit could not resonate. Resonance is normally associated with tuned LC ccts and AC, not pulsed DC ccts that contain diodes, but even so, Meyer insisted on talking about tuned resonant ccts and depicting RLC formulae in his technical Brief. But, along with bungling his way along with flawed science, he also had a real knack of using incorrect terminology to describe what he was seeing. To my mind. 'Resonance' is something else that can be filed in the bin - at least for now.
To effectively create the electric double layer capacitor in an electrolyser, not only do we require the necessary electronics along with a certain set of conditions, but we also have to meet a set of parameters specific to each individual electrolyser.
Paramount to success is of course the pulsing equipment or cct employed. It must be able to provide short, sharp pulses, at various frequencies. There will be a certain voltage of pulse and a certain frequency that create the desired effect in any given electrolyser, so the pulsing circuitry needs to be variable.
Incidentally, Meyer's mysterious VIC is again, rather fanciful, invented terminology to describe a pulse transformer.
You do have to consider the variables that will influence the effect: Deionised water will necessitate the lowest frequency and voltage in order to produce the effect, but again, every cell will be different. The more electrode surface area the greater the time to build up the necessary charge density. The lower the pulse frequency the lower the capacitance of the electric double layer. All things that have to be considered and taken into account. Ultimately a little trial and error will be involved.
To my mind achieving this effect is what Meyer somewhat misleadingly referred to as 'Resonance'. Though I'm not comfortable with Meyer's terminology, I guess in a manner of speaking there is something akin to a resonant action taking place under these conditions as the electrodes continuously charge and discharge.
Though I do now have a much better grasp on the science involved, and hence I'm much happier, I still struggle to accept the various claims made by the likes of Meyer and Boyce regarding the volumes of gas they are/were able to achieve. In fact I tend to think such claims are every bit as fanciful and colourful as their writings.
There has been a lot of nonsense posted on the subject for many years now. Numerous charlatans and conmen plying their trade and indeed a multitude of misinformation merchants adding their bit to the mix, so caution has always been the order of the day. Sorting the wheat from the chafe can ultimately be rather demanding and I've spent many years researching, experimenting and indeed pondering.
I truly believe that the information I have provided here answers most, if not all, of the questions that Meyer and his water fuel cell have posed over the years. Indeed I am quite confident that I have cleared up much of the mystery and confusion that threw a veil over the real science. Of course what you choose to believe, or what you choose to do with this information is entirely up to yourselves.
I should add that I do not say this on a whim, I do not say this lightly, rather I say this because my research and involvement in this area over the many years has led me to a much better understanding of the various processes taking place. Rather like yourself then, I too believe that I finally understand what is happening in Meyer's WFC, and indeed the science behind it.
So, where to start? And how do I go about this without upsetting people?
Okay, not sure I can actually do this without upsetting some people so I'll just be my regular old, blunt, straight-to-the-point, self.
For me it all started with Stan Meyer, he was the one that got me interested, got me thinking, and when I first got my hands on a copy of his HYDROGEN FRACTURING PROCESS Technical Brief, I thought all my birthdays had come at once, I thought I was holding the Holy Grail. However, my excitement was pretty short-lived when I began to see rather blatant flaws in not only the science therein, but also the electronic theory he put forward to support his claims. The more I read, the more in-depth I looked, the less comfortable I became, until sadly I finally came to the only conclusion open to me: Meyer's Technical Brief was all meaningless gobbledegook!
Now, before you all jump down my throat, let me say this: I'm not saying Meyer did not have a working WFC, I'm not even saying he did not have a WFC running his buggy (though I am highly sceptical). No, what I am suggesting, is that Meyer had very little education in science or electronics and so ended up simply making it up as he went along. A little harsh maybe, but there is really no point in looking at it through rose-tinted glasses. Clearly Meyer's explanation of how his WFC works and indeed the science he forwards to support it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because although his Technical Brief may at first seem to be a comprehensively detailed work of great value, it is flawed to such a degree as to be at best an irritation and at worst a great hindrance to progress. Ultimately, for some people, Meyer's insistence on writing pages and pages of nonsensical pseudoscience have led to many years of wasted time and sheer frustration.
I know it's a big step to trash Meyer's Technical Brief, but unfortunately if you really do want to progress, if you really do want to move forward, then you really do have to get over this hurdle and totally disregard most of what Meyer has written. Put bluntly, just file the Technical Brief in the bin, stop being bogged down with all the nonsense therein and start looking at things from a new and fresh perspective.
So now that I've got that off my chest and no doubt made some new friends in the process, let me tell you how I see things and provide you with a little science.
First, let me say that I am not convinced that Meyer's WFC was using any kind of free, or zero point energy as has been proposed in the past.
For some reason many people seem to think that anyone achieving over-Faraday results, must be tapping into zero point energy, and indeed at one time I was also giving consideration to this possibility. However, there is more than one way to dissociate the water molecule, and most are more efficient than Faraday.
To achieve over-Faraday results from an electrolyser you have to produce an effect that is not governed by Faraday's laws. With Faraday's laws, 2 electrons will produce a hydrogen molecule at the cathode; one electron is not enough, three is one too many. There is no way around this; whatever else is going on, however efficient or inefficient the electrolyser, we always need 2 electrons in order to produce a hydrogen molecule. It really couldn't be any simpler, and that is why I always insist that Faraday electrolysis can be nothing less than 100% efficient. This is not to say that gas output can't be improved upon, because a poorly designed or incorrectly built electrolyser may have side reactions occurring that detract from gas output and also be very power inefficient. But the key thing is, that Faraday's laws are governed by charge and charge exchanges at the electrodes.
Straight DC will really only provide standard Faraday Electrolysis, irrespective of electrode cross hatching or cell conditioning. Electrode cross hatching or etching is never a bad thing as it can greatly increase the surface area exposed to the electrolyte, it also provides a surface key for the build up of a mineral coating, if required.
Initial cell conditioning is mainly all about the removal of impurities and reactive metal from the electrode surfaces. Until this is achieved, such side reactions may well take precedence over the preferred reactions, so limiting gas output, and of course you get crud precipitating into the electrolyte. As any reactive surface metals are removed, more chromium is exposed to the water which immediately reacts with oxygen to become chromium oxide. So basically what happens is that the integrity of the protective chromium oxide layer is improved upon. Note though: this protective layer is only atoms thick and does not become thicker as such, because it relies on contact with oxygen, so only the chromium atoms exposed to oxygen reacts to form the protective oxide layer.
This is why I struggle to understand the logic behind the electropolishing that Lamare is suggesting. It may well improve the structural integrity of the oxide layer, but also, on a microscopic scale, it reduces surface irregularities. Therefore, in my opinion, all that will be achieved is a vast reduction of the electrode surface area. But time will no doubt tell it's own story on this.
DC pulsing electrolysis, is however a completely different story. Unlike with standard DC electrolysis, the cell can act far more like a capacitor, and this in itself can change things immensely.
High voltage pulses can charge up the electrodes simply because usual Faraday charge reactions at the electrodes cannot take place fast enough, this effectively creates an Electric Double Layer Capacitor. But note that the dielectric is not the chromium oxide layer, not a mineral layer, nor is it the water or electrolyte itself: it is actually just the interface between the charged electrode and the water or electrolyte. This interface acts as a dielectric, and being only nanometres thick, can result in a very high capacitance.
If a single high voltage pulse is applied to the electrodes, this electric double layer phenomenon is induced, but then quickly discharges when the pulse elapses as the reaction of Faraday charge exchanges continue until neutralised. The time it takes the electrodes/electrolyte to discharge is heavily dependent upon the amount of ions within the electrolyte, so obviously discharge will take place far more quickly through a solution of KOH than it would deionised water.
I should just add that voltage pulses do not necessarily have to be that high in order to create an electric double layer capacitor phenomenon, as it only requires that the charge exchange rate between the electrode and the electrolyte is exceeded. Obviously for this to happen, a higher voltage pulse would be required, by, for example an ion rich KOH solution than would be required by deionised water.
Things become a little more interesting when we apply continuous fast, high voltage pulses. Now, the relaxation time between pulses may not allow the electrodes to fully discharge and so we can see the possibility of a step-charging process taking place. Now, we can get an extremely high voltage building up across the electric double layer capacitor, and this is where Faraday's laws begin to fail, because the gas evolving is no longer dependent on the current flowing through the cell.
So, what happens is that there inevitably comes a point at which the density of charges and hence the potential across the electric double layer capacitor reaches critical mass, at which time, electrons (when considering the cathode) solvate into the electrolyte and react with neutral water molecules to produce OH- and H. So now, all of a sudden we have hydroxyl ions and hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen atoms link to become a hydrogen molecule and evolve as gas, whilst the hydroxyl ion can donate its extra electron back to the cathode, which is now more positive than the ion rich area next to it. This releases the oxygen atom, which then unites with another to evolve as O2. So with this process, rather unusually, we can get both hydrogen and oxygen evolving at the cathode.
So forget all about voltage doing all the work and literally pulling the water molecules apart as Meyer would have you believe, because this is just plainly an exercise in ignorance, and as can be seen, the reality is a little different.
And here's something really interesting, and something that has baffled people forever and a day, (mainly I should add because of Meyer's continual reference to resonance): The infamous Blocking Diode.
Well, this is why it's there and what it does: The Blocking Diode serves to stop the electrons that build up on the cathode from discharging backwards into the circuit. Without this semiconductor in place, the step-charging effect can not be produced and charges on the electrodes can not reach a point at which they will effectively discharge through the electrolyte to interact with water molecules as described above.
Meyer used the term resonance frequently, which was something else that has mystified people, because clearly his circuit could not resonate. Resonance is normally associated with tuned LC ccts and AC, not pulsed DC ccts that contain diodes, but even so, Meyer insisted on talking about tuned resonant ccts and depicting RLC formulae in his technical Brief. But, along with bungling his way along with flawed science, he also had a real knack of using incorrect terminology to describe what he was seeing. To my mind. 'Resonance' is something else that can be filed in the bin - at least for now.
To effectively create the electric double layer capacitor in an electrolyser, not only do we require the necessary electronics along with a certain set of conditions, but we also have to meet a set of parameters specific to each individual electrolyser.
Paramount to success is of course the pulsing equipment or cct employed. It must be able to provide short, sharp pulses, at various frequencies. There will be a certain voltage of pulse and a certain frequency that create the desired effect in any given electrolyser, so the pulsing circuitry needs to be variable.
Incidentally, Meyer's mysterious VIC is again, rather fanciful, invented terminology to describe a pulse transformer.
You do have to consider the variables that will influence the effect: Deionised water will necessitate the lowest frequency and voltage in order to produce the effect, but again, every cell will be different. The more electrode surface area the greater the time to build up the necessary charge density. The lower the pulse frequency the lower the capacitance of the electric double layer. All things that have to be considered and taken into account. Ultimately a little trial and error will be involved.
To my mind achieving this effect is what Meyer somewhat misleadingly referred to as 'Resonance'. Though I'm not comfortable with Meyer's terminology, I guess in a manner of speaking there is something akin to a resonant action taking place under these conditions as the electrodes continuously charge and discharge.
Though I do now have a much better grasp on the science involved, and hence I'm much happier, I still struggle to accept the various claims made by the likes of Meyer and Boyce regarding the volumes of gas they are/were able to achieve. In fact I tend to think such claims are every bit as fanciful and colourful as their writings.
There has been a lot of nonsense posted on the subject for many years now. Numerous charlatans and conmen plying their trade and indeed a multitude of misinformation merchants adding their bit to the mix, so caution has always been the order of the day. Sorting the wheat from the chafe can ultimately be rather demanding and I've spent many years researching, experimenting and indeed pondering.
I truly believe that the information I have provided here answers most, if not all, of the questions that Meyer and his water fuel cell have posed over the years. Indeed I am quite confident that I have cleared up much of the mystery and confusion that threw a veil over the real science. Of course what you choose to believe, or what you choose to do with this information is entirely up to yourselves.
