Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Farrah Day

Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« on September 21st, 2013, 05:52 AM »
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.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #1, on September 21st, 2013, 10:56 AM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 10:57 AM by Jeff Nading
Greetings Farrah
First I want to say, some of the research that has been done has led many down the wrong path and appreciate what was expressed to Lamare, by not spending to much time, on the idea or endeavor of electropolishing electrodes. I think it is worth a try for no other reason than to eliminate another possibility. I'm not saying we will try everyone's whim or idea that comes along, but he does give good reasoning's as to why electropolishing should be experimented with.
I myself am not a scientist, all I can go by is what I have experienced from testing theory and from what others have proven, documented and experienced themselves.
So, with that being said, please do not take affence at this, because I mean this in the humblest of ways, can you "please" share with us the documented proofs you have, that we need to spring forward so as not to waste precious time?

Thank you Farrah. :D

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #2, on September 21st, 2013, 11:41 AM »
Hmm this is an old post..

nothing new, read it already on the other forum..


Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #3, on September 21st, 2013, 11:56 AM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 12:38 PM by Farrah Day
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 11:41 AM
Hmm this is an old post..

nothing new, read it already on the other forum..
An old post? Interesting as I only decided to post this info in the last couple of days. And I know of no one else that has proffered this explanation to the workings of Meyer's WFC.

'Nothing new' :huh:  So are you saying you knew all this already? Care then to offer any critique or provide your thoughts on the subject?
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2013, 10:56 AM
Greetings Farrah
First I want to say, some of the research that has been done has led many down the wrong path and appreciate what was expressed to Lamare, by not spending to much time, on the idea or endeavor of electropolishing electrodes. I think it is worth a try for no other reason than to eliminate another possibility. I'm not saying we will try everyone's whim or idea that comes along, but he does give good reasoning's as to why electropolishing should be experimented with.
I myself am not a scientist, all I can go by is what I have experienced from testing theory and from what others have proven, documented and experienced themselves.
So, with that being said, please do not take affence at this, because I mean this in the humblest of ways, can you "please" share with us the documented proofs you have, that we need to spring forward so as not to waste precious time?

Thank you Farrah. :D
I actually have quite a good workshop, built a few years back solely for my research and experiments and I'm continually learning from my experiments. I sort of gave up on forums a while back as no one seemed too interested in real science, and most people didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. In fact I found it quite depressing just how many people, active or involved in this field, did not even understand Faraday's laws of electrolysis. Surely a prerequisite in this field of work! Intelligent discussion became so hard to find that I sort of threw in the towel. However, my work has always been continuing in the background.

It was a real breakthrough when it finally dawned on me what could be happening in Meyer's WFC, and that was down to learning about the Electric Double Layer Capacitor.

And, this is the thing, Jeff: Once you know what you are looking for, once you know exactly what conditions you are trying to achieve and why, and indeed what you need from the electronics to recreate those conditions, things make a whole lot more sense. Everything becomes a whole lot more meaningful and attaining your goal no longer just seems like a distant dream.

So since then I have been focussing all of my attention on creating the electric double layer capacitor effect.

My posts always tend to be somewhat controversial as I've always lacked a certain tact and diplomacy. In the past I've quickly grown tired of uneducated halfwits posing as authorities that are capable of nothing other than posting utter garbage, and usually said as much, which has never made me the most popular person on the forum. But I'll endeavour to be sociable here and answer any questions anyone has.

If and when interest in what I have claimed develops, I'll go through it in more detail. There seems little point in me adding anything further until I get some more responses to my post and discussion develops - testing the water, so as to speak. I have no reason to withhold any information or results of my experiments, so bare with me and I'll add more information and more details of my work as we go.  

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #4, on September 21st, 2013, 11:58 AM »Last edited on October 15th, 2015, 07:36 AM
Most interesting, looking forward to see where this goes :-)

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #5, on September 21st, 2013, 12:58 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 01:28 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 11:56 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 11:41 AM
Hmm this is an old post..

nothing new, read it already on the other forum..
An old post? Interesting as I only decided to post this info in the last couple of days. And I know of no one else that has proffered this explanation to the workings of Meyer's WFC.

'Nothing new' :huh:  So are you saying you knew all this already? Care then to offer any critique or provide your thoughts on the subject?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=7cbb3321a1fd1267eaf90f629dcd31fc&topic=2212.msg33651#msg33651

I thought this one looked a lot like it, sorry if they are not..

Thing is, i read all your postings in that thread and came across sentences i recognized, at the start and finish of your text above. So that's what i meant, not extra new to me because i read there the last couple of days.

I can't say i have much critique, it sounds all plausible, so then more the question becomes; have you tried it out etc.

Maybe where i differ from what you say, is that i think that an electric field has a wider sphere of influence. And i also think that resonance can help, when used properly.



Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #6, on September 21st, 2013, 01:02 PM »
Yes that's my post from a couple of days ago.

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #7, on September 21st, 2013, 01:46 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 01:48 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 01:02 PM
Yes that's my post from a couple of days ago.
See? That's way old then..  ;)

Farrah Day


FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #9, on September 21st, 2013, 01:58 PM »
What do you think of these idea's Farrah?


I think that when the plates are as close as in the normal settings, a couple of millimeters apart, so as they stay in the optimum range for a 2 volt distance.
And one produces an electric field with 10-20 volt strength, that its influence sphere will be great enough. Just look at how far an electro static field reaches, by rubbing a balloon.... so the water will also be acting like a dielectric.

And then from both sides... so they will easily bridge the cap and cover all the water/electrolyte. And then vibrating the field so that the H-side will stretch out, one gets a lot of Brown's gas.. sure, in theory yet, but not unreasonable.

Maybe, to maximize this alignment, one should have two negative electrodes, (splitting the positive..splitting the negative..the Gray-way) a bit more spaced, vibrating at the frequency that H- and -O reside, so both H-'s can align each to one electrode..and also making the space grow like a jacob's ladder could stretch and or breakup the H-O-H configuration, whatever one needs.


Otherwise, compare it with the russian idea here: (Do-able) project 1

http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/...28#pid9028



lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #10, on September 21st, 2013, 02:38 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 02:38 PM by lamare
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 05:52 AM
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.
Hi Farrah,

First of all, you won't upset me with anything brought forth in a respectful manner, meant as a search for the truth. To the contrary, I love the exchange of ideas and new perspectives I haven't considered before.


I don't have the time to study the whole thing and react on it now, but I do want to point you to the work of Prof. Pollack regarding the water interface. His research is very interesting and appears to connect also to the work of Chris Eckman on Brown's gas, which is definitely a real phenomenon playing a role in these kinds of systems, although very little is known about this in main stream literature.

I reposted more about this on my thread:
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=1401&pid=18272#pid18272

Prof. Pollack's researchs points to the existence of what he calls "exclusion zone", which forms whenever water comes into contact with a hydrophobic material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophobe
Quote
In chemistry, hydrophobicity (from the Attic Greek hydro, meaning water, and phobos, meaning fear) is the physical property of a molecule (known as a hydrophobe) that is repelled from a mass of water.

Hydrophobic molecules tend to be non-polar and, thus, prefer other neutral molecules and non-polar solvents. Hydrophobic molecules in water often cluster together, forming micelles. Water on hydrophobic surfaces will exhibit a high contact angle.

Examples of hydrophobic molecules include the alkanes, oils, fats, and greasy substances in general. Hydrophobic materials are used for oil removal from water, the management of oil spills, and chemical separation processes to remove non-polar substances from polar compounds.
This presentation says Chromium oxide is hydrophobic:

http://www.slideshare.net/crazyaxe/chromium-problems-presentation
Quote
Chromium oxide stabile in alkaline solutions up to pH 15

Chromium oxide is water repellant (hydrophobic) and may act as a barrier coating towards water

Self healing effect: hexavalent chromium present in the conversion coating that may react at mechanical damages
The slides do not say which specific Chromium oxide is referred to (there are more than one), but if Cr2O3 is indeed hydrophobic then the effect discovered by Pollack would be likely to occur when stainless steel is submerged in water.

Either way, this "EZ" phenomenon is very interesting and a MUST see for anyone interested in understanding the science behind the WFC:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS4PkR_BkRo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS4PkR_BkRo


FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #11, on September 21st, 2013, 02:55 PM »
Pollack also says the EZone grows under the right light.

The first thing i hoped for when i saw his lecture was..."desalinate seawater and bring fresh water to africa!"

Its an alignment thing with special properties. Don't know if it stays up there when electricity comes by, seems fragile and seems to be the natural way. How to make use of it?

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #12, on September 21st, 2013, 02:56 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 03:18 PM by lamare
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 05:52 AM
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.
Reduction of the electrode surface area is definitely a point of concern.

However, it is possible to grow a much thicker protective layer consisting of chromium oxide, just like this is being done with the growing of aluminum oxides in an electrolytic capacitor.

While it seems unlikely that oxygen atoms can penetrate the already existing layer, the same would go for aluminum oxide. Yet, when you run a current trough the metal and an appropriate electrolyte, you can actually grow a much thicker layer.

For chromium, one requires considerably higher currents and a considerable longer time to grow the layer, but it can be done nonetheless. I have experimented with aluminum and baking soda, and in that case growing the layer is a matter of seconds, while electropolishing requires in the order of 20 minutes to grow a layer which is thicker than 30 Angstrom. Still very thin, but thicker than normal nonetheless.

I have no idea what the limit could be when one were to use this process and gradually increase the voltage, while keeping the current trough the material and electrolyte constant.

Either way, to me it is clear that besides the undesirable reduction of surface area, one can grow a considerably thicker layer using a dedicated electrochemical process with a proper electrolyte.

Whether or not this is beneficial remains to be seen, indeed. I obviously think it is, while your opinion differs. We should be able to find out the coming months, though.

Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 05:52 AM
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.
Hmm. Here's where we clearly differ in opinion. Water is a polar molecule and thus the presence of an electric field in the water DOES enact an force upon the dipoles within the molecule. Now whatever that might do, it is clear that it does SOMETHING.

When the field is strong enough, there is no doubt in my mind that dielectric breakdown of the water DOES occur:

http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/panorama/physics/dla/DBM/DBM.html
Quote
Dielectric breakdown refers to the formation of electrically conducting regions in an insulating material exposed to a strong electric field.

For example, the intense electric fields during thunderstorms can produce a conducting path in the air along which many electrons flow (lightning).
http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/savg/vis/dielectric/
Quote
What is a Dielectric Breakdown?

High-voltage transformers contain oil as their insulating dielectric. When a critical electric field is exceeded, conduction paths grow at microsecond speeds through the oil, in the form of branched trees, called streamers. These can lead to destructive breakdown.

Why is Dielectric Breakdown Important?

The intense ionization occurring at the branch tips is high-speed and sub-microscopic in size, so that it connot be observed directly. Overall shape, growth pattern, and timing of the streamer trees can be recorded. We simulate these features by a detailed probability model, which provides three-dimensional graphical output suitable for comparison against high-speed shadow photographs obtained in experiment.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AliceHong.shtml
Quote
Dielectric breakdown occurs when a charge buildup exceeds the electrical limit or dielectric strength of a material. The negatively charged electrons are pulled in one direction and the positively charged ions in the other. When electrons are removed from a nucleus, it becomes positively charged. When air molecules become ionized in a very high electric field, the air changes from an insulator to a conductor. Sparks occur because of the recombination of electrons and ions. Lightning occurs when there is a buildup of charge on the clouds and the ground. It produces the electric field that exceeds the dielectric strength of air. Ionized air is a good conductor and provides a path where by charges can flow from cloudsto ground.

The dielectric strength of air is approximately 3 kV/mm. Its exact value varies with the shape and size of the electrodes and increases with the pressure of the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_strength
Quote
Dielectric strength (in MV/m, or 106 Volt/meter) of various common materials:

[...]

Distilled Water    65 - 70
So, that's 70 kV/mm or 70 V/um for destilled water...

Now if dielectric breakdown occurs because of the presence of an electric field, the electrons which keep the molecule together are clearly ripped off. And thus the molecule falls apart.

In other words: IMHO it IS clearly possible to pull water molecules apart using nothing but an electric field, and that this is what happens when "dielectric breakdown" of the water occurs.



Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #13, on September 21st, 2013, 04:27 PM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 05:52 AM
... 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. ...
A very good post that I highly recommend people read and understand.  If I'm not mistaken, Stephen was the one that knew electronics, not Stan.

That said, the first thing that springs to mind is using a very small cell.  Why?  because I think the chances of dumping a high voltage spike across it and seeing the desired effect is much greater with a small cell, than a large one.  Very little resistance in a large cell.  Moderate resistance in a small cell that may be easily overcome with the proper pulsing circuit.  My gut sees a flyback transformer design with a high voltage, small picofarad charge cap--just enough to blast the water in the way Farrah Day suggests.  Maybe a fraction of a joule per pulse, but very fast and very potent.

Question is, has anyone tried such a design?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #14, on September 21st, 2013, 04:33 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 04:56 PM by Farrah Day
Lamare, I'm still not convinced that you get a thicker layer of oxide on the SS after electropolishing, and it certainly isn't grown as such. In fact it seems that electropolishing effectively just eats back into the SS removing surface irregularities and impurities and ultimately therefore just exposes more chromium to oxygen. Hence this is why I think that it is just a way of improving the overall structural integrity of the oxide layer rather than any thickening of it.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Yes, the water molecule is polar and yes it will align within an electric field, but it takes one hell of an electric field to pull it apart without any current flowing.

70,000 volts per mm, for pure distilled or deionized water - not everyday tap water which will conduct when you stick just a couple of volts across it. Water might be a good dielectric, but unlike solid dielectrics it generally makes for a very poor insulator. Besides, as I keep pointing out, you are expecting the electric field will sit across your dielectric oxide layer, not the water! And even if the water is electrically stressed, unless you are using ultra-pure deionised water, it will simply conduct long before you would get anywhere near catastrophic dielectric breakdown.  And let's face it Meyer clearly stated that he could use any old water.

Dielectric breakdown usually refers to something that is normally a good insulator which then fails and conducts current. Most water is surely a much better conductor than it is an insulator, apart from this, you don't want current flowing anyway do you?  So much of this seems at odds with itself, somewhat illogical and to my mind at least doesn't make much sense.

That said, the fact that we are both attacking this from different directions, with different expectations and different theories, will make things all the more interesting.
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 01:58 PM
What do you think of these idea's Farrah?


I think that when the plates are as close as in the normal settings, a couple of millimeters apart, so as they stay in the optimum range for a 2 volt distance.
And one produces an electric field with 10-20 volt strength, that its influence sphere will be great enough. Just look at how far an electro static field reaches, by rubbing a balloon.... so the water will also be acting like a dielectric.

And then from both sides... so they will easily bridge the cap and cover all the water/electrolyte. And then vibrating the field so that the H-side will stretch out, one gets a lot of Brown's gas.. sure, in theory yet, but not unreasonable.

Maybe, to maximize this alignment, one should have two negative electrodes, (splitting the positive..splitting the negative..the Gray-way) a bit more spaced, vibrating at the frequency that H- and -O reside, so both H-'s can align each to one electrode..and also making the space grow like a jacob's ladder could stretch and or breakup the H-O-H configuration, whatever one needs.


Otherwise, compare it with the russian idea here: (Do-able) project 1

http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/...28#pid9028
I don't really understand your post EZ.

Not sure what you mean by optimum range for a 2 volt distance?  2 volts will be 2 volts at any distance. But then you talk about one plate having a 10-20 volt strength :huh: I'm afraid you lost me here, makes absolutely no sense to me!

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #15, on September 21st, 2013, 06:25 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 08:42 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Farrah Day on September 21st, 2013, 04:33 PM
I don't really understand your post EZ.

Not sure what you mean by optimum range for a 2 volt distance?  2 volts will be 2 volts at any distance. But then you talk about one plate having a 10-20 volt strength :huh: I'm afraid you lost me here, makes absolutely no sense to me!
Have to look how to rephrase it, and maybe sketch something, a couple things may run through each other.

Maybe i need to ask this question first:

In the normal drycells, the amount of plates divides the voltage. Then they put them close together, not inches apart.

So if one has electropolished plates, and the voltage can be stepped up as much as the dielectric layer allows, then the higher voltage will give a stronger electric field.

And the distance between the plates stays small, then how much voltage is needed to bridge the gap between the plates with an electric field? Coming from both sides?

I quess it always bridges, but at a lower strength. But how high can the stepping up the voltage go without crossovers..uh breakdownpoint?

Depends on the gapdistance, the dielectric layer and the electrolyte... hmm forget the question..:)

 

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #16, on September 21st, 2013, 08:14 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 10:13 PM by HMS-776
Farrah Day,

 First off, I have to thank you for helping me a few years back on energetic forum (at a time when I thought I knew). You helped me realize that Meyer's talk of splitting the water molecule was total nonsense.

 And second, I agree with your conclusion as it is the same conclusion I have come to.

 The thing that led me to finding about the double layer is when I started designing VIC's (Pulse transformers with external chokes). I designed them to output a specific current at a specific frequency (Resonance, which is used to get maximum power to the load-Ref Maximum Power Transfer theorem). The problem was, I was calculating the capacitance of the capacitor based on the dielectric constant of water, the spacing between the plates and the area of the plates.

 After a lot of math I realized that there was no way to hit resonance below 20kHz and still get enough current to overcome the leakage current. This was because I was calculating the capacitance incorrectly. The very small calculated capacitance required a large inductance to bring resonance below 20kHz, and the large inductance restricts current too much. I could only step charge to 20V (Read my thread VIC testing (Findings and Notes) page 6. Here's the link
http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/...646&page=6

 After thinking about it for a few weeks I began to question if there was something occurring with the ions that was creating a much larger capacitance…That was the only conclusion I had come to, the capacitance had to be larger otherwise there was no way to reduce the inductance in order overcome the leakage current…I began to study and search for ion interactions in water and capacitance and that's when I stumbled across papers on the EDLC.

 If you can build up the EDLC then you can achieve a capacitance that is several orders above what you would calculate using the Dielectric Constant of the water, spacing between the plates and the electrode surface area. Then you can reduce your inductance and still achieve fres below 20kHz and have enough current to overcome the leakage current and build up the double layer capacitor.

 When you start reading about the DL it becomes obvious why so many people are failing in their replications. In the cell you have 2 currents, 1 is faradiac current, the other is the current which builds the EDL. If you do not supply more current than the faradiac current you will not build up the EDL. This is where the total secondary inductance of the circuit becomes important.

 V=L * di/dt can be rearranged to di/dt=V/L meaning that the current (in Amp-seconds) is dependent on the applied voltage and the inductance. The larger the inductance for a given applied voltage the more the current will be reduced. Most people are designing their coils based on the calculated capacitance and not on the double layer capacitance, which I don't even know if you could calculate because there are so many variables.

 I have been trying to find a chem lab that can do cyclic voltammetry on my cell to determine the DL capacitance using distilled water. After some time and more study I realized that would be a waste since the capacitance is dependant on voltage and cyclic voltammetry uses very low voltages.

 The water fuel cell is actually a Electrochemical capacitor, not an electrolytic capacitor as we have all thought for so long.

 I never posted about the EDLC before because there are so many theories flying around. I figured it would get stuck down by all the newbies that flood these forums thinking the answer is as easy as Meyer's explanation. As well as all the people who want to be the only one to figure it out (I’ve been in both situations myself so I understand). I gave up on the forums for a while too, and that's when I started really learning and thinking for myself.

 When it comes to the EDL I have some things to share that might just blow some people away. EDL's are common in space and plasmas (See Hannes Alfven's work) and it turns out the electric fields in an edl accelerate electrons and ions. Also, they radiate electromagnetic energy! (This is what Stan is talking about when he talks about 'Particle Oscillation' and this is what he discovered that allows enormous gas production). Just ask yourself, if you have electrons and ions being accelerated in water, and you have oscillation and a release of EM energy what is the likelihood that you are going to produce more ions and therefore produce more gasses?

 Now keep in mind that accelerating electrons and ions in water would take a tremendous electric field. An electric field which could only be produced in a double layer. If you really get things working you will cause the water to glow by the excitation and ionization of the atoms (when they return to their ground state).

 Also, I think Lamare might be showing some good things to look into. I think the oxide barrier may be playing a role (Although small) in the process...

 Thank you for posting about this Farrah Day, I look forward to learning and sharing more.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #17, on September 21st, 2013, 09:06 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 09:09 PM by Jeff Nading
I am glad you posted this information HMS-776 about the EDLC,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor
I will have to do some in depth study on this. Farrah has made some wonderful observations and conclusions based on her research.
I look forward to seeing more information posted from both of you, to shed more light on this technology. Thank you both. :cool::D:P

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #18, on September 21st, 2013, 09:19 PM »
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 21st, 2013, 09:06 PM
I am glad you posted this information HMS-776 about the EDLC,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_double-layer_capacitor
I will have to do some in depth study on this. Farrah has made some wonderful observations and conclusions based on her research.
I look forward to seeing more information posted from both of you, to shed more light on this technology. Thank you both. :cool::D:P
Thank you also, it's the work and questions that we all have that will change world for the better. So everyone ask questions, I know I still have a lot to ask. And it seems the more I learn the more I realize I don't know.

BTW, re-read my post as I updated it....


Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #19, on September 21st, 2013, 10:25 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 21st, 2013, 09:19 PM
Thank you also, it's the work and questions that we all have that will change world for the better. So everyone ask questions, I know I still have a lot to ask. And it seems the more I learn the more I realize I don't know.
Quote from "Wikipedia"
Supercapacitors are polarized and must operate with the correct polarity. Polarity is controlled by design with asymmetric electrodes, or, for symmetric electrodes, by a potential applied during manufacture.
Seems to me "asymmetric electrodes" would be tube cells, not plate cells.  Is that why Stan chose them?

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #20, on September 21st, 2013, 11:09 PM »Last edited on September 21st, 2013, 11:12 PM by HMS-776
Quote from Matt Watts on September 21st, 2013, 10:25 PM
Quote from HMS-776 on September 21st, 2013, 09:19 PM
Thank you also, it's the work and questions that we all have that will change world for the better. So everyone ask questions, I know I still have a lot to ask. And it seems the more I learn the more I realize I don't know.
Quote from "Wikipedia"
Supercapacitors are polarized and must operate with the correct polarity. Polarity is controlled by design with asymmetric electrodes, or, for symmetric electrodes, by a potential applied during manufacture.
Seems to me "asymmetric electrodes" would be tube cells, not plate cells.  Is that why Stan chose them?
Not exactly sure why he chose them.  He states in a patent that they produced more gas.  The tubes are asymmetric yes,  Asymmetric means the electrode area of each electrode is not equal. A edlc will form at each electrode, effectively making 2 capacitors in series. Ct=1/c1 + 1/c2,  Since they are asymmetric you get a smaller capacitance than you would with symmetric electrodes.

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #21, on September 21st, 2013, 11:12 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 21st, 2013, 11:09 PM
The tubes are asymmetric yes,  Asymmetric means the electrode area of each electrode is not equal. A edlc will form at each electrode, effectively making 2 capacitors in series. Ct=1/c1 + 1/c2,  Since they are asymmetric you get a larger capacitance than you would with symmetric electrodes.
I'm not understand though which electrode becomes positive and why.

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #22, on September 22nd, 2013, 12:19 AM »
I love it
Thanks HMS for the EDLC, worth looking into
Who knows, maybe the secret sauce is a mix of all kinds of good stuff.
This is unselfish contribution at it's best, going about it this way increases the chances of seeing someone successfully replicating Meyer's WFC and hopefully also share it with the rest of us.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #23, on September 22nd, 2013, 02:01 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 02:25 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 21st, 2013, 06:25 PM
So if one has electropolished plates, and the voltage can be stepped up as much as the dielectric layer allows, then the higher voltage will give a stronger electric field.

And the distance between the plates stays small, then how much voltage is needed to bridge the gap between the plates with an electric field? Coming from both sides?

I quess it always bridges, but at a lower strength. But how high can the stepping up the voltage go without crossovers..uh breakdownpoint?

Depends on the gapdistance, the dielectric layer and the electrolyte... hmm forget the question..:)
Yes, if you charge electrodes across any dielectric, you will have an electric field created between the two electrodes and the thinner the dielectric the greater the capacitance.

As far as the breakdown point goes, with most everyday water being full of minerals and various charge carriers, under normal circumstances it will simply conduct, so you can't get any dielectric breakdown as such occurring.  What we have to do is create conditions whereby we produce a very different effect.

But the thing I'm digging at with Lamare is that even if you used deionised water, and built up enough charge so as to cause catastrophic dielectric breakdown of the water, the reality of it here is that you cause the water molecules to ionise and get a massive current flow. Now this current flow will be plasma in nature, and light up your whole house like a Bingo Fuel Reactor. Sure you will also get species other just oxygen and hydrogen evolving, but you also get a massive current flow through the cell and indeed drawn through the electronics as you effectively create a short cct. This is what troubles me with this scenario. And I just don't see this being the case with Meyer's WFC, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.


Hi, HMS-776, it's been a while.

The fact that Meyer kept talking about the dielectric constant of water being 80, but then claiming that any type of water could be used in his WFC was a major bug-bear of mine, and just another reason why I binned his technical brief. Only under the strictest laboratory conditions can you create pure water with a dielectric constant of 80, and even then, if this water is exposed to air you will immediately get atmospheric gases dissolving in it. Therefore using the dielectric constant in calculations is pretty meaningless if the water is in direct contact with electrodes.

It's nice to actually find someone that is working along the same lines. And yes, I fully expect that the oxide layer plays its part, if only in that it does what it is supposed to do by preventing corrosive reactions. But I don't expect it to suddenly get a major role in all of this by Lamare's electropolishing.

Anyway, look forward to sharing stuff.

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #24, on September 22nd, 2013, 03:32 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 03:49 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 02:01 AM
But the thing I'm digging at with Lamare is that even if you used deionised water, and built up enough charge so as to cause catastrophic dielectric breakdown of the water, the reality of it here is that you cause the water molecules to ionise and get a massive current flow. Now this current flow will be plasma in nature, and light up your whole house like a Bingo Fuel Reactor. Sure you will also get species other just oxygen and hydrogen evolving, but you also get a massive current flow through the cell and indeed drawn through the electronics as you effectively create a short cct. This is what troubles me with this scenario. And I just don't see this being the case with Meyer's WFC, but hey, maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think Lamare intends to pass the breakdownpoint. And if Brown's gas is just a different alignment of the H-es and the -O-..then only an angle-change is needed, and the e-field doesn't need to rip the bonds.

In this setup the right resonance could help massage the alignments of the molecule to the desired straight position?

Or does the anglechange need a whole lot of strength to get done?


 
Quote from lamare on September 21st, 2013, 02:56 PM
Reduction of the electrode surface area is definitely a point of concern.

However, it is possible to grow a much thicker protective layer consisting of chromium oxide, just like this is being done with the growing of aluminum oxides in an electrolytic capacitor.
But a thicker dielectric layer will reduce the capacitance, as we learn from capacitors.