Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #125, on September 30th, 2013, 05:52 PM »
It's not easy unless you have the machines and patience to do it, but I noticed on my motor, I could possibly externalize the camshaft shaft through the crank case, add a seal and do with whatever I want to.  You'd have to drill and tap the camshaft end and screw an extended rod into it, then bore a hole through the crankcase and add your oil seal.  On the external rod you could place a wheel and use an optical sensor real easy.  Don't try this unless you have the equipment though.

I looked at doing the pickup on one of the valve stems, but my rocker cover is steel, so without making an aluminum or plastic one, I was hosed.  The gears seem to work pretty good attached aft of the generator.  This also allows you to adjust the timing real easy and it has a clear visible indication of where it's currently set.

If you are thinking about doing a completely electronic solution for timing delay, let me warn you, I have done this in the past but it's not easy.  I finally ended up programming custom CLPDs to make it work.  Doing this with an Arduino?  Good luck.  If you can do it accurately, you'll be my hero.  Using one of these Cypress PSoC dev kits you can do it, but it's pretty close to rocket science to do it well.  Thousands of man-hours were spent at GM, Ford, Chrysler and other automotive labs figuring this out well enough to make it reliable.

freethisone

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #126, on November 23rd, 2013, 09:51 PM »Last edited on November 23rd, 2013, 09:52 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on September 30th, 2013, 05:52 PM
It's not easy unless you have the machines and patience to do it, but I noticed on my motor, I could possibly externalize the camshaft shaft through the crank case, add a seal and do with whatever I want to.  You'd have to drill and tap the camshaft end and screw an extended rod into it, then bore a hole through the crankcase and add your oil seal.  On the external rod you could place a wheel and use an optical sensor real easy.  Don't try this unless you have the equipment though.

I looked at doing the pickup on one of the valve stems, but my rocker cover is steel, so without making an aluminum or plastic one, I was hosed.  The gears seem to work pretty good attached aft of the generator.  This also allows you to adjust the timing real easy and it has a clear visible indication of where it's currently set.

If you are thinking about doing a completely electronic solution for timing delay, let me warn you, I have done this in the past but it's not easy.  I finally ended up programming custom CLPDs to make it work.  Doing this with an Arduino?  Good luck.  If you can do it accurately, you'll be my hero.  Using one of these Cypress PSoC dev kits you can do it, but it's pretty close to rocket science to do it well.  Thousands of man-hours were spent at GM, Ford, Chrysler and other automotive labs figuring this out well enough to make it reliable.
to add to this the link is a specification.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14804996/The-Triode-Valve

the bias, or effect of a fine wire mesh with a second potential allows for some

interesting effect. i belive this has much bias to the effected medium.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14804996/The-Triode-Valve

one reason, we can hinder the break down, and give a greater shock with this inhibitor.
:heart::heart:. refer to last patent posted. its a robot roy..:P

another means of bias

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #127, on January 2nd, 2014, 12:17 PM »Last edited on January 2nd, 2014, 12:27 PM by bussi04
Quote from kenterprise on January 1st, 2014, 12:52 AM
Happy New Year, folks!
Interesting debate about the way to produce more gas than normal electrolysys can do trough Meyer's methods.
Still, no matter how much Hydrogen you  can extract from water..Meyer's engine not used Hydrigen as fuel! The real science behind his apparently water as fuel is more simple ...The electrolysis produce acid and alkaline water as well.The engine produce " active" forms of Nitrogenfom N2(+) to NOx. Any combinations of ionized acid or alkaline water with " active" Nitrogen produce explosive components from nitrous/ nitric
, hydrazoic acid and ammonia and therefore ammonia salts. The hydrogen gas was only the energy carrier and  detonation caps for above mentioned "thermal energy" provider explosive mixtures. This is why he used hydrogen gas, " non- burnable" exhaust gases and water "excited" by high voltage. And air ionization ( positive  explicit)was also mentioned. The use of tap water mean  Chlorine and trichloramine....very explosive...
The use of water and air to produce Ammonia is now proved. The ammount of energy missing from close loop equation come from wasted heat ( and its effects on Nitrogen)and ionized water / air synergetic reactions and better conversion of heat to pressure. Such water car can violate only traffic laws..it obey to all thermodynamic laws.:-)
Quite a claim without proof. Just an idea you post, ok.

I claim that you are doing and describing something totally different from what Meyer did. This nitrogen discussion was a dead end discussion at energetic forum 3 years ago and so it will be here ...
interestingly this nitrogen discussion always popped up after some time and it tried to de-focus attention from meyer´s technology.


Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #128, on January 2nd, 2014, 10:47 PM »Last edited on January 2nd, 2014, 10:48 PM by Matt Watts
Quote from kenterprise on January 2nd, 2014, 09:10 PM
I make ammonia like gases from so called HHO and exhaust gases already. Just pass the mixture trough an electrolytic cell! Add salt to bubbler and explosion is assured! This is trichloramine!
Interesting rebuttal.  Would you be so kind to create a thread in the Project Forum and demonstrate some of your findings.  I'm particularly interested in this because of the claims of chlorine used in the Papp engine.

To me, fuel is fuel.  If we can make it cheaper than petrol, we should investigate and prototype.  For this thread though, lets stay on the topic of Stan Meyer and using processes of ionization for fracturing water.  We all have varying viewpoints and the solution that works will be the solution that is used--may the best one come forth.

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #129, on January 3rd, 2014, 02:09 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2014, 02:35 AM by bussi04
Quote from kenterprise on January 3rd, 2014, 01:55 AM
1. Why should open a new thread?
I all about the real science behind Meyer's successfully use of water as fuel!
I not debate the details of his system..I'm on topic: the real science behind his work!
2. Chlorine and Nitrogen reactions are well known - see http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/oil
3. Papp engine is probably in same "frame"..there is no reason to not loop the Nitrogen/Hydrogen/Chlorine mixture of gases..
4. To prove my statements regarding production of ammonia like gases from HHO and exhaust gases is simple: pass the mixture trough an electrolytic cell! Add some chlorine also...but proceed safely...it will explode!

 I not have anything to prove on paper! who want to verify should already have minimum hardware to do the test. I described the methods.

Forums are full of theories ... about and around Meyer's work most of people talk from imagination and books only.
Forget how he did it precisely, look to principles he followed.
PWM or pulsed inveter coil and a diode ...effect on water is the same.
Do not forget that in all his drawings the water is missing and the tank also. there can be the ground, the second cathode ...as in my protoype system.
Whatever you do - it makes no sense to me to produce an explosive that is toxic and limited in energy yield.

that was not the intention Meyer had as he described and that is not the intention of today´s experimenters to reach as a goal.

where this toxic fuel has directed civilization into shows pollution all over the planet ...

maybe nice to know how that works but definitely not a goal for Meyer´s type technology ...

btw. it´s no scientific approach to say that something doesn´t work because oneself was not able to get it done. the only way to use such a statement is to show the theoretical proof that something is impossible to work that way.

Claus Turtur demonstrated pracitacally and theoretically founded a way to access something we commonly call over unity or zero point energy.

this is the reverse side of discussion you have to face if you state that there is no way to get access to over unity.

you will need lots of calculations and reasoned axioms to counterbalance those scientific results.

you need a thread of your own because this thread is called "... the real science behind it ..." and that points to science but not opinion.




gpssonar

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #130, on January 3rd, 2014, 02:32 AM »
I'm glad i didn't follow the nitrogen lead that others have opinions about, I wound not be where I am with this technology if I had.

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #131, on January 3rd, 2014, 02:46 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2014, 02:51 AM by bussi04
Quote from kenterprise on January 3rd, 2014, 02:20 AM
...
is irrelevant what Meyer said or what experimenters want..to replace oxidation of carbon as source of power with water ( and air) will be lead to the chemical reactions I mentioned if want to run that car.
Safety is not an issue with postcombustion treatment of exhaust gases.
In theory should get only water ( eventual salty) and air on exhaust at the end of the process.
Your attitude is normal, this is why no one replicated the results...including me for a while..when word explosive come out ..when i saw the chemicals involved ..I said no!

Please be reasonable and open the eyes: except probably Pucharich and Anderson others like  Meyer, Dingle not have any idea to such deep { science}  like zero-point energy.
All projects that used an engine but no fuel fuel may be explained if follow this path, including Joe cell or Papp ..is all about right polarity of right elements..and electricity is used to conversion.
Be happy - you have found an alternative to Meyer´s technology. that´s ok. future will show if your´s as efficient as Meyer´s tech was.

but there is no need to mistake apples for oranges.

referring to reasonability - why should meyer have made so many patents describing something different from what you tell he did and was not able to understand? that claim sounds overbearing to me.

doing those patents would not have made sense at all and would have been an expensive endeavour and waste of resources.

it´s no scientific approach to assume that meyer had told a fairy-tale. in boulder there were eye-witnesses who worked with him for years. do you think you know  better than them? I can´t  believe that you do.


Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #132, on January 3rd, 2014, 02:55 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2014, 03:03 AM by Farrah Day
Aaron Murakami over on The Energetic Forum was convinced that ammonia was the key to Meyer's water fuel cell, and threw his weight around belittling anyone who did not agree.

I was one of those people that did not agree, and in fact thought he was talking utter nonsense. His Greatness eventually banned me from the forum for being disruptive, though in truth I just made him look bad.

Anyway, the big issue with the ammonia production is the same now as it was then. Something that I continually highlighted, but people continually chose to ignore: The amount of ammonia you can produce is directly proportional to the amount of hydrogen that you produce, so it's still all really about producing H2 efficiently. Throw in the fact that ammonia is less energetically explosive than H2, and not to mention the high energy required to react with N2 in the first place and the reality of it should start to sink in.
Quote
2.1 his engine used exhaust gases to intake and expelled ammonia like on exhaust.
This makes no sense at all. Why would ammonia be expelled as an exhaust gas? :huh:

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #133, on January 3rd, 2014, 03:33 AM »
Quote from kenterprise on January 3rd, 2014, 02:55 AM
It may not be ammonia but Meyer's exhaust smell like - when engine was stopped or due eventual misfire...information come from people who not agreed with my ideas also and tried to convince me that Hydrogen was the fuel..
Alright, I think you've made your point, thank you.
If you want to keep this up then please start your own thread, no one is going to ban you for your theories, only keep them out of this thread from now on.
Thanks.


Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #134, on January 3rd, 2014, 03:46 AM »Last edited on January 3rd, 2014, 03:48 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from kenterprise on January 3rd, 2014, 02:55 AM
to Farrah:
"Aaron Murakami over on The Energetic Forum was convinced that ammonia was the key to Meyer's water fuel cell, and threw his weight around belittling anyone who did not agree"
I heard about Aaron and when I get interested I found only a website who want to sell me a book. Not know what he said in details.
I was banned also for claims like this presented here.

"The amount of ammonia you can produce is directly proportional to the amount of hydrogen that you produce, so it's still all really about producing H2 efficiently..."

The ammount of Ammonia is related to ammount of H3O (+) produced by high voltage with low current if temperature is elevated ( like in the combustion chamber) ..similar process used by solid state ammonia synthesis - www.nhthree.com.
Since nitric/nitrous acids are also produced by reaction of NOx with water then Ammonia Nitrate can be obtained during compression.
since Chlorine from tap water is present then you have trichloramine also..
An "explosive mixture" where Hydrogen in gas form is only the detonator..not need too much, Meyer not made too much also.
Sure, other Nitrogen / Hydrogen compounds can be be obtained..hydrazoic acid, hydrazine etc.

It may not be ammonia but Meyer's exhaust smell like - when engine was stopped or due eventual misfire...information come from people who not agreed with my ideas also and tried to convince me that Hydrogen was the fuel..
Hydronium is an ion that is present in common Faraday electrolysis. It is not some magic ion that is created with all manner of fancy technology, but something that exists in water all the time.  Water ionises into H3O+ and OH-, there is no mystery here. And yes water is caused to ionise by electric field fluctuations, but this does not in itself produce any gases, just these charged species.

Hydronium itself is just an ion and has nothing to do with the creation of ammonia. The only thing you will get from hydronium is a proton that can pick up an electron to become a hydrogen atom. And then we are back at square one, whereby, could you or should you want to produce ammonia, then the amount you produce is strictly limited to the amount of hydrogen you can produce.

It is the hydrogen in ammonia and hydrocarbon fuels that creates the energy when ignited. So once again it all comes down to hydrogen production.

I read a lot of wild conjecture, and nothing more. Unless, that is, you can elaborate and provide evidence to support your claims. Some balanced chemical equations would not go amiss!


 

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #135, on January 3rd, 2014, 03:47 AM »
Quote from kenterprise on January 3rd, 2014, 03:40 AM
Alright, I think you've made your point, thank you.
If you want to keep this up then please start your own thread, no one is going to ban you for your theories, only keep them out of this thread from now on.
Thanks.[/quote]ok. i not need my own thread.  I not posted in threads where people talk about special details in order to replicate one of other specific devices used or mentioned in Meyer's patents. I thought here can talk about the real science behind Meyer's accomplishment: the use of alternating fuel based on water as only consumable.
Sorry...[/quote]What are you apologizing about?
You have as much right to start your own thread as any other member here, if you would like to you can start an Authors Only thread and lay out all your theories about what you think Meyer was doing, no problem.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #136, on January 3rd, 2014, 05:02 AM »
This thread got far more off-track a long while back.

I've certainly got no problem with anyone talking about their Meyer theories, after all, that's all mine are.

What I do tend to object to though, is wild theories that are not backed by any science whatsoever.

It's all very well saying this and that happens, but unless you can support claims and theories with a least some real science, or a least provide a good scientific argument then, as I said earlier, at best it is just wild conjecture.

I take it that English is not your first language Kent, which always makes posts a lot tougher to understand. That said, science is science, not magic. I find your posts very disjointed, lots of leaps of faith bearing little resemblance to any known science with nothing to argue for any unknown or less known science.

Where does the chlorine suddenly appear from?

To make your argument, you really need to break things down into specific stages and detail the science and reactions at each stage. At present it just looks like you are throwing everything into a pot and picking and choosing the expected results.

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #137, on January 3rd, 2014, 06:25 AM »
Quote
I've certainly got no problem with anyone talking about their Meyer theories, after all, that's all mine are.What I do tend to object to though, is wild theories that are not backed by any science whatsoever.
I completely agree.

Stan has not been the only person who has tested how water reacts to a strong electric field. In the last century many scientific papers have been published on the subject of water and hydrogen production.

The whole problem with Stans work from the very beginning was his inability to explain it scientifically.

You can explain it the same way Stan did,  but alll it will do is make you sound smart to dumb people, and dumb to smart people.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #138, on January 3rd, 2014, 08:09 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on January 3rd, 2014, 06:25 AM
You can explain it the same way Stan did,  but all it will do is make you sound smart to dumb people, and dumb to smart people.
Words of wisdom indeed. For some reason many people seem to think that continually quoting Meyer solves all problems and answers all questions!

That quote is right up there with the best of them, HMS.

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #139, on January 3rd, 2014, 02:01 PM »
Quote from Farrah Day on January 3rd, 2014, 08:09 AM
Words of wisdom indeed. For some reason many people seem to think that continually quoting Meyer solves all problems and answers all questions!

That quote is right up there with the best of them, HMS.
I tend to agree.  We need to figure out the concept whatever it is and implement a working solution based on it.  Then for historical fun, we can go back and see how much of it actually matches what Stan said and wrote.

Unless anyone has an idea of how to beat a dead horse back to life...?

gpssonar

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #140, on January 3rd, 2014, 03:44 PM »
I agree that quoting him will never get it working only understanding his quotes and building it is the only thing that will ever get it working.  Until eveveryone understands his quotes they are fighting a loosing battle. How many people on here has the knowledge of how a radar system even works? I would say very few if any. They were feilds of work that Stan was involved in that was incorperated into his techonology and if you don't have that knowledge that he had or at least studied it. Then how in this world can anyone say it want work bases on just the knoledge they have? There is one thing that Stan talkes very little about and I have never seen anyone talking about it. I think the reason no one has ever talked about it is because they have no idea what it is or what it does. You will find this information, in how a radar system works, a feild of work that Stan was very knolegable in.

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #141, on January 3rd, 2014, 04:17 PM »
Quote from gpssonar on January 3rd, 2014, 03:44 PM
How many people on here has the knowledge of how a radar system even works?
When you say that, do you mean every part of a functioning radar system or just specific pieces?

There is a bunch to radar operation:  wave propagation, phase delay, signal generation, reflection, time domain analysis, and on and on.  I couldn't imagine anyone starting from zero and being able to grasp all that in a few weeks, a month or even a year.  Maybe the basic principles, but certainly not to the point they could build a functioning, though primitive radar system.

You think this is something we should gather reference information for?  Do you have any starting links?

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #142, on January 3rd, 2014, 04:54 PM »
Well , I've worked on quite a few MW ovens "radar range". :P:P:P

gpssonar

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #143, on January 3rd, 2014, 04:56 PM »
Yes, Matt I do. It will explain how the water cells are charged and how Stan incorperated it into his Vic transformer an water capacitors. :rolleyes:

Dynodon

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #144, on January 17th, 2014, 08:57 AM »
Farrah, This post is meant for you. I'm not sure if you know who I am, but I'm the guy who put all of the newest info of Stans work on the net.

After reading another post here on this site, I have a pretty good understanding of how you feel about Stans WFC Tech Brief.

My first question to you is this, Is there anything in the Tech Brief that you feel has any real evidence to how Stan may have done as he claims? In other words, do you think it is all junk or is there any real data in there that can be extracted for use in our research?

That first question then leads me to a point that I would like to make from my time spent with Stans equipment. When I first got to see Stans buggy, the first thing I was looking for, was there anything on it that he didn't already talk about. What I found was that everything he said was there was there, and I could not find anything there that he did not mention. Everything that was there was just as he said it was. Nothing there was a surprise to me. That was a little disappointing. I was really hoping to find something he didn't talk about, that could help us figure this thing out.

Now this leads me to my second point and also my second question to you.
After having the time to go over a lot of Stans systems, I have come to a conclusion that all of his systems use the same basic frequency generator.
Those generators are well known by all. I can verify that the generators Stan said he used in his circuits, he did use. Now knowing that he used exactly what he said he used to create his high voltage process to break the waters bond, than we should be safe in saying that, that's what we should be using. No matter how it actually works at breaking the waters bond, we should start with that. If Stan actually was able to break the bonds of the water molecule with this set up, then we should have the basic circuit needed to get to the end result of reproducing "The Meyer Effect"

So that leads me to my second question,
 
Does my logic make sense to you that we should be using the basic frequency  generator he used and possible the transformer design as well?
 
If the Tech brief in your mind is fictional, or useless, than nothing he wrote in it is worth following. Then where does that leave us? No place to start!!
Looking to hear a response from you,
Don Gabel
 

Hardkrome

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #145, on January 17th, 2014, 10:48 AM »
In my opinion, Stan was creating a self defeating system for the experimenter. I have been backwards and forwards thru it many a time.  I have discovered a few things that he says that are acutally true. Like the frequency doubling and the extra pulse is accomplished by the electron bounce. I was convinced it was a lie.  However, It dosent make it work per say, but to get it to give the signal it has to be in resonance.  Its just a slick way to make a full wave pulse train without using a push pull transformer. Then at that , I can make it work without a push pull. I see a lot of his stuff as filler material.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #146, on January 18th, 2014, 04:35 AM »Last edited on January 18th, 2014, 07:12 AM by Farrah Day
Hi guys.

Well, as you probably know, I gave up on Meyer's Technical Brief long ago as not only did I find much of the science therein blatantly flawed, but it was also clearly padded out with a lot of pseudoscience, none of which was helped by his constant use of unscientific (or his own 'invented') terminology.  The electronics side of things also gave me much cause for concern as I could not possibly see how he could accomplish anything with his step-charging effect. It is very hard to charge something that will continually allow current to flow. At best his WFC is a very, very leaky capacitor, but the reality is that it is far more like a resistor, and putting a voltage across either will cause current to flow. And I never bought into things such as his electron extraction unit or his 'amp consuming' device - you can't 'consume' amps. To me it is just so much nonsense!

So yes, apart from the inspiration it may provide for people to further research water fuel technology, I believe Meyer's Technical Brief to be quite useless. And I'd go further to say that it could actually be counter-productive, in that anyone trying to follow it to the letter is in for a long and fruitless journey.

If Meyer pulled the water molecule apart cleanly into oxygen and hydrogen as he claimed, rather than causing the water to ionise, then there would be no need for charge exchange mediums (electrodes) within the water itself, so immediately this raises questions. In fact if you wanted to (if you could) cleave the water molecule apart to directly form oxygen and hydrogen by voltage alone, then the obvious thing to do would be to completely insulate the electrodes from the water, this way you could up the voltage to very high potentials without any current flowing. So, without hesitation I dismissed Meyer's version of the water molecule being pulled apart and electrons being pulled off all over the place.

Of course as soon as you see flaws and dismiss one thing, then that immediately raises doubts about everything that follows thereafter.

Even if some things can be put down to Meyer's lack of science and electronics knowledge, I still feel he was making much of it up as he went along.

I see many people reproducing Meyer-like pulse trains on an oscilloscope, but to what end? I'm yet to see anything being achieved by this.

The John Kanzius (burning water) discovery is the only time I have seen water being dissociated and forming hydrogen and oxygen without the aid of any physical charge exchange medium being present. Though Kanzius was adding energy to the water using RF power, you could argue that perhaps a similar mechanism was at work within Meyer's WFC. That is, until you look a little deeper and you can then find a truck-load of reasons why Meyer's WFC could not be operating on the same principles as Kansius' discovery.

I've always said that people should stop trying to replicate Meyer's patents in the hope that they do what he claimed, and instead decide what you want to achieve and then attempt to purpose design and build something to do specifically that job.

The mystery and intrigue surrounding Meyer's VIC has always seemed a bit odd to me - after all it's really just a high voltage transformer!

So, I also dismiss Meyer's step-charging waveforms as being of any use at all when applied to a WFC.

However, if as I suggested in my first post of this thread, very high voltage, very short pulses are applied to the electrodes, then it is possible that charges break through the electric double layer (flywheel effect) and directly react with the water molecules without any current travelling all the way through the water from electrode to electrode.  This obviously suggests a completely different scenario to the step-charging pulse train Meyer describes. And you would expect that if it does all revolve around the electric double layer, then to make a lot of gas, very high frequencies would be needed. And contrary to Meyer's step-charging, the last thing I would want is a continuous large duty pulse train charging up the WFC to any great degree, as this would generate continuous normal current flow, and the less normal current flow the better.


HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #147, on January 18th, 2014, 09:16 AM »
My own research has led me to believe Stan discovered some phenomena which produced results. And I believe most of the claims he made were based on those results.

I think Stan ran into problems engineering systems to control the phenomena. There have been many projects and contracts mentioned in Stan's papers and lectures which began but were never completed.  

1. Indy 500 car conversion
2. Cross country dune buggy trip
3. Ferry boat conversion
4. Aircraft conversion
5. Corvette conversion

Most of these are mentioned in the news releases 4-8.
The ferry boat conversion is in the international independent test evaluation report page 102-112.

It is also interesting to note that the only videos of the buggy running were in the earliest designs (1984-85) before the 3 inch 11 tube wfc and before the injectors.

As I mentioned above, Stan made claims based on the results and measurements he had taken. He was saying what was possible, not claiming what he had accomplished.

His twin brother who we know worked with him to some extent even said in an interview "Stan was always looking to the future and saying what was possible."

Amsy

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #148, on January 18th, 2014, 09:43 AM »Last edited on January 18th, 2014, 09:47 AM by Amsy
I have to agree to farrah,

stan used very poor scientific pronunciation. But I think, this was not his fault.
He did it in his words, to descripe the phenomenon. He never graduated an university.

Today we know more about electrolyses, plasma and ion travelling as he could know at that time. But also today it is not 100% clarified what happens in such a WFC.
In an other topic I tried to find out why it is nowhere assumed, that during electrolyses process atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen can be created.
Today, my opinion is, that he tried to descripe this in his words.

The basic behind is, that some chemists found out, that a few elements like magnesium generates more atomic hydrogen than others in water. Depending on the elements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential

So when we electrolyse with higher voltage it is like putting the elements standard potential higher. This could be the key to stan´s technical brief, when he wrote about dissociation of the water molecul.
We can generate atomic elemements, but they will form immideatly to moleculs generating heat. This causes the water to heat up. It could be possible to suck the atomic elemtns out very fast to use it. (Injector). So stan needs some tools for the WFC like the electron extraction circuit to inhibit recombination to moleculs.

A test showed, that this nascent hydrogen created by the magnesium, is very reactiv. It was more reactive than the hydrogen out of the industrial pressure bottle. The chemists show, that some reaction were possible with this nascent hydrogen, which are not possible with "normal" hydrogen H2.

This can explain the enourmos amount of heat generated in high DC voltage WFCs. For me today it looks like, stan used his VIC to generate higher voltages than 12V. To generate more atomic hydrogen on demand.

I think we should also asume this option for his work.
How reactiv and controversial this topic is, can be read when reading about langmuirs atomic hydrogen welding.
Thanks :D

Hardkrome

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #149, on January 18th, 2014, 09:48 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on January 18th, 2014, 09:16 AM
My own research has led me to believe Stan discovered some phenomena which produced results. And I believe most of the claims he made were based on those results.

I think Stan ran into problems engineering systems to control the phenomena. There have been many projects and contracts mentioned in Stan's papers and lectures which began but were never completed.  

1. Indy 500 car conversion
2. Cross country dune buggy trip
3. Ferry boat conversion
4. Aircraft conversion
5. Corvette conversion

Most of these are mentioned in the news releases 4-8.
The ferry boat conversion is in the international independent test evaluation report page 102-112.

It is also interesting to note that the only videos of the buggy running were in the earliest designs (1984-85) before the 3 inch 11 tube wfc and before the injectors.

As I mentioned above, Stan made claims based on the results and measurements he had taken. He was saying what was possible, not claiming what he had accomplished.

His twin brother who we know worked with him to some extent even said in an interview "Stan was always looking to the future and saying what was possible."
When one understands that through acceleration, the water can be pulled apart and held on the walls of the tubes before current can react to it, then that person will understand what he was doing. It does act as a capacitor!. But just not quite in the manner that Stan explains it. When it discharges it is all pushed out, that is the resonant action he describes, it acts like a pump.

Just dismissing everything he said is foolishness. He just didn't want anyone stealing it.  Which in a greed driven economy is the wise thing to do.

As for just high voltage, high current pulses, there are patents on that stuff already.