Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #25, on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 04:03 AM by Farrah Day
As far as I'm aware Lamare is talking about the dielectric breakdown of the water, but if this is not the case, just how then are gases created? I'm sure I read he was talking of the water molecule ionising.

And you have to be careful with the whole resonance thing. To my mind this is just one of Meyer's incorrectly used terms and ultimately a very misleading term.

Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.


lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #26, on September 22nd, 2013, 04:03 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM
As far as I'm aware Lamare is talking about the dielectric breakdown of the water, but if this is not the case, just how then are gases created? I'm sure I read he was talking of the water molecule ionising.

And you have to be careful with the whole resonance thing. To my mind this is just one of Meyer's incorrectly used terms and ultimately a very misleading term.

Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.
I maintain that the water in between the pipes can come in acoustic resonance, just like the air does in an organ pipe. That is the only possibility I see for what could possibly be resonating at the low frequencies being used. And if there is an electric field within the fluid, which acts upon the ions in there, it is clear that such a field could vibrate the ions at acoustic frequencies and thus sustain an acoustic resonance in the fluid column in between the pipes, similar to air column vibrating in an organ pipe.

The benefit of such an acoustic resonance would be to keep the fluid in motion and thus increase the number of atoms/ions which enter the strong field zone, supposing it exists, and also prevent the bubbles to stick to the cell walls.


Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #27, on September 22nd, 2013, 04:08 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM
Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.
With the LC resonance frequency, where L is found in the secondary circuit coil(s) and C in the intrinsic capacitance of the cell, the "only" thing you get is high voltage on the cell when you hit the LC resonance frequency at hand.
The interesting thing though, IMO anyway, is finding the correct frequency here, so the cell starts acting the Meyer way.
So the only parameter you have to take in consideration here would then be the coils in the secondary and adjust them while feeding the circuit with a PLL circuit so resonance is maintained at all times and then scanning for the sweet spot by tuning the coils.

/JM2C

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #28, on September 22nd, 2013, 04:11 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 05:30 AM by HMS-776
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM
As far as I'm aware Lamare is talking about the dielectric breakdown of the water, but if this is not the case, just how then are gases created? I'm sure I read he was talking of the water molecule ionising.

And you have to be careful with the whole resonance thing. To my mind this is just one of Meyer's incorrectly used terms and ultimately a very misleading term.

Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.

I used to be in regular email contact with William Rhodes, discussing his findings and the field of electrolysis and WFCs in general, and always found him to be a very decent, down-to-earth guy. It's been a few years since I've made contact with him, and to be honest I'm not sure he is even still with us as he was no spring chicken then.

Anyway, for anyone that has not seen it, here is a link to William Rhodes' paper detailing his findings related to common duct electrolyser gases.

http://brownsgas.com/browns-gas-oxyhydrogen-hho-gas/browns-gas/william-rhodes.html
Once again I agree-Meyer used the incorrect term. Heh, it's not the first time.  The chokes provide an impedance,  just as the capacitance does. The circuit (as most of us know) is a D.C. circuit.  

When you match the impedance of the load and source in a D.C. circuit you are complying with the 'Maximum Power Transfer Theorem' which shows that you will get maximum power to the load only when it's impedance matches the impedance of the source.

Btw everyone.  Early on in the technical brief Meyer defines resonance as 'the point of particle oscillation'. This is where the DL comes into play again.  
As I also learned in my own setup you do not have to match the impedance to get the step charging to occur,  but when you do match the impedance you get a more efficient charging circuit.



lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #29, on September 22nd, 2013, 04:19 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 04:24 AM by lamare
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.
Unless you create the field which causes the breakdown in the water in an insulating dielectric layer. In that case, you DO get the massive current fow and the plasma in the fluid, BUT the current flows within the fluid and NOT trough the metal contacts, which are isolated because of the insulating layer. So, IF the insulation is good enough, AND the layer is a dielectric AND the dielectric is that strongly polarized that it's external field exceeds the dielectric breakdown strength of water, THEN you can get the dielectric breakdown of the water, without any current flowing trough the external contacts to the electronics.

So, the idea is to have an electric field WITHOUT a charge being built up in terms of electrons or ions. And we know that is possible, because that is being done with electrets, which are applied in a/o electret microphones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electret
"Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet. Oliver Heaviside coined this term in 1885."

And that his is also possible with a dielectric layer consisting out of aluminum oxide has been shown before:

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/SparkBangBuzz/borax-el.htm
Quote
How To Observe The Glow From A Borax Or Baking Soda Rectifier.



[...]

As mentioned earlier, there is a faint glow associated with these borax (or baking soda) rectifiers that can be observed in a dark room. It seems that moderately high voltages are necessary in order to produce the glow. The glow is produced on the aluminum plate when it is at the positive (reverse bias) part of the cycle and minimum current is flowing.
So, here you clearly see what you said would happen: "this current flow will be plasma in nature, and light up your whole house like a Bingo Fuel Reactor", albeit that it is a little less spectacular as how you describe it.....

AND this phenomenon is produced at the reverse bias of the cycle when minimum current is flowing....


FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #30, on September 22nd, 2013, 04:48 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 05:20 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from lamare on September 22nd, 2013, 04:19 AM
So, IF the insulation is good enough, AND the layer is a dielectric AND the dielectric is that strongly polarized that it's external field exceeds the dielectric breakdown strength of water, THEN you can get the dielectric breakdown of the water, without any current flowing trough the external contacts to the electronics.
Maybe the fieldstrength isn't strong enough, and thats why i also propagate resonance.

But not to mix any water, a standing wave doesn't mix in my mind.

And the resonance needs to lock into the main process.. at the heart of the vibration between the H-es and the -O-

Like lynx said, one can tune into such by experimenting.

And maybe one can already find a ballpark figure where the vibration operates.

Question may be with what can we vibrate.

But there is no thing to be found in the universe that doesn't vibrate.

So using it in a sound setup, in a smart way can push processes over the tipping point, at least i believe so.


If an e-field does any aligning...makes particles align, then a vibrating e-field will do a movement with an amplitude to those particles..etc.

What we have to find is what frequency will shift the 107 degrees H/O\H to a 180 degrees alignment between H-O-H



HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #31, on September 22nd, 2013, 05:45 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 05:58 AM by HMS-776
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2013, 04:48 AM
Quote from lamare on September 22nd, 2013, 04:19 AM
So, IF the insulation is good enough, AND the layer is a dielectric AND the dielectric is that strongly polarized that it's external field exceeds the dielectric breakdown strength of water, THEN you can get the dielectric breakdown of the water, without any current flowing trough the external contacts to the electronics.
Maybe the fieldstrength isn't strong enough, and thats why i also propagate resonance.

But not to mix any water, a standing wave doesn't mix in my mind.

And the resonance needs to lock into the main process.. at the heart of the vibration between the H-es and the -O-

Like lynx said, one can tune into such by experimenting.

And maybe one can already find a ballpark figure where the vibration operates.

Question may be with what can we vibrate.

But there is no thing to be found in the universe that doesn't vibrate.

So using it in a sound setup, in a smart way can push processes over the tipping point, at least i believe so.


If an e-field does any aligning...makes particles align, then a vibrating e-field will do a movement with an amplitude to those particles..etc.

What we have to find is what frequency will shift the 107 degrees H/O\H to a 180 degrees alignment between H-O-H
Look at the possible field strengths in a double layer....As it has been stated the DL is very thin so the field strength is very very high.

"The very small thickness of the IHP creates an extremely strong electric field E over the separating solvent molecules. At a potential difference of, for example, U = 2 V and a molecular thickness of d = 0.4 nm, the electric field strength will be
E=Ud=2v/.4nm=5000kV/mm" --Wikipedia Supercapacitor (See section on Electrostatic Double Layer Capacitance)

"These extremely high double-layer's field strength of about 5000 kV/mm is unrealizable in conventional capacitors with conventional dielectrics. No dielectric material could prevent charge carrier breakthrough. In a double-layer capacitor the chemical stability of the molecular bonds of the solvent molecules prevents breakthrough" -Wikipedia Supercapacitor (See section on Electrostatic Double Layer Capacitance)

BTW, when you get dielectric breakdown through a material, it acts like lightning. If finds the point of least resistance and takes that path. The discharge is filamentary in nature. It does not spread throughout the water.



FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #32, on September 22nd, 2013, 05:56 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 05:58 AM by FaradayEZ
But what is it now, Farrah seems to say the strength and influence is small, you say at 2Volt it already exceeds the breakdownpoint.

What i say is vibrate that field that is just under the breakpoint


HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #33, on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 06:31 AM by HMS-776
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2013, 05:56 AM
But what is it now, Farrah seems to say the strength and influence is small, you say at 2Volt it already exceeds the breakdownpoint.

What i say is vibrate that field that is just under the breakpoint
Hmm, didn't read where Farrah said that....Can you show me?

I don't think you could get electric fields high enough across the chromium oxide and restrict the current. Seems to me the Cr2O3 is just a small potential barrier.

When it comes to Lamare's work, I think he is giving the chromium oxide more credit than it deserves. But I would never completely throw it out as he is making some very valid points that can be easily overlooked.

I do find interest in Lamare's statements as they seem to align with what Stephen Meyer stated in some of his radio interviews.

In one interview Stephen states that "After a while the cell seems to die, and the tubes have to be replaced. If not the sludge gets so bad that the cell starts short circuiting."

I think that the electrons may be tunneling though the oxide and breaking it down, causing more reactive metals to be exposed to the water and accelerating the corrosion. To me this seems possible, but I still question it.

Stephen Meyer seemed to talk of the cell as if it were a transistor, which I can also understand in some ways. It acts similar to a depletion mode device (normally on, circuit causes it to be reverse biased and build up a high voltage (Double layer/depletion region)....During the off time the cell is forward biased again, and the electrons are pulled out of the Fermi layer resulting in accelerated corrosion (as well as pointing out a second source of electrons that were previously not accounted for.)








FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #34, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:00 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 10:06 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from HMS-776 on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 22nd, 2013, 05:56 AM
But what is it now, Farrah seems to say the strength and influence is small, you say at 2 Volt it already exceeds the breakdownpoint.

What i say is vibrate that field that is just under the breakpoint
Hmm, didn't read where Farrah said that....Can you show me?
http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=1401&pid=18217#pid18217
Quote
I'm still struggling to see how building up a high electric field across the oxide dielectric will effect the water molecule given that the water molecules reside outside of this electric field. But anyway, I know that electric fields will cause water to ionise, but H+ and OH- are not really much use to us, and if these ions do find themselves discharging at an electrode, then we have standard Faraday electrolysis taking place. Are you assuming that the electric field will directly provide 2H2 and O2?
I read her first sentence as that the watermolecules aren't reached by the influence of the electric field. So i thought she pictured the electric field as small, not reaching to the other electrode.

But maybe she meant that the molecules can't pick up electrons from the electrode?
Outside the reach of the electrons, instead of electric field..

An electric field i see as a forcevector, an electrode with charge as something else, a collection of electrons?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #35, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:02 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 10:18 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 04:08 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM
Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.
With the LC resonance frequency, where L is found in the secondary circuit coil(s) and C in the intrinsic capacitance of the cell, the "only" thing you get is high voltage on the cell when you hit the LC resonance frequency at hand.
The interesting thing though, IMO anyway, is finding the correct frequency here, so the cell starts acting the Meyer way.
So the only parameter you have to take in consideration here would then be the coils in the secondary and adjust them while feeding the circuit with a PLL circuit so resonance is maintained at all times and then scanning for the sweet spot by tuning the coils.

/JM2C
See, this is where many people trip up. An LC/LCR resonant circuit resonates because an AC signal is applied and hence the current alternates between the inductor and the capacitor. In a parallel tuned LC circuit, resonance is attained when the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance balance out. This creates an impedance that without any resistive loses would go to infinity, hence at resonance, we get a very high voltage developed across the whole circuit. Conversely a series tuned cct does the opposite, the inductive and capacitive reactance's cancel each other out at resonance and maximum current can flow.

But here's the thing, neither of the above scenarios can be applied to Meyer's WFC. 1, We are not using an AC signal, and 2. We have a diode that prevents the current alternating. Simply put, Meter's WFC circuit can not resonate.

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #36, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:06 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 10:02 AM
Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 04:08 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 03:52 AM
Think about it - what is, or can possibly be resonating? What is at resonance, and how does a pulsing DC cct provide it? People do tend to band the term 'Resonance' around as if it naturally explains everything, without questioning what it could be and indeed how it would be produced in a DC cct.
With the LC resonance frequency, where L is found in the secondary circuit coil(s) and C in the intrinsic capacitance of the cell, the "only" thing you get is high voltage on the cell when you hit the LC resonance frequency at hand.
The interesting thing though, IMO anyway, is finding the correct frequency here, so the cell starts acting the Meyer way.
So the only parameter you have to take in consideration here would then be the coils in the secondary and adjust them while feeding the circuit with a PLL circuit so resonance is maintained at all times and then scanning for the sweet spot by tuning the coils.

/JM2C
See, this is where many people trip up. An LC/LCR resonant circuit resonates because an AC signal is applied and hence the current alternates. In a parallel tuned LC circuit, resonance is attained when the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance balance out. This creates an impedance that without any resistive loses would go to infinity, hence at resonance, we get a very high voltage developed across the whole circuit. Conversely a series tuned cct does the opposite, the inductive and capacitive reactance's cancel each other out at resonance and maximum current can flow.

But here's the thing, neither of the above scenarios can be applied to Meyer's WFC. 1, We are not using an AC signal, and 2. We have a diode that prevents the current alternating. Simply put, Meter's WFC circuit can not resonate.
Thanks, appreciate it

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #37, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:24 AM »
Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 10:06 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 10:02 AM
But here's the thing, neither of the above scenarios can be applied to Meyer's WFC. 1, We are not using an AC signal, and 2. We have a diode that prevents the current alternating. Simply put, Meter's WFC circuit can not resonate.
Thanks, appreciate it
Hmm..and also not via the voltsinput, resonating between a higher and a slighty lower voltage?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #38, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:39 AM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 10:44 AM by Farrah Day
Just to elaborate a little more on this 'resonance' issue.

Because we know that Meyer's circuit cannot possibly resonate, we can immediately disregard anything along the lines of the tuned circuit theory that Meyer depicts in his technical brief. Additionally we know that if Meyer achieved a specific set of conditions (pulse frequency, pulse duty cycle, pulse voltage, pulse shape, etc.) whereby a dramatic increase in gas production was clearly evident, we know that this is not down to the electrical resonance of the circuit. Something else must be happening, so we need to start looking elsewhere and thinking outside of the box Meyer has provided us with.

However, Meyer would still have needed a specific set of pulsing conditions to achieve what myself and HMS-776 are proposing. And, not only will these conditions be different for every individual electrolyser, but the conditions will change as the electrolyser evolves. For example, using tap water laden with minerals will slowly cause mineral deposition on the electrodes, which will increase the surface area, which will change the nature of the EDLC - it will effectively detune.

This may well be why Meyer had so much difficulty in maintaining the specific conditions required to get maximum gas evolution, and indeed why his WFC may have appeared to be somewhat intermittent or erratic in its operation.


Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #39, on September 22nd, 2013, 10:44 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 10:39 AM
Just to elaborate a little more on this 'resonance' issue.

Because we know that Meyer's circuit cannot possibly resonate, we can immediately disregard anything along the lines of the tuned circuit theory that Meyer depicts in his technical brief. Additionally we know that if Meyer achieved a specific set of conditions (pulse frequency, pulse duty cycle, pulse voltage, pulse shape, etc.) whereby a dramatic increase in gas production was clearly evident, we know that this is not down to the electrical resonance of the circuit. Something else must be happening, so we need to start looking elsewhere and thinking outside of the box Meyer has provided us with.

However, he would need a specific set of pulsing conditions to achieve what myself and HMS-776 are proposing. And, not only will these conditions be different for every individual electrolyser, but the conditions will change as the electrolyser evolves. For example, using tap water laden with minerals will slowly cause mineral deposition on the electrodes, which will increase the surface area, which will change the nature of the EDLC - it will effectively detune.

This may well be why Meyer had so much difficulty in maintaining the specific conditions required to get maximum gas evolution, and indeed why his WFC may have appeared to be somewhat intermittent or erratic in its operation.
All good stuff, much appreciated!

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #40, on September 22nd, 2013, 01:37 PM »
I second that, all ears here, thanks.:D

geenee

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #41, on September 22nd, 2013, 03:14 PM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 09:35 AM by geenee
i agree,about resonant.10xa circuit(motor and generator circiut)that can run a car on water without resonant.

resonant version came from Stephen Meyer,complicate electronic circuit(newer VIC).

Stan use very simple wfc and concept but gas from wfc is very powerful than normal electrolysis,maybe it contains only pure hydrogen and oxygen(no water vapor).

Electrical charge is not mean no consume power.like capacitor,low voltage high capacitance=high voltage low capacitance because electrical charge is the same.Stan need more electrical charge to pull apart water molecule.but he use high voltage and low current because old electrolysis process has lose power with heat and heat create water vapor not H2 or O2.

if someone can proof 110 vdc by restrict amp circuit(can manage amps consume).test to see gas and heat.or test with 230vdc.but my thought voltage spike from alternator that is great because include very high voltage spike and high voltage.

thanks
geenee

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #42, on September 22nd, 2013, 05:24 PM »Last edited on September 22nd, 2013, 05:30 PM by FaradayEZ
In my mind, pulsing is also resonating, just with pauses in between.

But thats not saying it will always destroy the whole effect, the wind at the thomaka bridge had pauses i presume.  

Its just that the power in time is discontinuous

To much time in between the pulses, like more then the time needed for a vibration to die down, and i wont call it continuous vibrating/resonating.

But the whole pulsing or vibrating thing is only useful if we already have a process working in the right direction.

------------------------------------------------

What i'm worried about is that Farrah says "it will just conduct". So is Cr2O3 a good dielectric? A good dielectric is something you find in a capacitor.

It needs to be strong enough to work, to get dielectric. But if it can get dielectric buildup against the electrode side, then it surely will build up against the water side. Because the electrode connection to the layer is ohm-free.

Could we make a capacitor with SS and Cr2O3?











lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #43, on September 22nd, 2013, 11:32 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 22nd, 2013, 05:45 AM
Look at the possible field strengths in a double layer....As it has been stated the DL is very thin so the field strength is very very high.

"The very small thickness of the IHP creates an extremely strong electric field E over the separating solvent molecules. At a potential difference of, for example, U = 2 V and a molecular thickness of d = 0.4 nm, the electric field strength will be
E=Ud=2v/.4nm=5000kV/mm" --Wikipedia Supercapacitor (See section on Electrostatic Double Layer Capacitance)

"These extremely high double-layer's field strength of about 5000 kV/mm is unrealizable in conventional capacitors with conventional dielectrics. No dielectric material could prevent charge carrier breakthrough. In a double-layer capacitor the chemical stability of the molecular bonds of the solvent molecules prevents breakthrough" -Wikipedia Supercapacitor (See section on Electrostatic Double Layer Capacitance)

BTW, when you get dielectric breakdown through a material, it acts like lightning. If finds the point of least resistance and takes that path. The discharge is filamentary in nature. It does not spread throughout the water.
The dielectric breakdown of water is reached with field strengths of about 70 kV/mm, much less than what the dielectric layer in a capacitor can withstand. So, if you discharge a capacitor with a field strength in the order of just 200 kV/mm very fast, such that the molecules in the dielectric cannot keep up depolarizing, it is intirely possible to induce a field which exceeds the dielectic breakdown fieldstrength of water in the fluid, while still remaining well below the fieldstrength required to breakdown the dielectric layer.

I don't think there can be much discussion about this being possible, because this is what is actualy being observed with both aluminum based rectifiers and electolytic capacitors, as already referred to before:

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/SparkBangBuzz/borax-el.htm





Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #44, on September 23rd, 2013, 01:41 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 04:07 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from lamare on September 22nd, 2013, 11:32 PM
The dielectric breakdown of water is reached with field strengths of about 70 kV/mm, much less than what the dielectric layer in a capacitor can withstand. So, if you discharge a capacitor with a field strength in the order of just 200 kV/mm very fast, such that the molecules in the dielectric cannot keep up depolarizing, it is intirely possible to induce a field which exceeds the dielectic breakdown fieldstrength of water in the fluid, while still remaining well below the fieldstrength required to breakdown the dielectric layer.

I don't think there can be much discussion about this being possible, because this is what is actualy being observed with both aluminum based rectifiers and electolytic capacitors, as already referred to before:
I guess it's a good thing that we all see things quite differently given that no one has yet categorically proved the science behind what Meyer did... or dare I say, claimed to do.

However, I'm not sure comparing a Meyer-type WFC to a wet electrolytic capacitor is necessarily the way forward because, though there may be similarities, we require very different results from each, so I fail to see that what is being observed in electrolytic capacitors as having any real relevance.

The electrolyte in a wet electrolytic capacitor serves two purposes: to act as a liquid electrode so as to vastly increase the active surface area and to maintain the oxide dielectric layer. Maintaining the dielectric oxide layer requires some current flow, hence these caps always exhibit relatively high leakage current. Now, the one thing we don't want in a capacitor is gas evolving, and the one thing you don't want in a WFC (if you intend voltage to do the work), is current flowing.

Referring to this 70,000 volt dielectric breakdown figure, this is for pure water with a dielectric constant of 80, right? Now apart from the fact that we will always be using water that to some extent conducts electricity, you also have to consider that the dielectric constants for the oxides is far lower - not sure about the chromium oxide, but I think the aluminium oxide is only around the 10 mark.

In your scenario, if and when dielectric failure ensues, current will flow through the cell.

In our scenario when the dielectric of the EDLC fails, current does not flow through the cell between electrodes, instead charges interact across this very tiny layer directly at the electrodes.

The odd thing is, if you look at what we are both doing, the chances are that we may well ultimately get the same results, with the only thing then in dispute being the science.

lamare


HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #46, on September 23rd, 2013, 05:12 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 05:12 AM by HMS-776
Perhaps for now we can agree we are all showing some very valid points.

In time we will find more answers I guess.

I do still wonder what Stephen Meyer was taking about when he said "After a while the cell seems to die,  and the tubes have to be replaced,  or the sludge gets so bad the the cell starts short circuiting."

-I just want to know what could be happening to cause this, and if Stephen Meyer even knows what he's talking about. ... IF what he claims is occurring I think it could be due to electron tunneling and the hv fields breaking down the chromium oxide faster than it can repair itself?  Anyone else have any ideas on this?

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #47, on September 23rd, 2013, 05:17 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 23rd, 2013, 05:12 AM
Perhaps for now we can agree we are all showing some very valid points.

In time we will find more answers I guess.

I do still wonder what Stephen Meyer was taking about when he said "After a while the cell seems to die,  and the tubes have to be replaced,  or the sludge gets so bad the the cell starts short circuiting."

-I just want to know what could be happening to cause this, and if Stephen Meyer even knows what he's talking about. ... IF what he claims is occurring I think it could be due to electron tunneling and the hv fields breaking down the chromium oxide faster than it can repair itself?  Anyone else have any ideas on this?
One thing's for sure, the cells shouldn't be completely bare, bodes well for the recent "layer" theories

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #48, on September 23rd, 2013, 06:23 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 06:30 AM by HMS-776
Quote
One thing's for sure, the cells shouldn't be completely bare, bodes well for the recent "layer" theories
I think the oxide's only purpose is to prevent corrosion, or at least limit it. If Stephen Meyer is right there must be something occurring which is destroying the oxide faster than it can repair itself.

OrI am looking at it wrong. ... I wonder if after some time all the reactive metal that is exposed to the water gets used up then the cell stops working???


Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #49, on September 23rd, 2013, 06:38 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 06:40 AM by Lynx
Quote from HMS-776 on September 23rd, 2013, 05:12 AM
I do still wonder what Stephen Meyer was taking about when he said "After a while the cell seems to die,  and the tubes have to be replaced,  or the sludge gets so bad the the cell starts short circuiting."
Quote from HMS-776 on September 23rd, 2013, 06:23 AM
Quote
One thing's for sure, the cells shouldn't be completely bare, bodes well for the recent "layer" theories
I think the oxide's only purpose is to prevent corrosion, or at least limit it. If Stephen Meyer is right there must be something occurring which is destroying the oxide faster than it can repair itself.
[/quote]So either the cell needs a more durable oxide layer of sort, or the sludge simply grows thicker regardless of the state of the oxide layer, which in that case means that the cell could do with a good cleaning once in a while.
Either way, with regular intervals the cell could be cleaned, reconditioned and put back into operation, unless of course the metal itself has eroded so bad the tubes needs to be replaced.
I could live with that though.