Amsy, I used to think that the dielectric constant of water changed depending on the contaminants and impurities therein, but I don't think this is the case.
As far as I now understand, ALL water has a dielectric constant of around 80, whether it be pure or mineral water. The difference is that one will readily conduct due to the large content of mobile ions and the other will not.
This is because even with impurities, the water molecules will still align within an electric field, making for an excellent dielectric. So, put even readily conductive mineral water in a insulating plastic bag between to electrodes and you will have very good capacitor. BUT, without the plastic bag, and with the water in direct contact with the electrodes, the water will conduct. Therefore (and bearing in mind that even deionised water is continually self-ionising), the reality of attaining the 70Kv/mm across the electrodes required to cause catastrophic dielectric failure of the water in an electrolyser, to my mind at least, is nigh on impossible.
Let's say you're correct here Farrah, why is is so hard to replicate Meyer's WFC then?
In your opinion, where should one be looking for the secret sauce?
Well, let's be honest here, the pseudoscience that Meyer provided in his Technical Brief has done no one any favours. And you only have to read some of the posts here, and indeed on other forums, to realise that many people are still treating his technical brief as a bible. And given the blatantly flawed science therein, this is clearly a major mistake. That's why I binned the Technical Brief and started looking at things from a different angle: If Meyer did achieve what he claimed, then how did he do it, and what is the REAL science behind it?
But of course, the biggest issues are: Did Meyer ever achieve what he claimed in the first place? If not, then we are likely on a wild goose chase, all of us wasting our time looking for something that doesn't exist.
Neither the Buggy or his worktop prototype were ever independently inspected, so where does that leave us? Well, you either have to have complete and unrelenting faith in Meyer as a person or treat the whole think with great scepticism. I tend to fall into the latter category.
But, I've persevered on the grounds that I believe - at least in principle - that Meyer might have been on to something. However Meyer's obvious lack of knowledge and education in this field, resulting in all the meaningless pseudoscience and invented jargon was his downfall, and has ultimately only served to cloud and confuse.
So, if there is any secret sauce, then we need to expand our thinking, hence my leaning towards the EDLC effect.