Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #50, on September 23rd, 2013, 07:40 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 07:43 AM by Farrah Day
I was not aware of this Stephen Meyer stuff, any links?

I do however recall seeing a ridiculously poor youtube video from Stephen along with a couple of other guys, a few years back. They proposed setting up a business to rejuvenate his brother's work. The first thing they did was ask for money to be donated to get the business started. The video was totally unprofessional and pretty pathetic to say the least, seemed like just 3 clueless hillbilly's out to make a quick buck! What Meyer was doing with those guys is anyone's guess, but I can tell you one thing, it did nothing to inspire me, nor did it instil in me any confidence in Stephen.

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #51, on September 23rd, 2013, 09:36 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 23rd, 2013, 07:40 AM
I was not aware of this Stephen Meyer stuff, any links?

I do however recall seeing a ridiculously poor youtube video from Stephen along with a couple of other guys, a few years back. They proposed setting up a business to rejuvenate his brother's work. The first thing they did was ask for money to be donated to get the business started. The video was totally unprofessional and pretty pathetic to say the least, seemed like just 3 clueless hillbilly's out to make a quick buck! What Meyer was doing with those guys is anyone's guess, but I can tell you one thing, it did nothing to inspire me, nor did it instil in me any confidence in Stephen.
With all said here, i wonder if you and HMS, can come up with a test of principle for your way of producing some powerfull gas out of water.

If all goes well, Lamare's way will get tested in some time, but maybe there are simple ways for your POC to be done, or to be taken along or whatever. Are you yourself already planning some things in that direction?

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #52, on September 23rd, 2013, 10:16 AM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 07:29 PM by HMS-776
Quote from Farrah Day on September 23rd, 2013, 07:40 AM
I was not aware of this Stephen Meyer stuff, any links?

I do however recall seeing a ridiculously poor youtube video from Stephen along with a couple of other guys, a few years back. They proposed setting up a business to rejuvenate his brother's work. The first thing they did was ask for money to be donated to get the business started. The video was totally unprofessional and pretty pathetic to say the least, seemed like just 3 clueless hillbilly's out to make a quick buck! What Meyer was doing with those guys is anyone's guess, but I can tell you one thing, it did nothing to inspire me, nor did it instil in me any confidence in Stephen.
I saw that video also. ... Pretty bad.

Here is the link to an interview Stephen did in 2007.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waterfuel2007/2007/04/15/stephen-meyer

20:00-30:00 is where the information I was taking about is. He did 5 interviews,  most of which they rarely talked any detail about the technology,  but they are all interesting to listen to. I think you can download them all at globalkast.com

In the interview Stephen states that he and Stan we're trying to breakdown the metal to use it as a second electron source (via the fermi sea). He states the ss is a semiconductor (which it is) and that the cell acts similar to a transistor.

Although his explanations seem plausible I still think they are not 100% accurate, but I have been wrong before.  Let me know what you think.
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.
-Exactly,  I still think it would be cheaper than gasoline.

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #53, on September 23rd, 2013, 10:44 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?
Well, we will see what happens. At least we have some things to test. And I thank you all for the discussion, because I indeed led to some new insights based upon which I decided to test a cell with only an electropolished anode.

It is very likely the tubes get contaminated when using plain tap water. I won't even attempt to use the tap water here. I have done some experiments in the past with aluminum tubes and with tap water it was a disaster, because we have very hard water out here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swknDdT05-M

Personally, I am not too worried about the wearing out of the tubes, at least not for the moment. Given that Meyer claimed to have run his car on water for several years, I guesstimate that with properly clean water (filtered rain water, as described in Kelly's chapter 10, or demineralised water) one should be able to run a car for months if not years before problems occur. And even then, it would be a matter of cleaning and re-polishing, which should be possible to do multiple times with the same set of tubes. But I'm speculating here, we can't know for sure until we actually get this stuff up and running.


Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #54, on September 23rd, 2013, 03:50 PM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 03:50 PM by Jeff Nading
I just need to through this in the mix here. I remember in one of Stan,s videos saying the 304 SS tubes would last forever would not corrode. :D

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #55, on September 23rd, 2013, 04:27 PM »Last edited on September 23rd, 2013, 07:28 PM by HMS-776
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 23rd, 2013, 03:50 PM
I just need to through this in the mix here. I remember in one of Stan,s videos saying the 304 SS tubes would last forever would not corrode. :D
Yeah, I think he have made a mistake when he said that. Even in distilled water you will produce iron oxide after running the cell for a while. That's part of basic electrolysis. If not for the chromium oxide barrier the corrosion would be accelerated, which is one reason why SS was chosen.

 I think Stephen could be right also in his explanation.... I am starting to see that there may be several different reactions occurring all at once which are all producing gasses.....The DL 'Farrah Day' mentions, oscillation and collision ionization from the DL, basic electrolysis, & metal as a second electron source.

So, I've been reading up on Fermi Energies. For those of you who do not know the Fermi sea is a immensely dense area of electrons in a material. In metals it is part of the conduction band but in semiconductors it is separated by a potential barrier.

 Although the majority of electrons of a material exist in the Fermi sea getting them out to perform work takes a very high potential. Now, if we could access these electrons and get them to interact with water we could produce enormous amounts of gas (At least according to Stephen Meyer).

 Since we know ss is a semiconductor we know that the Fermi sea is separated from the conduction band by a potential barrier.

 The two questions I have that I have been unable to find answers to:
 1. What is the Fermi energy (in eV) for ss 304 material???
 2. What is the mean free path for ss 304 material???

 If we know these two things we can do some simple math to determine if what Stephen Meyer talks about is even possible.

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #56, on September 23rd, 2013, 11:47 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 12:10 AM by bussi04
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 10:02 AM
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.
Winding the VIC the way Meyer describes in his documents correctly shows AC voltage peaks and step charging behaviour. there is some other dynamics than discussed here so far within that expecially wound VIC ...

you can watch the effect here - dc pulse signal - primary - secondary - diode - chokes - serial tube cell ... secondary and chokes bobbins are sliced ...

you can easily see overlaying small voltage fluctuations at higher frequency than the pulse frequency.

/watch?v=GnpPhfVBsXM

there is definitely AC dynamics in the configuration!

that´s reasonable because the chokes are 2 more secondaries behind the diode and their own AC voltage generation is not blocked by the diode.

so there is an overlaying DC voltage thru the diode and 2 independent AC voltage dynamics.



btw. that effect of DC voltage overlayed by AC voltage makes me instantly think about standard bob boyce configuration with toroid coil modulating DC voltage by pulsed signals thru several additional coils.

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #57, on September 24th, 2013, 12:55 AM »
Thanks Bussi, worth checking out
Do you have a short tutorial to share regarding the correct way to wind the VIC?
Thanks.

Amsy

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #58, on September 24th, 2013, 01:16 AM »
Hi folks.

I'm with you about the "dielectric breakdown". Different water types do have different dielectric values.
It needs high voltage to break down the water. The problem is, that the generated voltage at VIC is breaking down when the WFC connected, because of the conductivity. Also with a capacitor you need some microfarad to keep up the voltage when connecting the WFC on a high level of voltage.
So we need at least X amount of energy stored to break down the water.
Meyer did not use a real capacitor to break down the dielectric.
Meyer used a magnetic core with air gap to store the energy in it. Such a magnetic core can save a lot more energy than a closed loop core. Yes the air gaps are visible in the pictures. So he pumps a lot of energy in the magnetic field. When stopping the pulse train by gating the primary puls, the magnetic field collaps and induces a high voltage puls with enough energy out of the stored magnetic field which can breakdown the water like singke HV capacitor can.
The more conductive the water is, as harder it is to keep up the voktage.
Flyback transfos work similar like that descriped above.
Hopefully this can help.


Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #59, on September 24th, 2013, 01:25 AM »
Thanks Amsy, I think all aspects of Meyer's work is important to look further into and try to explain, so far it's "only" Meyer who has been successful in building a working WFC AFAIK.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #60, on September 24th, 2013, 01:40 AM »
Personally I don't think there would be half the mystery and intrigue surrounding this if Meyer had used the correct and recognised terminology and called his 'VIC' what it actually is: a pulse transformer.

So, here's a question: What magical ingredient do you think Meyer's mysterious 'VIC' will provide that an off-the-shelf pulse transformer would not?

I totally disagree with Stephen Meyer's statement saying that SS is a semiconductor. Under certain conditions, as when immersed in an electrolyte, any metal protected by its own oxide layer can form part of a system that ACTS in a similar manner to a semiconductor, but this effect is due to a combination of factors. To call SS a semiconductor is just plain wrong.

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #61, on September 24th, 2013, 01:53 AM »
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?
Thanks.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #62, on September 24th, 2013, 01:56 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 02:31 AM by Farrah Day
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.  
Quote from Lynx on September 24th, 2013, 01:53 AM
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?
Thanks.
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.

freethisone

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #63, on September 24th, 2013, 03:01 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 03:17 AM by freethisone
use this link to accomplish your charging needs by solar pannels.http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=91



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

this one used 75 volts dc

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ9GvEZcKzg

this one 240 v ac


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ9GvEZcKzg

and this one is the only claimed replica at low voltage i have seen


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL99597C6E1F3A8DA1

note each wire is very heavy gauge. so im not sure if there is much here to see that makes us believe.

i do note however you can still buy a Stan Myers hho torch that was his design, it also uses ac power. and would serve as the input to the engine. pop it in the trunk use an ac inverter, and your close. send the gas through a high voltage potential before the injector your in business.

the water fuel injectors will work but a glow plug is needed to vaporize the water before it enters the cylinder.

is it really all scientific mumbo jumbo?  no its not...:dodgy:

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #64, on September 24th, 2013, 05:14 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 05:23 AM by Farrah Day
Quote
is it really all scientific mumbo jumbo? no its not...Dodgy
And you are qualifying this statement by simply by showing lots of meaningless videos with absolutely no facts, figures or corroborating evidence to go with them? :huh:

Your post simply appears to be a way to get your foot in the door in order to give a sales pitch - that first video is nothing more than sales hype!

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #65, on September 24th, 2013, 05:23 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 05:33 AM by Lynx
Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 01:56 AM
Quote
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?
Thanks.
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.
Thanks Farrah, I just saw your reply.


Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 05:14 AM
Quote
is it really all scientific mumbo jumbo? no its not...Dodgy
And you are...................Your post simply appears to be a way to get your foot in the door in order to give a sales pitch - that first video is nothing more than sales hype!
Please try to refrain from such sales pitch allegations, it's not needed here.
Agree to disagree instead, that's perfectly OK, besides if it weren't for differing opinions the discussions would be really dull after a while.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #66, on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 07:56 AM by Farrah Day
Fair enough Lynx, but the very first sentence contained a link to a solar panel supplier and that first video is nothing more than a promotional video, which contains nothing but links to more promotional videos.

So I'll disagree - whether he agrees to disagree with my disagreement maybe another matter entirely. :)

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #67, on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM »

One thing everyone seems to be ignoring here is Stan's own numbers as well as the numbers others have posted in their replications.

In an electrochemical cell there are 2 currents.
1 is the leakage current which performs basic electrolysis (and some side reactions).
2 is the dl capacitive charging current.

If the current provided to the cell is too small basic electrolysis takes all the electrons and the dl capacitor does not charge.

If you provide more current than what can be used in electrolysis you can build up thedouble layer capacitor.  As it builds the leakage current is restricted and the voltage rises. As far as leakage current restriction the dl can be looked at as a depletion region (the stable ion layers restrict current).

Here are a few examples that a higher current is required:

Stan Meyer's Alternator-tube setup
12V @ 4.4A (Ref international independent test-eval report p 60)

JON ABEL (youtube)30V @ 680mA

Thewaterenergy1 (youtube)75V @ 900mA

RAVI'S REPLICATION (youtube)12V @ 500mA



Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #68, on September 24th, 2013, 08:07 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 08:40 AM by Lynx
Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM
Fair enough Lynx, but the very first sentence contained a link to a solar panel supplier and that first video is nothing more than a promotional video, which contains nothing but links to more promotional videos.

So I'll disagree - whether he agrees to disagree with my disagreement maybe another matter entirely. :)
I hear you Farrah and I can assure you if I so much as smell even the slightest whiff of spam there will be dire consequences indeed for the poster at hand.
Freethisone is completely trusted that way.
Quote from HMS-776 on September 24th, 2013, 08:31 AM
Quote from Lynx on September 24th, 2013, 08:07 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM
Fair enough Lynx...........
I hear you Farrah...........
Let's not let some misunderstandings ruin a good discussion.
+1
I haven't seen this good a discussion about Meyer in a long time, I'm really liking it
Quote from HMS-776 on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM
One thing everyone seems to be ignoring here is Stan's own numbers as well as the numbers others have posted in their replications.

In an electrochemical cell there are 2 currents.
1 is the leakage current which performs basic electrolysis (and some side reactions).
2 is the dl capacitive charging current.

If the current provided to the cell is too small basic electrolysis takes all the electrons and the dl capacitor does not charge.

If you provide more current than what can be used in electrolysis you can build up thedouble layer capacitor.  As it builds the leakage current is restricted and the voltage rises. As far as leakage current restriction the dl can be looked at as a depletion region (the stable ion layers restrict current).
This I have totally missed, awesome, thanks!!

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #69, on September 24th, 2013, 09:09 AM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 09:23 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from HMS-776 on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM
One thing everyone seems to be ignoring here is Stan's own numbers as well as the numbers others have posted in their replications.

In an electrochemical cell there are 2 currents.
1 is the leakage current which performs basic electrolysis (and some side reactions).
2 is the dl capacitive charging current.

If the current provided to the cell is too small basic electrolysis takes all the electrons and the dl capacitor does not charge.

If you provide more current than what can be used in electrolysis you can build up thedouble layer capacitor.  As it builds the leakage current is restricted and the voltage rises. As far as leakage current restriction the dl can be looked at as a depletion region (the stable ion layers restrict current).

Here are a few examples that a higher current is required:

Stan Meyer's Alternator-tube setup
12V @ 4.4A (Ref international independent test-eval report p 60)

JON ABEL (youtube)30V @ 680mA

Thewaterenergy1 (youtube)75V @ 900mA

RAVI'S REPLICATION (youtube)12V @ 500mA
One thing that is missing though in order for the above data to have any real meaning are the gas output figures.

I do know that Jon Abel was seeing the step-charging effect, but admitted he was not getting very much gas evolving at all. Ravi and Lawton calculated that they were getting around 3x over-Faraday (but I'm sure they built up the mineral layer on their electrodes, so were likely getting some plasma electrolysis occurring). And to be honest, now I'm thinking about it, I can't say that I've ever actually seen and figures from Meyer detailing the volume of his gas output.

These 'waterenergy1' guys claim 60lpm from 75v and just 900mA, which would be phenomenal if true - but which I very much doubt. Their video reminded me of the infamous 'Fast' Freddy Wells, he claimed around 55lpm from a low current and also claimed he was driving his truck on nothing but water. A lot of gullible people fell for it, donated money to him, and then after months of leading folk on a winding path to nowhere, he made a rather 'Fast' exit.

Never heard of these 'waterenergy1' guys before, but my first impression is that it really does look like all promotional hype with no substance. Which is just how the Fast Freddy Wells' of the world operate. Anyone know anything more substantial about them or is it all just youtube video clips with absolutely no evidence to support their claims?  I assume English is not their native language, because the grammar and spelling is appalling - either that or they are illiterate, which doesn't bode well. If they are not already doing so, I expect it won't be long before they are asking for donations or selling stuff!






Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #70, on September 24th, 2013, 09:24 AM »
Made the thread sticky for now, there's some really interesting discussions going on in here.

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #71, on September 24th, 2013, 09:33 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 09:09 AM
Quote from HMS-776 on September 24th, 2013, 07:54 AM
One thing everyone seems to be ignoring here is Stan's own numbers as well as the numbers others have posted in their replications.

In an electrochemical cell there are 2 currents.
1 is the leakage current which performs basic electrolysis (and some side reactions).
2 is the dl capacitive charging current.

If the current provided to the cell is too small basic electrolysis takes all the electrons and the dl capacitor does not charge.

If you provide more current than what can be used in electrolysis you can build up thedouble layer capacitor.  As it builds the leakage current is restricted and the voltage rises. As far as leakage current restriction the dl can be looked at as a depletion region (the stable ion layers restrict current).

Here are a few examples that a higher current is required:

Stan Meyer's Alternator-tube setup
12V @ 4.4A (Ref international independent test-eval report p 60)

JON ABEL (youtube)30V @ 680mA

Thewaterenergy1 (youtube)75V @ 900mA

RAVI'S REPLICATION (youtube)12V @ 500mA
One thing that is missing though in order for the above data to have any real meaning are the gas output figures.

I do know that Jon Abel was seeing the step-charging effect, but admitted he was not getting very much gas evolving at all. Ravi and Lawton calculated that they were getting around 3x over-Faraday (but I'm sure they built up the mineral layer on their electrodes, so were likely getting some plasma electrolysis occurring). And to be honest, now I'm thinking about it, I can't say that I've ever actually seen and figures from Meyer detailing the volume of his gas output.

These 'waterenergy1' guys claim 60lpm from 75v and just 900mA, which would be phenomenal if true - but which I very much doubt. Their video reminded me of the infamous 'Fast' Freddy Wells, he claimed around 55lpm from a low current and also claimed he was driving his truck on nothing but water. A lot of gullible people fell for it, donated money to him, and then after months of leading folk on a winding path to nowhere, he made a rather 'Fast' exit.

Never heard of these 'waterenergy1' guys before, but my first impression is that it really does look like all promotional hype with no substance. Which is just how the Fast Freddy Wells' of the world operate. Anyone know anything more substantial about them or is it all just youtube video clips with absolutely no evidence to support their claims?  I assume English is not their native language, because the grammar and spelling is appalling - either that or they are illiterate, which doesn't bode well. If they are not already doing so, I expect it won't be long before they are asking for donations or selling stuff!
True,  without gas production numbers we really don't know. But even then how would we know if the measurement techniques were correct.  Btw Meyer does post numbers in the international test evaluation report on page 60, claiming and showing a calculated efficiency of 1,696%.

Amsy

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #72, on September 24th, 2013, 09:49 AM »
Hey farrah Day,
Yes you are right. But I think, it is very important, that when we try to generate 70kV and above, we also need a basic energy behind (for example: a capacitor).
Because when current flows because of the conductivity, the voltage (also in capacitors) will break down to a smaler level.
But there exists no capacitor like this. So it is better to store it like meyer in the magnetic field and release the collected energy.

After a dielectric breakdown, the current goes very high.

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #73, on September 24th, 2013, 10:36 AM »
Quote from Amsy on September 24th, 2013, 09:49 AM
Hey farrah Day,
Yes you are right. But I think, it is very important, that when we try to generate 70kV and above, we also need a basic energy behind (for example: a capacitor).
Because when current flows because of the conductivity, the voltage (also in capacitors) will break down to a smaler level.
But there exists no capacitor like this. So it is better to store it like meyer in the magnetic field and release the collected energy.

After a dielectric breakdown, the current goes very high.
If there was a dielectric breakdown the discharge would occur so quickly you would not have the waveforms Stan and others have shown.  During the off time the capacitor discharges, and the waveforms show that it is not a fast discharge.

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=646&page=8

Starts at post 147.


Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #74, on September 24th, 2013, 10:57 AM »
Quote
True, without gas production numbers we really don't know. But even then how would we know if the measurement techniques were correct. Btw Meyer does post numbers in the international test evaluation report on page 60, claiming and showing a calculated efficiency of 1,696%.
That's one hell of a claim. One thing for sure if your electrolyser suddenly started outputting that much gas, you wouldn't be too concerned about minor measurement inaccuracies would you?