Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

Amsy

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #75, on September 24th, 2013, 11:16 AM »
Hy Hms,

I think Stans drawing is more a sketch than a accurate osci pic.  
But you are right, it is a very quick discharge with some kAmps.
The discharge time also depends on how much energy is stored.

Stan mentioned in videos (we can believe or not), that he charges the first Charging Choke to a maximum (not the water cap). He thought about energizing a coil which can store enegy (magnetic air gap).
When the field collapses (=puls train off), the voltage hits the water capacitor. I do not think, that during the puls train the water capacitor is charged, instead the core is energized, then when puls train stops, the collapsing field of the coils charges the water capacitor. The electric field rises and load the dielectric. When the voltage can exeed the breakdown voltage, it will accure.
The prior condition is, that the energy is high enough.
(Little bit hard to descripe all) :rolleyes:

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #76, on September 24th, 2013, 12:38 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 12:56 PM by HMS-776
Quote from Farrah Day 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?
Oh yeah,  I should have clarified.  I meant the measurements you see people taking on YouTube with a timer and a bottle.
Quote from Amsy on September 24th, 2013, 11:16 AM
Hy Hms,

I think Stans drawing is more a sketch than a accurate osci pic.  
But you are right, it is a very quick discharge with some kAmps.
The discharge time also depends on how much energy is stored.

Stan mentioned in videos (we can believe or not), that he charges the first Charging Choke to a maximum (not the water cap). He thought about energizing a coil which can store enegy (magnetic air gap).
When the field collapses (=puls train off), the voltage hits the water capacitor. I do not think, that during the puls train the water capacitor is charged, instead the core is energized, then when puls train stops, the collapsing field of the coils charges the water capacitor. The electric field rises and load the dielectric. When the voltage can exeed the breakdown voltage, it will accure.
The prior condition is, that the energy is high enough.
(Little bit hard to descripe all) :rolleyes:
What you are describing is a flyback transformer.
There are at least two problems I see with using a flyback transformer.
1. With a flyback transformer you do not produce a continuous output current.  This allows the cell to discharge between pulses (unless you provide more current to the cell than will leak off during that time).
2. The flyback transformer provides a small current at a high voltage.
You cannot charge a leaky capacitor with a high voltage low current pulse.  You must give more current to the cell than it can leak off.

Look at the waveforms from I posted here
http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=646&page=6
At post 104 you can see what happens when there exists an off time between pulses. The cell discharges between pulses which hinders the charging proces

Another way to look at it is by comparing current to water and the cell as a bucket with a hole in the bottom of it.

To charge the bucket full of water it does not matter what the pressure (voltage) the water is.  What is important is that you provide more water (higher current) to the bucket than what leaks out of the hole. That is how you charge (fill) the bucket.

freethisone

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #77, on September 24th, 2013, 01:04 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 01:13 PM by freethisone
Farah day , i was not selling. i was including some back ground info to  post. after i had read the negative comments i was concerned you may have fallen victim to a scam.. im sorry about that. i didn't review each movie because i was trying to give you many choices to accomplish the same goal.

i hope you accept my apology but free energy has been a dream of mine since i was a kid.

Stan had something. science tells us what he had was a benefit to man.
as long as you stay focused you will accomplish your own goals too.

cheers.:angel: united nuclear is one of my favorite suppliers but i also wanted you to see the power output of these incredible small panels, and apply them to your energy consumption concerns.. amps..    
and you can drive all day on your hho cells. even apply them to a boat. but it needs to be a sunny day, sorry.

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #78, on September 24th, 2013, 02:03 PM »
Since some video's were posted: What do you guys think of this video?


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


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

It looks pretty impressive to me, although not a Meyer replication.

More on this one:

http://pesn.com/2010/12/25/9501743_Anton_HHO_self-running_in_elevator/

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Self-Looped_Anton_HHO_Cell_System

While this does not give any details about gas production volume, it does show excess energy. A few amp and volt meters here and there and you get reliable measurements which are easy to interpret.

I would love to get something like this running on a Cramton replication....

I am very sure systems like this are possible, because a friend of mine had one running (I have not personally witnessed the system running, but I do trust him on his word) and Kelly's manual contains a complete description of the conversion of a generator similar to the one shown in the video:

http://free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt10.html

Mixing the Brown's gas with "cold water fog" appears to be very important to get systems like this running efficiently, although that appears to be missing in the system shown in the video.

They do appear to be able to get the system self running, but not much power left over:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Self-Looped_Anton_HHO_Cell_System
Quote
"Stationary water motor running for several minutes. Complete with switching over from grid to self-run. The power supply which is still attached to the grid is for providing power to the ignition circuit and coil. (cannot be switched in time, because if the ignition fails the motor would die)"

[...]

"It can generate more than 1000 Watts of electricity via this combination. The loads are a 300 Watts another 500 Watts incandescent light and a drill with about 200 to 500 Watts usage. Power for the DC Power Supply was less than 1000 Watts!"

[...]

The engine is a 4 stroke 1 cylinder 80 ccm gasoline engine (2.8 hp, 1000 Watt max from the generator) adapted to oxyhydrogen by ourself.
The ignition is also selfmade with parts from the junk yard. No wasted spark and the timing can be changed. No plasma spark.
The engine runs with a HHO and air mix. The HHO from the ANTON cells goes through a bubbler and a backflash-arrestor as you can see in my videos.

[...]

Here we used 3 ANTON cells with 21 electrodes each. We used about 800 - 900 Watt from the power supply (pulsating DC at 100 Hz). The electrolyte concentration is about 3% KOH.
My friend says he is able to run a generator delivering 50 kW of electric power and 30 kW of heat for 6 kW of input power, which I am pretty sure is because of the use of "cold water fog" in combination with the Brown's gas.

However, all this is perhaps a bit off-topic, because it is not a Meyer replication since all of these are run with "normal" electrolysers using an electrolyte.


FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #79, on September 24th, 2013, 02:40 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 02:55 PM by FaradayEZ
Hi Lamare,

Yes, these video's have been around here. We should have made a thread  
" impressive stuff ", now i'll have to check where i had/saw some similar setup but then also with the use of the exhaust gases.

Should be in the Geet / pantone area

Found it: http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=712&pid=7579#pid7579

The first link has the video yours reminded me to

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #80, on September 24th, 2013, 03:25 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 03:27 PM by Farrah Day
Quote
My friend says he is able to run a generator delivering 50 kW of electric power and 30 kW of heat for 6 kW of input power, which I am pretty sure is because of the use of "cold water fog" in combination with the Brown's gas.

 However, all this is perhaps a bit off-topic, because it is not a Meyer replication since all of these are run with "normal" electrolysers using an electrolyte.
Don't be concerned about being off-topic, because if you have a friend that has an electrolyser that can deliver 80KW from a 6KW input all our energy worries are over, and we can forget all about Meyer!

Have you not considered just forgetting about all this stuff and simply asking him how he does it? The two of you could be billionaires next week!  

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #81, on September 24th, 2013, 11:22 PM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 24th, 2013, 03:25 PM
Quote
My friend says he is able to run a generator delivering 50 kW of electric power and 30 kW of heat for 6 kW of input power, which I am pretty sure is because of the use of "cold water fog" in combination with the Brown's gas.

 However, all this is perhaps a bit off-topic, because it is not a Meyer replication since all of these are run with "normal" electrolysers using an electrolyte.
Don't be concerned about being off-topic, because if you have a friend that has an electrolyser that can deliver 80KW from a 6KW input all our energy worries are over, and we can forget all about Meyer!

Have you not considered just forgetting about all this stuff and simply asking him how he does it? The two of you could be billionaires next week!
Of course I asked how he does it. Essentially the way Patrick Kelly describes how to convert a generator to run on water in chapter 10:

http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt10.html

I am not sure if he actually got a generator running delivering 80 kW, I suspect he extrapolated these numbers from experiments with a somewhat smaller Mercedes engine / generator.

He is currently building a generator set with a big V8 engine which is put in a sort of container. They have a couple of these planned to build and sold in The Netherlands and Belgium.

In there, there are using like 24 plate electrolysers each consisting of 12(?) stainless steel plates of about 30x50 cm with a distance of something like 1-2 mm between the plates. These are very similar in design as Bob Boyce' plate electrolysers:






He does not have the pipe on top and the plates are fully submerged under water. Outside the outer plates there is no water, which has led to problems. Some electrolysers exploded and it looked like the HHO migrated straight trough the RVS metal, they said. They had this investigated by a company who never saw the kind of damage to RVS plates these things got.

All in all, the electrolysers are quite big. You are talking about needing a space like 1-2 m^3 just to place the electrolysers.

The electrolysers are running on pulsed D.C. with a voltage of about 1.8 V per indivudual cell. The electrolyte they use is NaOH.

He said it is very important to mix the gas with cold water fog. I don't know how they make that.

For my project, I will be using a standard carburetor with adjustable nozzle:

http://www.tuks.nl/WFCProject/img/Engine_Carburator/bing_carb_2.jpg

Much easier than the venturi system described in Kelly's book, because with such an adjustable nozzle one can tune the system on the fly, while with the system described by Kelly one cannot tune the system other than try different diameters of the channel drilled in the venturi pipe:



So, as far as I can tell Kelly's recipe works, but is a bit impractical to put on a car, because you need considerable power to the electrolyser and the electrolysers are quite big. And you need destilled water and an electrolyte. That is one of the reasons I am attempting to get a Meyer replication. When the power to the electrolyser can be reduced by a factor 10 or so, life becomes much easier. And it also appears that Meyer's tube construction can deliver a lot of gas in a relatively small space.

Becoming billionaires is out of the question. The big problem with these kinds of technology is that it threatens the foundation of the petro dollar and the whole financial system attached to it. The whole fiat currency system is at the verge of collapse and the money itself is essentially toilet paper with a good looking message printed on it. And that's only a small part of the "money" in existence, like 4% or so. All the rest of it is nothing but numbers on a computer, not even worth the paper it is not printed on.  But don't worry about becoming billionaires. Given the current "QE" policies which are applied world wide, we might just all become billionaires pretty soon:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-23/qe-worked-weimar-republic-little-while-too




Matt Watts


lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #83, on September 24th, 2013, 11:46 PM »Last edited on September 24th, 2013, 11:51 PM by lamare
Quote from Matt Watts on September 24th, 2013, 11:39 PM
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 02:03 PM
Since some video's were posted: What do you guys think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlciNOyo_U
I built it and it is a fraud.  There is benzene or alcohol in the bubbler.
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=883

So don't waste your time.
If you'r already that far, I would suggest to try mixing cold water fog with the output of the electrolyser. It should make a lot of difference. While we don't know yet what this Brown's gas stuff really is exactly, it is clear that it is negatively charged and that mixing it with cold water fog creates a usable fuel. It also appears to be important to use pulsed D.C. or high voltage spikes as input to the electrolyser. This appears to be related to the formation of a Pollack "EZ" zone on the surface of the plates, which appears to be responsible for creating the Brown's gas. No hard conclusions here on the exact mechanisms involved, but it does give some clues on what might be worth investigating.

Kelly describes how to make cold water fog with a home made venturi pipe, but he said people have used carburetors for this purpose successfully:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/MeyerWFCReplicationProject#ColdFogWithCarburetor

I would suggest a carburetor with an adjustable nozzle, so you can tune the system on the fly.

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #84, on September 25th, 2013, 12:14 AM »
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 11:46 PM
If you'r already that far, I would suggest to try mixing cold water fog with the output of the electrolyser. It should make a lot of difference.
Did that too.  I used a pair of large piezo electric pong foggers.  I also used a 20+ joule per pulse plasma ignition system.

Results:

The cold water fog successfully gunks up the engine oil in very short order and causes the steel valves to rust almost immediate causing leaks and backfires.

The plasma spark fires the engine exactly the same as the conventional CDI--no noticeable difference whatsoever.  It might work much better with gasoline, but for Hydroxy gas, it is not needed.

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #85, on September 25th, 2013, 12:33 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 25th, 2013, 12:14 AM
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 11:46 PM
If you'r already that far, I would suggest to try mixing cold water fog with the output of the electrolyser. It should make a lot of difference.
Did that too.  I used a pair of large piezo electric pong foggers.  I also used a 20+ joule per pulse plasma ignition system.

Results:

The cold water fog successfully gunks up the engine oil in very short order and causes the steel valves to rust almost immediate causing leaks and backfires.

The plasma spark fires the engine exactly the same as the conventional CDI--no noticeable difference whatsoever.  It might work much better with gasoline, but for Hydroxy gas, it is not needed.
Did you use any means of controlling the amount of cold water fog injected?  I think it is important to get the mixture right. A gasoline engine also works best with a certain mixture of gas / air.

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #86, on September 25th, 2013, 12:34 AM »Last edited on September 26th, 2013, 01:28 AM by bussi04
Quote from bussi04 on September 23rd, 2013, 11:47 PM
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.
Quote from Lynx 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.
you can see the winding sequence in detail here (link posted  by courtesy of h2opower)

http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=8246&postcount=28

of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.

Tread topic: "Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?"



Farrah Day set up this discussion pointing to aspects of real science of WFC.

aspects have been pointed to that only can be answered by

- qualified technical expertise                    or
- qualified in depth experiments


in depth experiments with high voltage applied to the WFC will instantly pop up lots of technical problems  ...

that´s why those few experiments at these forums fail but that´s no clue that it can´t be done better.

quick and cheap experiments is not the way scientific method goes ...


qualified technical expertise grows by research and needs in depth experiments.

that can´t be substituted by discussion (=opinions).



Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #87, on September 25th, 2013, 01:18 AM »
Thanks Bussi, appreciate it!

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #88, on September 25th, 2013, 01:19 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 01:21 AM by lamare
Quote from bussi04 on September 25th, 2013, 12:34 AM
Quote from Lynx 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.


of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.

Tread topic: "Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?"



Farrah Day set up this discussion pointing to aspects of real science of WFC.

aspects have been pointed to that only can be answered by

- qualified technical expertise                    or
- qualified in depth experiments


in depth experiments with high voltage applied to the WFC will instantly pop up lots of technical problems  ...

that´s why those few experiments at these forums fail but that´s no clue that it can´t be done better.

quick and cheap experiments is not the way scientific method goes ...


qualified technical expertise grows by research and needs in depth experiments.

that can´t be substituted by discussion (=opinions).
It is an interesting way of winding. There is a document with measurements from Meyer's coil, which I found at Russ' site:

http://www.tuks.nl/WFCProject/coil%20Readings%20and%20bobbin%20measurements.xls

Since the secondary and the chokes are put in series, while the secondary is connected the other way around as one would expect, this arrangement appears to make use of self-resonance of the coils themselves.

When we take an average of inductance of 1250 mH as measured on the core and self capacitance of 2 uF as measured on the core, we get a self resonance frequency for each of the coils of:

1/(2*3,1415*SQRT(1,25*0,000002)) = about 100 Hz .

That would be the "ground" quarter wave self resonance frequency of these coils, so when such a coil would be resonating at 100 Hz, we would get minimal voltage, maximum current (current hot spot, CHS) at one terminal and maximum voltage, minimal current at the other (voltage hot spot, VHS).

At 200 Hz, we would get half wave resonance, so we would get either CHSs at both terminals OR VHSs which would be 180 degrees out of phase.  However, because of the diode we cannot have CHSs at the connection between the coils, so a voltage hot spot is forced to be present at the terminals of all the coils resonating at their half wave resonance frequency.

So, if I calculated correctly, once would expect to see "odd" behavior when pulsed with frequencies which are multiples of about 200 Hz - not counting the influence of the load.



Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #89, on September 25th, 2013, 04:21 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 24th, 2013, 11:39 PM
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 02:03 PM
Since some video's were posted: What do you guys think of this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlciNOyo_U
I built it and it is a fraud.  There is benzene or alcohol in the bubbler.
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=883

So don't waste your time.
This is exactly why we need to stay grounded, exhibit a healthy scepticism and certainly not just take someone's word for it. Only the totally uneducated, extremely naive and gullible take such things on face value. They fall hook, line and sinker for the claims of con merchants, and once reeled in, they inevitably end up well out of pocket.

Anyone can show a video and say they are getting this that and the other, by doing this that and the other - such claims are absolutely worthless.

Just remember the world is full of the likes of Fast Freddy Wells

Changing the subject, Lamare linked to Patrick Kelly's site.

And while I think Patrick Kelly offers a great resource by compiling all the various work and claims of people in the alternative energy field, you do have to remember that most of the info is just 'claims'. That is, in most cases there is no unequivocal evidence to support these claims and so ultimately such claims remain unsubstantiated and unproven.

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #90, on September 25th, 2013, 04:36 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 25th, 2013, 04:21 AM
Changing the subject, Lamare linked to Patrick Kelly's site.

And while I think Patrick Kelly offers a great resource by compiling all the various work and claims of people in the alternative energy field, you do have to remember that most of the info is just 'claims'. That is, in most cases there is no unequivocal evidence to support these claims and so ultimately such claims remain unsubstantiated and unproven.
Correct you are Sir.
Without documentation, making it essentially open source, or third party objective unbiased testing, it's just not working as advertised.

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #91, on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM »
Quote from Farrah Day on September 25th, 2013, 04:21 AM
This is exactly why we need to stay grounded, exhibit a healthy scepticism and certainly not just take someone's word for it. Only the totally uneducated, extremely naive and gullible take such things on face value. They fall hook, line and sinker for the claims of con merchants, and once reeled in, they inevitably end up well out of pocket.

Anyone can show a video and say they are getting this that and the other, by doing this that and the other - such claims are absolutely worthless.

Just remember the world is full of the likes of Fast Freddy Wells

Changing the subject, Lamare linked to Patrick Kelly's site.

And while I think Patrick Kelly offers a great resource by compiling all the various work and claims of people in the alternative energy field, you do have to remember that most of the info is just 'claims'. That is, in most cases there is no unequivocal evidence to support these claims and so ultimately such claims remain unsubstantiated and unproven.
Yes, we need to stay grounded and remain skeptical. Yet, we also need to try and make sense of what is being claimed and shown and apply some science to it in order to find out what's for real and what not.

In general, many free energy researchers (such as Meyer) are not too good with the theory and try and find their own explanations of what they are observing. These theories are often dubious, but in many cases the more serious researchers (such as Meyer) do describe strange phenomena which do offer clues about what is going on.

I used to be very skeptical about the whole HHO / Brown's gas thing, until I personally witnessed the friend mentioned igniting a bubble of Brown's gas which had been formed on a water-soap solution. It makes a very distinct sound. Only after I took this phenomena seriously, I was able to find references (Pollack, Eckman) which make clear that there is something to it.

So, perhaps it's best to look at all these claims as Howard Zinn looked at history:

http://isreview.org/issues/20/zinn.shtml
Quote
History can't give you definitive and positive answers to the issues that come up today, but it can suggest things. It can suggest skepticism about certain things. It can suggest probabilities and possibilities. There are some things you can learn from historical experience.
The same thing goes for Kelly's book. I think it is a great resource, which is why I am hosting it after Kelly pulled it of the net because he wanted to retire. I am glad this way this resource is still available and Kelly actually updates it every now and then. Yet, it is not error free nor a scientific work, so one needs to make up his/her own mind and try to come up with something that can be tested.

I strongly believe it is possible to run an engine on a combination of Brown's gas and cold water fog, whereby it is important to get the details right. One of the elements for that is to get the amount of fog being injected right and under control. Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #92, on September 25th, 2013, 06:10 AM »
Quote from lamare on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM
Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...
Is it at any specific pulsing frequency he gets Brown's gas or is it "only" depending on the voltage applied to the cell?
Thanks.

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #93, on September 25th, 2013, 06:39 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 07:14 AM by Farrah Day
Quote
of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.
So, let me ask again, what does a VIC do that a pulse transformer will not do? What exactly are you looking to see across the electrodes of a cell, and how are you proposing that what you see there works to dissociate the water molecule?

I find that in the majority of cases people seem to be attempting to build or replicate something without even knowing what it really does or what they are ultimately trying to achieve, which I find very odd indeed.  Surely the logical thing to do is decide exactly what you want to achieve, and then attempt to construct an item to meet your requirements.


Quote from freethisone on September 24th, 2013, 01:04 PM
Farah day , i was not selling. i was including some back ground info to  post. after i had read the negative comments i was concerned you may have fallen victim to a scam.. im sorry about that. i didn't review each movie because i was trying to give you many choices to accomplish the same goal.

i hope you accept my apology but free energy has been a dream of mine since i was a kid.
No problem, just a typical knee-jerk reaction on my part as that first video is typical of a scam set up. No, I've never been scammed myself, but I know first-hand of people who have been. One donated money to Fast Freddy Wells and another gave generously to Sterling Allen, who then went on a wild goose chase. There's big money in this stuff for the criminals, and what with all the climate change and air pollution concerns, and the high price of crude oil, it all plays right into their hands. So it's paramount that we remain grounded and ever alert to scams.


FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #94, on September 25th, 2013, 07:18 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 11:53 AM by FaradayEZ
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 11:22 PM
Becoming billionaires is out of the question. The big problem with these kinds of technology is that it threatens the foundation of the petro dollar and the whole financial system attached to it. The whole fiat currency system is at the verge of collapse and the money itself is essentially toilet paper with a good looking message printed on it. And that's only a small part of the "money" in existence, like 4% or so. All the rest of it is nothing but numbers on a computer, not even worth the paper it is not printed on.  But don't worry about becoming billionaires. Given the current "QE" policies which are applied world wide, we might just all become billionaires pretty soon:
I still have to invest a bit in silver coins, get more food stored, get armed (difficult in my country) and get the independant of the grid closed loop electromotor/generator thingy... and that all just to survive...and get harrashed by the system that wants to tag me with a bio-chip*? hmm maybe its easier to call it a day and just step in my grave?

* chip thats going to be very fast and diff. to reproduce, links with banking, gps, who's online where, and when they decide, trigger a change in your dna to give you a rare new disease to die off. (i.e. mark of the beast etc.)
But works well against crime and black market economie. (no cash anymore)

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #95, on September 25th, 2013, 07:19 AM »
What P:sses me off is the ones who bought Meyer's dune buggy, (how the hell that ever happened beats me), why haven't we seen that one running yet again?
Bar the injectors, which he by the looks of it never got to work, it still could run using his WFC.
So why hasn't this happened?
Who was it that bought it?
Exxon?

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #96, on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 08:33 AM by bussi04
Quote from Farrah Day on September 25th, 2013, 06:39 AM
Quote
of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.
So, let me ask again, what does a VIC do that a pulse transformer will not do? What exactly are you looking to see across the electrodes of a cell, and how are you proposing that what you see there works to dissociate the water molecule?
Farrah,

asking that question simply needs your definition of pulse transformer optimization. of course optimization depends on the application.

Obviously the VIC is optimized towards maximum capacitive reactance. each transformer is optimized some way (at least for voltage and amps ... but there are some more properties ...).

the bifilar windings add some different magnetic flux effects to the transformer dynamics compared to a pulse transformer.

now you can see the  difference to pulse transformers.

nevertheless that VIC can´t be calculated yet :-(


Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #97, on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM »
Quote from lamare on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM
Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...
So the electrolyzer I built is a 59 (4 x 6 in) plate dry cell, running from 117 volts (about 128 volt DC bridge rectified) with NaOH.  This cell would not run my 305cc engine at full output (approx 13 LpM), but when using it to drive a torch head, it will:
  • weld brass to concrete

  • vaporize 1/4" titanium rod
  • burn a hole through ceramic plate
  • explode glass on contact
  • set off every car alarm in the neighborhood when igniting a one gallon milk jug full of it.
[/list]

So what is it producing Hydroxy or Brown's gas?

Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #98, on September 25th, 2013, 10:03 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 10:14 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from Matt Watts on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM
Quote from lamare on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM
Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...
So the electrolyzer I built is a 59 (4 x 6 in) plate dry cell, running from 117 volts (about 128 volt DC bridge rectified) with NaOH.  This cell would not run my 305cc engine at full output (approx 13 LpM), but when using it to drive a torch head, it will:
  • weld brass to concrete

  • vaporize 1/4" titanium rod
  • burn a hole through ceramic plate
  • explode glass on contact
  • set off every car alarm in the neighborhood when igniting a one gallon milk jug full of it.
[/list]

So what is it producing Hydroxy or Brown's gas?
Plain hydroxy itself does exhibit some pretty strange characteristics, but as far as I'm aware it only reaches temperatures of around 2800 deg C. Tungsten's melting point is around 3420 deg C, so if Brown's gas can melt Tungsten, clearly something's very different.

I know Irvin Langmuir's Atomic Hydrogen Torch could vaporise Diamond and melt Tungsten because this develops a flame temperature of 3700 deg. C and that was due to hydrogen (H2) being dissociated into atomic hydrogen via an electric arc. Great energy is released as the atomic hydrogen recombines into H2.

freethisone

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #99, on September 25th, 2013, 10:08 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 06:18 PM by Matt Watts
Quote from bussi04 on September 25th, 2013, 12:34 AM
Quote from bussi04 on September 23rd, 2013, 11:47 PM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 22nd, 2013, 10:02 AM
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.
Quote from Lynx 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.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=4276

of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.



Tread topic: "Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?"



Farrah Day set up this discussion pointing to aspects of real science of WFC.

aspects have been pointed to that only can be answered by

- qualified technical expertise                    or
- qualified in depth experiments


in depth experiments with high voltage applied to the WFC will instantly pop up lots of technical problems  ...

that´s why those few experiments at these forums fail but that´s no clue that it can´t be done better.

quick and cheap experiments is not the way scientific method goes ...


qualified technical expertise grows by research and needs in depth experiments.

that can´t be substituted by discussion (=opinions).
I think you made a good point.   the ac overlay is considered a bias..

the bias can be done with traditional amplifiers i think..
even if a dc pulse looks good on a wave. I like AC because there is more production in many cases.

?is still good results with 60hz?

could this number could be increased.