So where are we at?
Could we agree that parts of the recipe to the secret sauce is using plates or tubes submerged in water which we apply some electric voltage of sort to in order to get a high flow of explosive gas out of it?
To be added to that then either some form of catalyst or curing/preparing/coating/electropolishing the tubes or plates to get some dielectric or semiconductor layer on them to help boost performance.
How would one go about finding the correct resonance frequency then, if it exists at all?
Would you look for a sudden increase of gas production or subjecting the gases to a soap bubbles test, setting the bubbles on fire and listen to, or measure, changes in loudness of the explosions?
Maybe the only way here would be to actually feed the gases to a motor and look for changes in RPM's?
How would you define the prerequisites for a successful test that which definitely says that you have found proof of concept for a true Meyer WFC?

Brainstorm away Ladies and Gentlemen.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

How would one go about finding the correct resonance frequency then, if it exists at all?
Would you look for a sudden increase of gas production or subjecting the gases to a soap bubbles test, setting the bubbles on fire and listen to, or measure, changes in loudness of the explosions?

Say one can resonate the amount of voltages, lets say the top voltage before breakdown is X amount. Do X-n and X alternating.

If one sees production increase at y amount of Hz, then its time to determine what it is that one produces. (difficult part, see how many variants of HO there are )

Then its time to go on with the frequency increase and find the next sweet spot, which may produce something else or more of the same.

When one finds a frequency where the proportion of the desired gas is maximum, then the rest of the things that can vibrate may be tuned in to a derivative of the higher frequency. (dividing the F's and going to the nearest whole number with the lower frequency)

Or..if one has found a different maximizing frequency in a subprocess, keeping that at its own

For the ballpark, there are already own-frequency numbers known of different molecules. If those are also the one's you need, is unclear, but they may be near a success area.

I mean, one H2O molucule at a T temperature may have an Y HZ own frequency. But one H-atom (towards the O and the other H) may have a different freq. / vibration in that bonding.

Resonating it with one thing may break it up, the next vibration may align the H differently etc.


So besides this trying of frequencies, to determine what you produce i don't know, one needs a gaschromatograph?

Or the paperbag for browns gas, and maybe some light oil speed tube to see what bubbles are the lightest?

Or using light deflections with diafragma's, like chemist use for determining if something is right or lefthanded dipoled?

Thanks, that's abstract enough, I think I get what you mean, atleast parts of it.
AAMOF I'd like to keep the higher mathematics and advanced physics at a minimum here, look at this as a 'Beginners guide to Meyer's WFC".
For the more technical views on this there's other better threads out there, this is supposed to be the dumb down 4 letter version, describing the theories for total newbs in the field of Meyer's work.
Much like the way I was before I found this very forum.

As for the proof of concept prereqs, would high voltage, low current, no heat developed in the process while getting max gasflow out of the process be valid arguments for a successful replication?

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

So where are we at?
Could we agree that parts of the recipe to the secret sauce is using plates or tubes submerged in water which we apply some electric voltage of sort to in order to get a high flow of explosive gas out of it?

Ha-ha yeah I guess at least in parts :) implosive/explosive as long as the darn thing makes some type of propulsion that can do useful work.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

To be added to that then either some form of catalyst or curing/preparing/coating/electropolishing the tubes or plates to get some dielectric or semiconductor layer on them to help boost performance.

I would agree with with curing/preparing/electropolishing the electrolysis device with a dielectric layer. I think adding any type of catalyst makes for an inefficient reaction. And I think water has to be distilled and not full of minerals and other pollutants that could increase water conductivity.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

How would one go about finding the correct resonance frequency then, if it exists at all?

Great question and something that warrants some detailed experiments and recording results.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

Would you look for a sudden increase of gas production or subjecting the gases to a soap bubbles test, setting the bubbles on fire and listen to, or measure, changes in loudness of the explosions?
Maybe the only way here would be to actually feed the gases to a motor and look for changes in RPM's?
How would you define the prerequisites for a successful test that which definitely says that you have found proof of concept for a true Meyer WFC?

Brainstorm away Ladies and Gentlemen.

Also great questions and something I will be giving some thought to while I am away for the next few days, but you are definitively correct in saying we need a standard by which to measure our success or failure whichever the case might be :)

I will add this though...I don't believe we can fully rely on pure HHO amount produced from a cell as a true indicator of how much energy we are producing. There are too many factors to consider like how much out of that HHO is brown's gas or other substances and how much do they contribute in terms of energy to do work with in an engine environment?

<<< Away brainstorming!

Thanks ZA, appreciate it
AAMOF Meyer said himself that his WFC works the best using distilled deionised water, which to it's nature is a very poor conductor of electric current.
So how come this is the case then?
Warrants further discussions IMO.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 08:02 AM

As for the proof of concept prereqs, would high voltage, low current, no heat developed in the process while getting max gasflow out of the process be valid arguments for a successful replication?

Would be a great start. But a successful replication would give Stan's production, and a running buggy like 80-85..
In that time he was presumed to have the right electrolyzed tubes.

But then again its difficult to say cause there are different numbers out there about what should be the right amount of production to get an engine running.

I don't know guys.  I loved the write-ups from HMS and Farrah, but in the end it seems I now have more theories, more data, more complexity and a lot less "You do it this way".  I'm not sure what can be thrown out and what kept.

I guess one thing that is needed is something like a calorimeter that properly exposes a number depicting the true energetic composition of the test mixture you put into it.  What is it now, three different types of gas that can come from water.  The only way a garage builder has a chance to know if he is on the right track is to have some method to compare gas volume with energetic content.  With that, we should probably have a baseline using off-the-shelf HHO drycells, just for comparison purposes.

I just can't say what needs to be done next.  Certainly, I don't know enough yet to lead a newbie down the right path.  Best I can do is lead them into the brick wall and hope they somehow manage to punch through.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 06:07 AM

How would you define the prerequisites for a successful test that which definitely says that you have found proof of concept for a true Meyer WFC?

The process as I see it...
Electrical Energy ---> Chemical Energy ---> Mechanical Energy.
... Now, how do we make each step more efficient? (That... is the real question.)

Here is my thought process...
Each test builds upon the previous test.
Test 1:
1) Perform "brute force" electrolysis to produce gas.
2) Burn gas.
Test 1: Q&A
A) How much electrical power is needed to produce "X" amount of gas?
B) How much gas is needed to run an "X" HP engine?

Test 2:
1) Perform "brute force" electrolysis to produce gas.
2) Ionize the gas.
3) Burn the ionized gas.
Test 2: Q&A
A) How much electrical power is needed to produce "X" amount of gas?
B) How much electrical power is needed to produce "X" amount of ionized gas?
C) How much ionized gas is needed to run an "X" HP engine?

Test 3:
1) Perform "brute force" electrolysis to produce gas.
2) Ionize the gas.
3) Route the ionized gas through "pick up" coils. (to produce electricity)
4) Burn the ionized gas.
Test 3: Q&A
A) How much electrical power is needed to produce "X" amount of gas?
B) How much electrical power is needed to produce "X" amount of ionized gas?
C) How much ionized gas is needed to run an "X" HP engine?
D) How much electrical power can be produced to sustain process "A" and "B"?

Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2013, 08:37 AM

I guess one thing that is needed is something like a calorimeter that properly exposes a number depicting the true energetic composition of the test mixture you put into it.  What is it now, three different types of gas that can come from water.  The only way a garage builder has a chance to know if he is on the right track is to have some method to compare gas volume with energetic content.  With that, we should probably have a baseline using off-the-shelf HHO drycells, just for comparison purposes.

One way to tell for sure would be to feed the gases to a motor.
The simplest way I can come to think of is collecting the gas in a balloon, dock it to a motor and start it up.
The interesting variables would be how many watt hours you have put in to the circuit from your wall outlet for the given volume of gas you got out of it in the end, + for how long can you keep the motor running for every new batch of gas.
The more energetic the gas is the less you need of it to keep the motor up and running.

I would use plates in a wet cell. Much easier to work with, to replace stuff, ad stuff.

Easier to change the spaces in between, its all open to notice stuff.

Yep thats what i would use.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 09:01 AM

One way to tell for sure would be to feed the gases to a motor.
The simplest way I can come to think of is collecting the gas in a balloon, dock it to a motor and start it up.
The interesting variables would be how many watt hours you have put in to the circuit from your wall outlet for the given volume of gas you got out of it in the end, + for how long can you keep the motor running for every new batch of gas.
The more energetic the gas is the less you need of it to keep the motor up and running.

I actually like the Bob Rohner concept using a syringe then put it into a Popper and measure the force.  Temperature, pressure and dew point must be kept constant for the gas and the test apparatus.  For the Popper the ignition source must be calibrated to a known number of joules and the time to dissipate (ignition time).

Another factor that should at least be documented is the hold time between when the gas was created and when it was tested.

That right there should be enough to keep the garage builder busy for several months.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2013, 08:03 PM

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 09:01 AM

One way to tell for sure would be to feed the gases to a motor.
The simplest way I can come to think of is collecting the gas in a balloon, dock it to a motor and start it up.
The interesting variables would be how many watt hours you have put in to the circuit from your wall outlet for the given volume of gas you got out of it in the end, + for how long can you keep the motor running for every new batch of gas.
The more energetic the gas is the less you need of it to keep the motor up and running.

I actually like the Bob Rohner concept using a syringe then put it into a Popper and measure the force.  Temperature, pressure and dew point must be kept constant for the gas and the test apparatus.  For the Popper the ignition source must be calibrated to a known number of joules and the time to dissipate (ignition time).

Another factor that should at least be documented is the hold time between when the gas was created and when it was tested.

That right there should be enough to keep the garage builder busy for several months.

Pot, kettle...........either works
Besides using a motor means preparing it for H2, would be nice to have one waiting in the wings if/when.

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 11:42 PM

Pot, kettle...........either works
Besides using a motor means preparing it for H2, would be nice to have one waiting in the wings if/when.

Just make sure whatever motor you choose to use is high quality, in good condition and has small displacement.  Otherwise using it as a test fixture will be a complete waste of time and your data will be all over the map.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2013, 11:56 PM

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2013, 11:42 PM

Pot, kettle...........either works
Besides using a motor means preparing it for H2, would be nice to have one waiting in the wings if/when.

Just make sure whatever motor you choose to use is high quality, in good condition and has small displacement.  Otherwise using it as a test fixture will be a complete waste of time and your data will be all over the map.

Surely even a worn out motor, which would be preferred moneywise, would react the same as a high quality motor with regards to evaluating the energy/explosiveness of the gases?
Granted it wouldn't be able to crank some load around quite as vigorously as a healthy motor would, but then as all is relative it wouldn't perform quite as good running on less energetic gas as opposed to the good stuff either, so for evaluating purposes it would do just as well as a brand new motor.
Besides, how worn out could it be anyway?
If you test it first using gasoline that would tell you plenty.
+ you would have a motor ready for H2 or HHO or whatever.

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:09 AM

Surely even a worn out motor, which would be preferred moneywise, would react the same as a high quality motor with regards to evaluating the energy/explosiveness of the gases?
Granted it wouldn't be able to crank some load around quite as vigorously as a healthy motor would, but then as all is relative it wouldn't perform quite as good running on less energetic gas as opposed to the good stuff either, so for evaluating purposes it would do just as well as a brand new motor.
Besides, how worn out could it be anyway?
If you test it first using gasoline that would tell you plenty.
+ you would have a motor ready for H2 or HHO or whatever.

Well, if the valves don't seat, the rings are shot, the aluminum cylinder is badly scuffed and the crank is bent, you may still get it to run gasoline, but you surely won't get it to run HHO.  And the main side effect to such an engine is that it won't do the same thing twice so taking measurements from it could be better done by throwing darts.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 12:17 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:09 AM

Surely even a worn out motor, which would be preferred moneywise, would react the same as a high quality motor with regards to evaluating the energy/explosiveness of the gases?
Granted it wouldn't be able to crank some load around quite as vigorously as a healthy motor would, but then as all is relative it wouldn't perform quite as good running on less energetic gas as opposed to the good stuff either, so for evaluating purposes it would do just as well as a brand new motor.
Besides, how worn out could it be anyway?
If you test it first using gasoline that would tell you plenty.
+ you would have a motor ready for H2 or HHO or whatever.

Well, if the valves don't seat, the rings are shot, the aluminum cylinder is badly scuffed and the crank is bent, you may still get it to run gasoline, but you surely won't get it to run HHO.  And the main side effect to such an engine is that it won't do the same thing twice so taking measurements from it could be better done by throwing darts.

My guess is you would see and hear such a motor not performing all to well.
Besides, why wouldn't it run just as good on HHO?
Is HHO less energetic than gasoline?

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:23 AM

My guess is you would see and hear such a motor not performing all to well.
Besides, why wouldn't it run just as good on HHO?
Is HHO less energetic than gasoline?

Volumetric efficiency--I will repeat that forever.

That little carburetor on a gasoline engine can produce a massive amount of fuel mixture--orders of magnitude more than you can produce of HHO.  A busted up engine can still run if you pump enough fuel to it, which few know how to do using HHO.

I've seen motorcycle engines intentionally blown up that go through absolute he11 prior to letting go.  Cylinders glowing red hot.  And yes, they sound horrible, quite literally screaming out in pain to make it stop.

Back to the point.  I thought you were interested in finding a good way to know if you're producing more quantity and higher energetic gas.  Wouldn't it seem reasonable to want a test apparatus that was at least repeatable and able to measure smaller quantities?

Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 12:36 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:23 AM

My guess is you would see and hear such a motor not performing all to well.
Besides, why wouldn't it run just as good on HHO?
Is HHO less energetic than gasoline?

Volumetric efficiency--I will repeat that forever.

That little carburetor on a gasoline engine can produce a massive amount of fuel mixture--orders of magnitude more than you can produce of HHO.  A busted up engine can still run if you pump enough fuel to it, which few know how to do using HHO.

I've seen motorcycle engines intentionally blown up that go through absolute he11 prior to letting go.  Cylinders glowing red hot.  And yes, they sound horrible, quite literally screaming out in pain to make it stop.

Back to the point.  I thought you were interested in finding a good way to know if you're producing more quantity and higher energetic gas.  Wouldn't it seem reasonable to want a test apparatus that was at least repeatable and able to measure smaller quantities?

Sure, I'd love to have such an apparatus.
It's all about cost.
Many people have access to say lawnmowers, which are quite inexpensive.
There's also the aspect of converting it to be used with HHO when that time comes.
Building a popper is of course a very good way of finding the most explosive/energetic gas but if you're only out to do just that then you've built a popper for collecting dust once you've found that your WFC produces gas the way it's supposed to do.
So, converting your motor of choice would not only let you know that your WFC performs as it should, you also have it ready for HHO.
Besides, if someone has done all this, gone through all the test procedures and found the way to enable you to run your motor on HHO and decides to share it then everyone would want to know how to convert their motors anyway, so that's also another good argument for using a motor here.

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:54 AM

Sure, I'd love to have such an apparatus.
It's all about cost.
Many people have access to say lawnmowers, which are quite inexpensive.
There's also the aspect of converting it to be used with HHO when that time comes.
Building a popper is of course a very good way of finding the most explosive/energetic gas but if you're only out to do just that then you've built a popper for collecting dust once you've found that your WFC produces gas the way it's supposed to do.
So, converting your motor of choice would not only let you know that your WFC performs as it should, you also have it ready for HHO.
Besides, if someone has done all this, gone through all the test procedures and found the way to enable you to run your motor on HHO and decides to share it then everyone would want to know how to convert their motors anyway, so that's also another good argument for using a motor here.

I hear you on the cost aspect.  Probably the best approach is to find something cheap that is reasonably sound and just work on it a little at a time.  You can polish surfaces (rings, bearings, seats and stems) by hand, then apply a good friction reducer like IXL or similar.  You can even gently modify cam timings.  The ignition work will probably take a little more time to come up with a slick way for the particular engine you have.  You won't make a silk purse out of sow's ear, but you can go a long way.  The motor I have for my genset is by far better now than it was when I started my project.  All I spent on it was time.  You'd be surprised how much you can do to improve one of these mass produced factory engines with nothing more than a Dremel tool.  I've seen people do a similar job with guns, taking a mass produce piece of crap and turning into a fairly high precision instrument.

The main thing to keep in mind is once you invest that time into the engine, keep it lubricated.  One hundred revolutions without oil will tear things up pretty badly, especially the cylinder walls and/or rings.  Once you've ruined those, say bye-bye to your compression and hello to blow-by.  Now your engine will really have a difficult time starting on low fuel input.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 23rd, 2013, 01:17 AM

Quote from Lynx on September 23rd, 2013, 12:54 AM

Sure, I'd love to have such an apparatus.
It's all about cost.
Many people have access to say lawnmowers, which are quite inexpensive.
There's also the aspect of converting it to be used with HHO when that time comes.
Building a popper is of course a very good way of finding the most explosive/energetic gas but if you're only out to do just that then you've built a popper for collecting dust once you've found that your WFC produces gas the way it's supposed to do.
So, converting your motor of choice would not only let you know that your WFC performs as it should, you also have it ready for HHO.
Besides, if someone has done all this, gone through all the test procedures and found the way to enable you to run your motor on HHO and decides to share it then everyone would want to know how to convert their motors anyway, so that's also another good argument for using a motor here.

I hear you on the cost aspect.  Probably the best approach is to find something cheap that is reasonably sound and just work on it a little at a time.  You can polish surfaces (rings, bearings, seats and stems) by hand, then apply a good friction reducer like IXL or similar.  You can even gently modify cam timings.  The ignition work will probably take a little more time to come up with a slick way for the particular engine you have.  You won't make a silk purse out of sow's ear, but you can go a long way.  The motor I have for my genset is by far better now than it was when I started my project.  All I spent on it was time.  You'd be surprised how much you can do to improve one of these mass produced factory engines with nothing more than a Dremel tool.  I've seen people do a similar job with guns, taking a mass produce piece of crap and turning into a fairly high precision instrument.

The main thing to keep in mind is once you invest that time into the engine, keep it lubricated.  One hundred revolutions without oil will tear things up pretty badly, especially the cylinder walls and/or rings.  Once you've ruined those, say bye-bye to your compression and hello to blow-by.  Now your engine will really have a difficult time starting on low fuel input.

Maybe we could work together on developing some inexpensive way of evaluating how energetic the gases are?
Say for instance, with reference to the popper then, if you were to use a pot, make a threaded hole in the bottom for a spark plug, another for a syringe thing which you pour gas through and on top some payload on a rail, which compresses a spring  which you then measure how high up in the air you can pop it.
How inexpensive and time consuming would such a basic most test rig cost you?
Using OEM parts would of course be the preferred way, better yet, junk yard stuff, as long as it's easy to build, inexpensive and as everything is relative the measurements  don't have to be scientifically correct either, measuring how high you can toss it would do just fine.
Still, there's no beating running a motor on the gases, that's what you ultimately would like to be able to do anyway when and if.

A testing thingemedo

Say you get a yard of plastic sewer pipe. You press it into styrofoam, cut 2 rings out, put a stick in the middle. Drill a hole 2 inches away from the bottom for the spark plug, on the other side a hole for the syringe fitting thing.
Close the bottom, lube the pistons, and put a weight scale on top, upside down.

The explosion hits the scale and you write down the outcome. (would be nice to have a scale that keeps the max load a while on its display) At least towards each other gas you can compare the outcomes, it doesn't have to be calibrated. ;)

Quote from FaradayEZ on September 23rd, 2013, 11:33 AM

A testing thingemedo

Say you get a yard of plastic sewer pipe. You press it into styrofoam, cut 2 rings out, put a stick in the middle. Drill a hole 2 inches away from the bottom for the spark plug, on the other side a hole for the syringe fitting thing.
Close the bottom, lube the pistons, and put a weight scale on top, upside down.

The explosion hits the scale and you write down the outcome. (would be nice to have a scale that keeps the max load a while on its display) At least towards each other gas you can compare the outcomes, it doesn't have to be calibrated. ;)

Sounds pretty much like what folks around here call a potato cannon.  Sounds simple enough.

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

As long as the barrel holds for the explosions then sure, why not.
IDK about the scale though, I think it couldn't take the beating in the long run.
Better to use either weights or compressing a spring and for a marker you could use a slider with a red flag that stays where you left it, then you note the result, reset the flag and repeat for another 9 times to get an average estimate on "how high" the flag can go for the gas at hand.
And yes, there's no need to calibrate anything either, you know when you got the correct setup for your WFC when the flag says so.

I was thinking this would be fun as heck to make something out of iron pipe and shoot golf balls through a chronograph and into a Styrofoam backstop.  All remote controlled obviously.  hehe.  Got to wonder just how much Styrofoam it would take to stop a golf ball traveling at 1100 meters per second.  Maybe I could get my wife to bring home some of that ballistic gel.  Wow, this could be a Myth Busters episode.

The infamous water powered cannon.  Has a nice ring to it.

Have a blast!