When I first found out about Stan's work I thought we had found an easy way to make the world a better place.....But after years of research my point of view has changed a little.

Without skepticism and experimentation we will never get any real answers.

If you don't look at Stan's work with skepticism your likely to fall into ignorance. That's where talk of magic bifilar coils, magic magnetic fields, and overunity fits. I know because I used to fit into that category (still do in some ways).

I think Meyer made more claims than he could back. Most people see a small 50HP dune buggy running on water and think that system can solve all the worlds problems. Forgetting that all of Stan's lecturing and paperwork was really part of a plan to find people with enough capital to fund an R & D lab. What Stan called the "International Product Development Center", shown in the WFC news release # 4, page 6.

Stan was smart don't get me wrong. I just think (as with any new technology) there were hurdles he came across that he himself could not overcome. That's why he needed a 50 million dollar facility built specifically for research and development. That's why his R & D center was going to hire over 5,000 people!

WFC News Release # 4 Winter/Spring 87-88
"An estimated 600 highly trained technicians will be hired initially, with more than 5,000 persons working at the facility when it is in full operation."

[attachment=4284]

So, there it is.....Truth that Meyer could not do it all himself....Truth that Meyer had not completely developed the technology.

But he did show us one important thing...THAT IT IS POSSIBLE!



So, my questions to each person here is....

What do you think showed the potential of Stan's technology best?

What problems do you see might have occurred along the way?

(Hope this turns into a good discussion)

Until the water molecule can be fractured super-efficiently than standard brute-force electrolysis, then we'll have the answer.

Dwelling and thinking outside the box on Stan's technology after being on hiatus on the research, is it possible to do the fracturing without initially having all the electronics? Is there a solid-state, proof of concept, cost-effective approach without having to replicate to the detail and buy all the stainless steel tubing? Anything is possible, if one believes so.

The influence and deflection of water droplets with electrostatics via inflatable balloons and Lord Kelvin's water dropper is still quite interesting and I wonder how that can be translated into Stan's technology from a solid-state perspective.

Out of all Stan's work, the quenching disc, another possible flash-back arrestor or flame sustainer, has been proven to work.

If this Russian thing works, then we don't need much of Stan's complicated stuff...

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=784&pid=9028#pid9028

Anyway it would prove that exited water will split rapidly into gas when traveling through an electric field.

So why do we take the difficult road?

Quote from HMS-776 on September 26th, 2013, 06:10 PM

But he did show us one important thing...THAT IT IS POSSIBLE!

I totally agree with you here.
His original WFC, which powered the buggy, is what keeps my faith up.
AAMOF I have had that very dream of turning water into hydrogen and oxygen ever since I was a kid attaching cables to batteries submerged in salt water and setting the tiny bubbles on fire.
I actually remember the clip showing Meyer and his buggy in the news, must have been 1989-1990 something and I remember thinking "ok, so now it's out there at last, now it's just a matter of time before we get to buy cars using this".
And now we're having some quite interesting discussions on this very forum, both sharing insights and ideas aswell as constructive critisism.
I could only hope that more would join in on the discussions and contribute, alone we're stuck in our own ideas of how we think Meyer built his WFC, IMO we all need to see fresh ideas, that is fresh to ourselves, could full well be obvious old news to others, so even the smallest aspects are important here.

Lynx,

I agree with you.  I think the original wfc which powered the buggy showed the potential of Stan's work.

As far as problems I think he might of run into along the way. I think the injectors would have had timing issues. Since you have to charge the injector, dissociate the water as its traveling through the injector and then you have to ignite it. And all of that has to occur a very short time period that varies with engine speed.

Seems to me if you had any water droplets in the injector it might also prevent the spark needed to ignite the mixture.

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 10:30 AM

As far as problems I think he might of run into along the way. I think the injectors would have had timing issues. Since you have to charge the injector, dissociate the water as its traveling through the injector and then you have to ignite it. And all of that has to occur a very short time period that varies with engine speed.

Seems to me if you had any water droplets in the injector it might also prevent the spark needed to ignite the mixture.

I have little doubt about that.

[RANT]

AAMOF I'm more and more leaning towards Meyer not completely understanding the very core workings of his WFC when it came down to understanding exactly how it affected molecules and atoms that is.
Sure he knew how to build and operate it, I'll buy that anytime, but by not knowing exactly how it worked I don't think he ever got the injectors to produce the gases the same way his WFC did, just look at the area of the injector electrodes as opposed to the relatively large area of the WFC, they're miles apart in that perspective.
First of all he would have been forced to use very high frequencies to match the impedance of the intrinsic injector capacitances with the VIC coils impedances, which in turn would have been forced to have very small inductances, otherwise they would have acted as very high impedances indeed due to the relatively high frequencies involved.
Also, I don't think he realised just what went on in the cell itself with what we're now discussing regarding dielectric layers, zones, waveguides and so on and so forth, I think the truth lies somewhere in those lines of thought and unless Meyer had those very insights he would have had more than enough time to get atleast a prototype injector up and running.
That way I think his view on how it worked clouded his judgement when it came down to properly constructing the injectors, with dielectric layers etc etc.

JM2C.

[/RANT]

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 11:14 AM

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 10:30 AM

As far as problems I think he might of run into along the way. I think the injectors would have had timing issues. Since you have to charge the injector, dissociate the water as its traveling through the injector and then you have to ignite it. And all of that has to occur a very short time period that varies with engine speed.

Seems to me if you had any water droplets in the injector it might also prevent the spark needed to ignite the mixture.

I have little doubt about that.

[RANT]

AAMOF I'm more and more leaning towards Meyer not completely understanding the very core workings of his WFC when it came down to understanding exactly how it affected molecules and atoms that is.
Sure he knew how to build and operate it, I'll buy that anytime, but by not knowing exactly how it worked I don't think he ever got the injectors to produce the gases the same way his WFC did, just look at the area of the injector electrodes as opposed to the relatively large area of the WFC, they're miles apart in that perspective.
First of all he would have been forced to use very high frequencies to match the impedance of the intrinsic injector capacitances with the VIC coils impedances, which in turn would have been forced to have very small inductances, otherwise they would have acted as very high impedances indeed due to the relatively high frequencies involved.
Also, I don't think he realised just what went on in the cell itself with what we're now discussing regarding dielectric layers, zones, waveguides and so on and so forth, I think the truth lies somewhere in those lines of thought and unless Meyer had those very insights he would have had more than enough time to get atleast a prototype injector up and running.
That way I think his view on how it worked clouded his judgement when it came down to properly constructing the injectors, with dielectric layers etc etc.

JM2C.

[/RANT]

That's a really good point.

When I built an injector VIC using the 430ss wire I measured a huge total secondary inductance. My lcr meter actually maxed out at 20H. Not sure if I ever got a correct measurement of those coils,  but the ss wire is magnetic so the inductance is very high either way.

The large inductance will bring the frequency down but when you consider it as well as the coil resistance that coil has a huge impedance. Also,  I don't believe the injector vic used resonance. Because the capacitance changes so much there would be no time to scan and lock on the resonant frequency.  

One other thing, the injectors (if they do work) would require very clean water. If you put sea or tap water into that system all those contaminates would likely increase engine wear. And if the ss is undergoing accelerated corrosion by the reaction your going to be putting small amounts of metal into the cylinder. This would because all kinds of problems in a short time period.

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 12:57 PM

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 11:14 AM

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 10:30 AM

As far as problems I think he............

I have little doubt about that..............

..................Also,  I don't believe the injector vic used resonance. Because the capacitance changes so much there would be no time to scan and lock on the resonant frequency.

Excellent point!
Could full well be that Meyer indeed found another way of turning water into explosive gases/water based fuel which includes "only" high voltage at a fixed frequency, or as is hinted in the patents he used say laser which somehow interacted with the HV to process the water.
Regardless, it really had to be on demand, I.E the process would have had to be extremely capable of making water based fuel superfast, otherwise the motor would have stalled in no time at all if the process were depending on scanning and maintaining resonance.

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:28 PM

... as is hinted in the patents he used say laser which somehow interacted with the HV to process the water.

I'm pretty sure in that one video I heard him say, "Those optics sure work nice".

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 01:28 PM

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 12:57 PM

Quote from Lynx on September 27th, 2013, 11:14 AM

Quote from HMS-776 on September 27th, 2013, 10:30 AM

As far as problems I think he............

I have little doubt about that..............

..................Also,  I don't believe the injector vic used resonance. Because the capacitance changes so much there would be no time to scan and lock on the resonant frequency.

Excellent point!
Could full well be that Meyer indeed found another way of turning water into explosive gases/water based fuel which includes "only" high voltage at a fixed frequency, or as is hinted in the patents he used say laser which somehow interacted with the HV to process the water.
Regardless, it really had to be on demand, I.E the process would have had to be extremely capable of making water based fuel superfast, otherwise the motor would have stalled in no time at all if the process were depending on scanning and maintaining resonance.

To me all these aspects again point towards the russian invention.
They say they were able to do so.
It still needs POC oke, but it shows what electric fields can do to pre exited molecules

The heat atomizes the water and the electric field makes it combustable.

Quote from HMS-776 on September 26th, 2013, 06:10 PM

When I first found out about Stan's work I thought we had found an easy way to make the world a better place.....But after years of research my point of view has changed a little.

Without skepticism and experimentation we will never get any real answers.

If you don't look at Stan's work with skepticism your likely to fall into ignorance. That's where talk of magic bifilar coils, magic magnetic fields, and overunity fits. I know because I used to fit into that category (still do in some ways).

I think Meyer made more claims than he could back. Most people see a small 50HP dune buggy running on water and think that system can solve all the worlds problems. Forgetting that all of Stan's lecturing and paperwork was really part of a plan to find people with enough capital to fund an R & D lab. What Stan called the "International Product Development Center", shown in the WFC news release # 4, page 6.

Stan was smart don't get me wrong. I just think (as with any new technology) there were hurdles he came across that he himself could not overcome. That's why he needed a 50 million dollar facility built specifically for research and development. That's why his R & D center was going to hire over 5,000 people!

WFC News Release # 4 Winter/Spring 87-88
"An estimated 600 highly trained technicians will be hired initially, with more than 5,000 persons working at the facility when it is in full operation."



So, there it is.....Truth that Meyer could not do it all himself....Truth that Meyer had not completely developed the technology.

But he did show us one important thing...THAT IT IS POSSIBLE!



So, my questions to each person here is....

What do you think showed the potential of Stan's technology best?

What problems do you see might have occurred along the way?

(Hope this turns into a good discussion)

Good idea to approach the work of stan with skepticism.....
Why?....
There is no real evidence that his cars worked. Ok, we saw driving the Car No. 1 in some videos. But we don´t know if he ever had to recharge his battery??
The first two cars seems more to be some "trial and error" stuff based on electrolyses.

IMHO the only stuff which worked was the injector.
Why?...
First fact is, that the WFC was completely removed from the car.
After developing the injector (maybe because of graneaus experimental tests), we see in the WFC news a totally flooding of ideas and advertising what can be done with the injectors and he keept the idea and the main principle from 1991 to 1997 (min. 6 years) what is very long in comparison to his earlier developments.
It seems that the injectors were the breakthrough because after developing them, he invested a lot of money in those stuff like developing center etc.

No offense to stan or his fans (I´m a fan too), but we have to keep in mind that he tried to sell his stuff and was looking for investments.
Some critical questions can be said:
-why he didn´t keep the WFC in his last car (maybe it was not efficient enough)
-why he developed so much around the WFC (maybe it was not efficient enough)

Maybe some other of you have some questions which we can discuss.

Greets

A BIG problem with Stan's description of splitting the water molecule.

In Stan's documents and lectures he states that the water molecule dissociates in a strong electric field. He says the molecule first polarizes (which is known in standard science)....Then he makes a claim that would have most intelligent people laughing.

He claims that the water dissociates without producing ions. HA!!!

But there is one problem with that....

The Oxygen atom has a greater electronegativity (3.44 as opposed to Hydrogen's 2.20) that is why when water dissociates it ALWAYS produces ions!

This is standard science people...Proven over and over again! It is FACT!

When a water molecule dissociates it produces OH- and H+ (The oxygen keeps both electrons due to it's higher electronegativity).

I believe in Meyer's work, but not his explanations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

Quote from HMS-776 on October 4th, 2013, 10:48 PM

I believe in Meyer's work, but not his explanations.

There is a guy Sterling Allan has been talking to that claims the Papp engine need not use Nobel Gases at all; all that is needed is water.  In sixty days he is supposedly going to prove that claim.  His whole point is that Papp put a bunch of things in his patent to lead people into the ditch.  And so far it has worked like a charm.

Maybe both inventors had the exact same strategy.

Quote from HMS-776 on October 4th, 2013, 10:48 PM

A BIG problem with Stan's description of splitting the water molecule.

In Stan's documents and lectures he states that the water molecule dissociates in a strong electric field. He says the molecule first polarizes (which is known in standard science)....Then he makes a claim that would have most intelligent people laughing.

He claims that the water dissociates without producing ions. HA!!!

But there is one problem with that....

The Oxygen atom has a greater electronegativity (3.44 as opposed to Hydrogen's 2.20) that is why when water dissociates it ALWAYS produces ions!

This is standard science people...Proven over and over again! It is FACT!

When a water molecule dissociates it produces OH- and H+ (The oxygen keeps both electrons due to it's higher electronegativity).

I believe in Meyer's work, but not his explanations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

My sentiments exactly.

When you add energy to the water molecule (or anything else for that matter) and cause it to break down, it will always break down at the weakest link - the link that requires the least energy to break. In the water molecule this is an O-H bond, and like HMS says due to the nature of the atoms involved, the oxygen retains the electron.

It is really quite absurd to think of electrons literally being ripped off molecules and atoms as Meyer stated. Ionisation will always take place first. And it is exactly this kind of pseudoscience that plays into the hands of scientists and engineers, giving them the ammunition to label Meyer as crank and/or a fraud. Meyer really did himself no favours, in fact, due to much of what he said and claimed, he did a most impeccable job of discrediting himself.

And this is just another reason why his technical brief cannot be taken seriously.

Quote from Farrah Day on October 5th, 2013, 02:34 AM

Quote from HMS-776 on October 4th, 2013, 10:48 PM

A BIG problem with Stan's description of splitting the water molecule.

In Stan's documents and lectures he states that the water molecule dissociates in a strong electric field. He says the molecule first polarizes (which is known in standard science)....Then he makes a claim that would have most intelligent people laughing.

He claims that the water dissociates without producing ions. HA!!!

But there is one problem with that....

The Oxygen atom has a greater electronegativity (3.44 as opposed to Hydrogen's 2.20) that is why when water dissociates it ALWAYS produces ions!

This is standard science people...Proven over and over again! It is FACT!

When a water molecule dissociates it produces OH- and H+ (The oxygen keeps both electrons due to it's higher electronegativity).

I believe in Meyer's work, but not his explanations.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity

My sentiments exactly.

When you add energy to the water molecule (or anything else for that matter) and cause it to break down, it will always break down at the weakest link - the link that requires the least energy to break. In the water molecule this is an O-H bond, and like HMS says due to the nature of the atoms involved, the oxygen retains the electron.

It is really quite absurd to think of electrons literally being ripped off molecules and atoms as Meyer stated. Ionisation will always take place first. And it is exactly this kind of pseudoscience that plays into the hands of scientists and engineers, giving them the ammunition to label Meyer as crank and/or a fraud. Meyer really did himself no favours, in fact due to much of what he said and claimed, he did a most impeccable job of discrediting himself.

And this is just another reason why his technical brief cannot be taken seriously.

As a layman in the field of.........quantum physics?........chemistry?..........I choose to believe that Meyer had a working WFC as shown in the dune buggy clips etc etc and I really couldn't care less about what terms he used in his patents etc trying to explain what went on in this process of his.
I can however understand that those who do understand what he's trying to say comes out as pseudoscience, I have no problems with that.
That doesn't necessarily mean though that I'm ready to throw whatever he had to offer out the window, it simply means that I choose to approach his work based on my own insights in the fields of electricity & electronics and of that what my fellow tinkerers has found out during their experiments.
Sharing our insights and findings here is IMO the only way to move forward and I'm pleased to be able to say that these last few weeks has really been an eyeopener for myself personally with regards to Meyer and his WFC tech, it has been really inspiring to see even the small details/findings in some of the replies here, all these details shows me what I should be looking a little deeper into so I hope the discussions will continue the same way they're currently being discussed here.

Quote from Farrah Day on October 5th, 2013, 02:34 AM

When you add energy to the water molecule (or anything else for that matter) and cause it to break down, it will always break down at the weakest link - the link that requires the least energy to break. In the water molecule this is an O-H bond, and like HMS says due to the nature of the atoms involved, the oxygen retains the electron.

I could argue that this has not always have to be true.

If one locks into the vibrations of the stronger bond, with any means that has effect, then the stronger bond could brake before the weaker does.

Since Meyer's cell utilizes ordinary OH- and H+ ions, the same ions that an electrolysis cell depends on....then Meyer's cell should require the same amount of electrons that a typical electrolysis cell requires to produce X amount of gas (assuming electrolysis was 100% efficient).

But Meyer claims efficiencies over 100%. So, this brings to question.....If the electrons flowing through the circuit cannot account for the gasses being produced then what is occurring?

Are there electrons we are not taking into account, if so where are those electrons coming from, and when are they flowing (During the gate off time)? Or, is the reaction different than electrolysis (As Farrah Day explained O and H both evolving at the same electrode).....

Quote from HMS-776 on October 5th, 2013, 08:05 AM

Since Meyer's cell utilizes ordinary OH- and H+ ions, the same ions that an electrolysis cell depends on....then Meyer's cell should require the same amount of electrons that a typical electrolysis cell requires to produce X amount of gas (assuming electrolysis was 100% efficient).

But Meyer claims efficiencies over 100%. So, this brings to question.....If the electrons flowing through the circuit cannot account for the gasses being produced then what is occurring?

Are there electrons we are not taking into account, if so where are those electrons coming from, and when are they flowing (During the gate off time)? Or, is the reaction different than electrolysis (As Farrah Day explained O and H both evolving at the same electrode).....

Hmm who wast it, Stephen Meyer? who talked about the great amount of electrons in the electrode material, in the SS? And the erosion of the material. It eats it up, so maybe there's your next source of electrons.

Quote

Hmm who wast it, Stephen Meyer? who talked about the great amount of electrons in the electrode material, in the SS? And the erosion of the material. It eats it up, so maybe there's your next source of electrons.

Exactly what I am wondering. If that's what's occurring then the question is, Why aren't those electrons being seen as current flow through the circuit?

Seems to me if your pulling the electrons out of a material your going to leave that material positively charged after some time, unless the decomposition is removing it all.... but thats the cathode,  what happens at the anode? Excesses electrons would be forced into the material.... this does not make sense to me (perhaps I am missing something).

Starting to wonder if current flows during the gate off time???

Quote from HMS-776 on October 5th, 2013, 12:07 PM

Quote

Hmm who wast it, Stephen Meyer? who talked about the great amount of electrons in the electrode material, in the SS? And the erosion of the material. It eats it up, so maybe there's your next source of electrons.

Exactly what I am wondering. If that's what's occurring then the question is, Why aren't those electrons being seen as current flow through the circuit?

Seems to me if your pulling the electrons out of a material your going to leave that material positively charged after some time, unless the decomposition is removing it all.... but thats the cathode,  what happens at the anode? Excesses electrons would be forced into the material.... this does not make sense to me (perhaps I am missing something).

Starting to wonder if current flows during the gate off time???

HMS, your wondering will prove to you that you are right that it happens during the off time. That's the reason I got my self in trouble on my thread with the watts ordeal.
What's happening in the off time is completely different than the on time. That the reason I say you can throw the whole watts theory out the window. A watt meter at the wall will only show the charge time not the discharge time. correct me if i'm wrong

Maybe there is discharge into the wall and discharge into production...i don't know, but it seems that anything one can imagine, can be a possibility.

We have to think of all kinds of tests to get more knowledge?
 

The one thing that hasn't been adequately addressed to my satisfaction is static electricity.  If you pay attention to the Lord Kelvin Thunderstorm experiment, you have to wonder.  More and more I'm becoming convinced the Stan Meyer technology IS NOT a closed-loop system.  It likely is an open-loop system drawing environmental conditions in that promote the fracturing process.  I hope I'm wrong because open-loop systems are far more difficult to tune and understand.  It will be a bitch if someone gets it working, but when boxed-up and shipped to someone else, it no longer works.

Watts is right,there are open system,not close system and not overunity.

Meyer do electrolysis when off time.no watts no power at that time.basic electrolysis depends on amps only,high amps high production.Meyer do it with low amp(faraday law that mean low production).but Meyer make gas more than high amps electrolysis.when off time,it captures energy from environment(coils-bemf) and change to high amps,system of Meyer is Open System=not overunity but efficiency higher than 100%.

some theorys of Meyer may be wrong but not all of them.Many theorys of Meyer are right,sample lowering burning rate of hydrogen, quenching disk(anti flash back100%),hydrogen 3times more power than gasoline,...etc.

if you do only one thing every day about 3years ,you will be expert in what you do.but Meyer do it more than 10 years.

he is not expert by writing but he is expert by doing.we must think about what he do than theory.

Good thoughts guys. In nature static electricity just happens, especially around this time of the year, could be because of atmospheric conditions and cooler temperatures, so with this idea in mind, maybe some experiments could be preformed. :D

I agree to your theories and also with the pseudo sience stuff of him. The weakest point of the water molecule will brake. In normal case that is an electron. Is the voltage high enough, you can ionize every material (espacially solids and gas). Ionization = Dielectric breakdown = stealing electrons

We should not forget about the Electron extraction circuit (ECC) of Stanley Meyer with the "amp consuming device":
Some time ago i made tests about ionizing H2 on the cathode. H2 is easy to ionize. (stealing electrons). The polarity of my cell changed to a voltage/amp source and the input current for electrolyses was going down. (mizuno)

Stan desribed the ionization of the gases with high voltage. Espacially the O2. He took 4 electrons out of the shell, at the same time consuming the electrons to prohibit recombination and to create a very reactive gas (chemicaly radicals). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_%28chemistry%29

Normaly radicals are "flighty". They react very quick with other molecules or atoms. So the way from ionization to the combustion chamber of the VW engine had to be very short.

He made this in the ambient air gas ionizer (N2 and O2) and in the Hydrogen gas gun (H2 and O2).
Stealing electrons maybe to provide current for the WFC (amp consuming device), that reduced the input current ot the WFC form the battery (?).