What of Meyer’s original WFC?

[Aaron]

The Chemistry and Manufacture of Hydrogen

The Chemistry and Manufacture of Hydrogen
by P. Litherland Teed

Thanks!

Here is a pdf of the 1919 version.
http://www.archive.org/download/chem...00teedrich.pdf

[Aaron]

small amounts of HHO

Ya its gotta be the only way to go about it. Or else it ends up being like you said to much work.

I really was trying to make a different point.

That only a small amount of HHO is needed. Therefore, most wfc's already
produce enough. If using the proper reaction, it is only needed in small
amounts.

Therefore, it isn't necessary to have massive magical amounts of HHO from
a cell. Not that it isn't possible, but nobody is showing this, not even the
Meyer videos.

The phase locked loop circuits are going to be the new trend in high
efficiency HHO producing circuits. It will probably become the standard.

[boguslaw]

Electron extraction circuit is the most important tip
Pure voltage potential is electrostatic done by radiant energy on plates/tubes in water which makes it.Replicate Kapanadze device and apply to WFC.

[Farrah Day]

Aaron

There is zero proof that Meyer ever made large amounts of gas from the
water cell - and that was never necessary to begin with. His gas production
in 100% of every video shown with Meyer is very unimpressive to me.

I agree with this. I have made similar cells to Meyers work bench cell and visibly created a similar amount of gaseous turbulence for just milliamps. Yes, all those bubbles look impressive, but there really is not that much gas being evolved.

So this is my probem: Meyer has a simple electrolyser.

Why then is he misleading us into believing that he has a brand new invention: a super-efficient high voltage, low current electrolyser?

If what he claimed with regards to this unit was an untruth, if he was deliberately deceiving us, why should we trust anything else he says therafter?

Is it just me that has a problem with this?

Matthew

It has nothing do with radiant energy. High potential and low potential are all you need to split water into gas, while retaining your initial energy. Nothing to do with radiant energy.

The fact is water is not a constant molecule. The H2 and the O are only bonded for a period of time. They are in motion, attracting and repulsing. You only need a monopole type E field to throw them off to one direction or the other. Then you need the proper frequencies to sink that monopole charge to the frequency of the water. Base on the charge one molecule will gain energy and momentum and can split several more just with residual field that resides on it. The charge will then be released from the molecule and can be captured eventually on the lower potential plate.

It not a hard thing to understand, though it may be a hard thing to implement. I have not spent alot of time looking at it myself.

I have seen it work on a potential only system and that alone does not sink well with what is "Common" in HHO production.

Apart from being quite clueless as to most of what you have written, do I have a few issues with some things you stated.

From where have you got the idea that water, as you put it, is not a 'constant molecule' separating into O and H2?

Never have I seen this written anywhere... and whatever is a monopole type E field?? With respect much of this sounds like psuedoscience.

Sure, water self-ionises into H+ and OH-, but it does not break into O and H.

And while I'm not disputing that an electric field will induce ionisation of the water molecule, I do dispute that you can obtain hydrogen and oxygen from this act alone.

[Matthew Jones]

Aaron
Apart from being quite clueless as to most of what you have written, do I have a few issues with some things you stated.
From where have you got the idea that water, as you put it, is not a 'constant molecule' separating into O and H2?
Never have I seen this written anywhere... and whatever is a monopole type E field?? With respect much of this sounds like pseudoscience.

If your Electric field is only comprised of 1/2 the dipole you have monopole type E-field. If you are not able to understand or believe this the setup is simple to see it. John Bedini's Tesla Switch drawing. This circuit emits a PURE POTENTIAL.
You no longer have any current at the load point. Meyers circiut indicated something along this line is in use because he added a bulb to the back end of the circuit. He is not using the full dipole he is using a only 1/2 and retaining both half's. This is the key to using a small amount of energy.
You probably still don't understand though, and I am not sure I can change that.

I didn't say water was separating i said " The H2 and the O are only bonded for a period of time. They are in motion, attracting and repulsing."
I should have said the Bond is always there but how strong at any given time that would have been a better way to say it. The bond is not constant its fluctuating in strength at a given frequency.
I believe I learned that from a biochemistry class and book sometime ago, so yes you could call that Pseudo Science. LOL
I have also been shown some good frequencies apparatus to break water down and the fellow that it belonged to explained it to me that way.
Outside of that I am truly sorry if you are not happy with the explanation. You can disregard everything I say and go on with your thread it will not insult me. I have very little practical experience with anything Stan Meyer did. Its just my observation based other things I have done.

Cheers
Matt

[Farrah Day]

Okay Matthew, my intention was not to insult it just seemed to me that you were using unnecessarily confusing jargon.

So let me just get this straight your monopole type E field is just the potential charge on, for example, one plate of a capacitor... is that so?

And you are saying that placing water near one such plate, in a pulsing E field, will at a certain frequency decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen... is that what you are saying?

Which - at least originally - was what I understood Meyer was claiming to be doing.

However, and I reiterate, while I can see how this induces water to ionise, how, without a charge exchange medium, do we get from the ionised species to the evolution of gases?

This is the crux of the matter and something that I've yet to see anyone actually achieve - or even attempt to explain with an equation for such a reaction.

Surely the weak link, the link requiring the least energy to break is the O-H bond. And when it breaks it leaves the ions H+ (H3O+) and OH-, not 2H and O!

What would be the reaction occuring here to produce 2H and O from water?

Do you see my problem with this?

Regards, Farrah

[Farrah Day]

No doubt most of you have seen these already, but perhaps Meyers video lecture links might just refresh people memories of the original WFC.

Stanley Meyer Lecture Part 1
Stanley Meyer Lecture Part 1

To be frank I find these videos nothing but flawed science and patronising drivel, but my point is, Meyer is clearly talking about using voltage potential to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen from, as he puts it, 'natural water'.

If now (as seems to be the common consensus) you accept that this is all nonsense, and that Meyer only had a simple electrolyser, what does that do for his credibility... and where does that leave you?

How can you possibly move forward from this without having some very real concerns about Meyer and the reliability of his claims?

Surely you don't have to be an outright sceptic to have at least some serious doubts surfacing... a little common sense should suffice... shouldn't it?

Farrah

[Matthew Jones]

Okay Matthew, my intention was not to insult it just seemed to me that you were using unnecessarily confusing jargon.

So let me just get this straight your monopole type E field is just the potential charge on, for example, one plate of a capacitor... is that so?

You didn't insult me...
No its on both plates. 1 side being a high charge and one being low. The energy based on the 2 potentials will travel from HIGH to LOW. The field resides between the plates. If anything is in between, IE water, this will destabilize the bond between the H and the O. While not consuming your charge. And maybe your right, I don't know, maybe this process does not completely break down the molecule into separate gases maybe its just a combination of some sort that come out. Maybe thats all you need. I don't know....

However, and I reiterate, while I can see how this induces water to ionise, how, without a charge exchange medium, do we get from the ionised species to the evolution of gases?
This is the crux of the matter and something that I've yet to see anyone actually achieve - or even attempt to explain with an equation for such a reaction.

Although I cannot give you a bunch of numbers or names to justify why it works outside of my "confusing jargon". I know for a fact it makes a flammable gas from water. Because I have done it. Its easy too. Have you tried? You tried anything Open Loop to produce gas? Do you even understand the difference between an open looped charge and a closed loop charge.

I am not trying to insult you either. I just think unless you actually are looking at a setup that uses an open loop you do not have the information you need to make the statements your making.

(Being Sarcastic) I know science and engineering has made great leaps and bounds in the direction of making gas from water to burn in a combustion engine. And I they are going far out of there way to reuse energy at every chance in an open loop. And they are most certainly developing math and chemical formulas for everything that would fall under "Free or Cheap Energy".

And now I see what your trying achieve with in thread. And I am not capable of arguing for or against Stan Meyers work. Especially not in that confusing mainstream scientific jargon you use.

So I'll get out of this, and just go back to my simple stuff that keeps the lights on and isn't supposed to work.....

You should try to use that That Tesla Switch I linked to above. Use 2 plates and some water in a jar for load. See what you get. Might leave you scratching your head bit.

Cheers
Matt

[Farrah Day]

So, is all you are actually talking about is the potential difference between two plates... a capacitor then!

And it is the electric field between the plates that destabilises anything in between... like water. Except this alone does not produce gas... which is the very heart of the problem.

(Being Sarcastic) I know science and engineering has made great leaps and bounds in the direction of making gas from water to burn in a combustion engine. And I they are going far out of there way to reuse energy at every chance in an open loop. And they are most certainly developing math and chemical formulas for everything that would fall under "Free or Cheap Energy".

Exactly what great leaps are they? You know this how?

I thought the underlying problem was the very fact that science has not made any great leaps in this respect. And certainly if it has, it's not very evident is it?

How many cars have you seen running on water alone?

It seems, like many before you, you are simply relaying heresay. Where's the evidence to support what you say... or is this really all just down to snippets of unreliable info you've picked up here and there, and taken as gospel.

And now I see what your trying achieve with in thread. And I am not capable of arguing for or against Stan Meyers work. Especially not in that confusing mainstream scientific jargon you use.

I'm simply curious as to why Meyers original WFC has now is been relegated to the dustbin.

My arguments against Meyer are essentially the very same as my argument with you. You both claim that voltage alone will decompose water into oxygen and hydrogen, but are not prepared to back up that claim with anything remotely scientific. Simply expecting people to take your word for it does not cut it... and never will.

The very least you can do when making such claims is to add a little substance to back up your posts.

In this respect you are no better than the myriad of charlatans and celebrity seekers that talk a lot, but say very little, and who make bold claims then provide nothing.

So I'll get out of this, and just go back to my simple stuff that keeps the lights on and isn't supposed to work.....

You do that!

Farrah

[Matthew Jones]

And it is the electric field between the plates that destabilises anything in between... like water. Except this alone does not produce gas... which is the very heart of the problem.

So I need to set up this simple experiment and film the gas coming from the cell to prove what I say? Seeing as how you know they don't work and YOU WON"T look past what you been taught

Exactly what great leaps are they? You know this how?

You didn't read the statement. The point was your brand of science is not moving us forward in the directions that I stated. I was being sarcastic.

I'm simply curious as to why Meyers original WFC has now is been relegated to the dustbin.

Couldn't begin to answer that.

My arguments against Meyer are essentially the very same as my argument with you. You both claim that voltage alone will decompose water into oxygen and hydrogen, but are not prepared to back up that claim with anything remotely scientific. Simply expecting people to take your word for it does not cut it... and never will. [/QOUTE]
You don't have to take my word for it, I can build one and show you. Will film do or do you require an address? PM me if you want to see a 2 plates and jar of water make gas that burns first hand. Or will there be a problem with that too? Usually you academic types find a reason to worm your way out of looking at the truth. What kinda balls you got?

[QOUTE]The very least you can do when making such claims is to add a little substance to back up your posts.
In this respect you are no better than the myriad of charlatans and celebrity seekers that talk a lot, but say very little, and who make bold claims then provide nothing.

I can make several claims and back everyone of them up. I speak from experience not the text wrote in a book that I had to pay for or the idiots art of consumption, the truth.
I never insulted you Its funny you had to start that.

Since you are incapable of looking for yourself just say the word I'll build something and show you gas from potential alone and without consumption of the energy to do so. Oh and if you feel the need to see it first hand PM me. Or I'll have to show you film. But your more than welcome to see the proof of my claims.

Matt

[Farrah Day]

Matthew it's got nothing to do with looking past what I was taught or my so-called brand of science. It has everything to do with real science, real facts, and hard evidence. What I'm totally against is conjecture, wild speculation and unsubstantiated claims. These forums are full of that.

I can make several claims and back everyone of them up. I speak from experience not the text wrote in a book that I had to pay for or the idiots art of consumption, the truth.
I never insulted you Its funny you had to start that.

Sorry you took my last post as an insult, I was simply stating a fact.

Since you are incapable of looking for yourself just say the word I'll build something and show you gas from potential alone and without consumption of the energy to do so. Oh and if you feel the need to see it first hand PM me. Or I'll have to show you film. But your more than welcome to see the proof of my claims

Please do it! I'd love you to prove me wrong! This is the WFC holy grail.

Regards, Farrah.

[HairBear]

The original WFC is not in the dustbin. You just see it that way. Who knows, maybe our collective subconscious is in sync and we are all on the same page.

If Meyer did lie and faked all of it, I would not be hindered to carry on any further research. In the end, it's all relative anyway.

[Matthew Jones]

I'll redo what I have done in the past for test. I gotta go get some stainless steel Monday and I'll set it up with a simple 3 battery switch.

If you wanna try and have some sooner this is how you set it up.

http://www.matthewcjones.com/power/TShho.jpg

I am not saying you are going to make an enormous amount of gas or anything but this will make gas and the total loss will be little to none.

Instead stacking batteries Meyer stepped his voltage up through an inductor, and in the circuit he ran it to bulb, but the load was not the plates it was the bulb. The bulb could have been a battery or a redirect to the primary power supply via a step down (If needed). This is why he had no heat.

I'll show ya the best I can.
See ya soon.
Matt

[Aaron]

Nh3

I looked through about 75% of the book that Schpankme posted
last night - very simple straight forward explanations - even nh3 reference
from just nitrogen + hydrogen + silent electric discharge

------------------------------------------------------------

page 26 - With Nitrogen* Donkin has shown that when a
mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is subjected to the
silent electric discharge, a partial union of the two gases
takes place, with the formation of ammonia :
N2 + 3H2 = 2NH3 .

However, this reaction could in no way be regarded as
commercial, as the quantity of ammonia produced after
the gases have long been subjected to the silent electric
discharge is only just sufficient to be identified by the
most delicate means.

Recent investigations have, however, shown that if
the two gases are mixed and subjected to very great
pressure (1800 Ib. per sq. inch) in the presence of a
catalytic agent, union to an appreciable extent takes
place. This process, which is now being used on a
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES 27

commercial scale in Germany, is known as the Haber
process, but few details as to the method of operation
are available. In the earlier stages of the working of
this process the catalytic agent was probably osmium,
but it is considered doubtful if this is still being employed.

---------------------------------------------

Yes, not sufficient for commercial production - however,
super ionized nitrogen is NOT accounted for amongst a few
other parts of the full reaction - but I'm happy to see the
reference.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Matthew

I'll redo what I have done in the past for test. I gotta go get some stainless steel Monday and I'll set it up with a simple 3 battery switch.

If you wanna try and have some sooner this is how you set it up.

http://www.matthewcjones.com/power/TShho.jpg

I am not saying you are going to make an enormous amount of gas or anything but this will make gas and the total loss will be little to none.

You're link is puzzling me. It simply shows a standard electrolyser. Current will flow between the plates... that's how they work. What am I missing here?

I'm more confused than ever now!

Regards, Farrah.