What of Meyer’s original WFC?

[Farrah Day]

My problem regarding 'potential flow' is that to me it appears to be a bit of a misnomer, almost a contradiction of itself.

The term is used in fluid dynamics, but I fail to see it's relevance or meaning in the context it is being used here. Is this not simply an invented term... like the very annoying term, HHO?

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

It is literally, in every meaning of the word, potential - that flowed from
point A to B or point A to B and back to A without loss and sometimes a
gain all the while there is no amperage so therefore no watts

Curious Aaron. Are you saying then that you do not believe that it is the electron that carries the charges to the plate of a capacitor?

When a capacitor initially charges mainstream science says that a flow of electrons to one plate is what then provides the potential difference between the two plates. Once at supply potential, no more current flows and we have our voltage potential, but to get this potential hasn't current flowed initially?

When you move the potential from one capacitor to another, aren't you simply flowing electrons from one to another?

Believe it or not it's the 'potential flow' term I'm having more problems with than the concept.

It would seem that, like Rosemary, you too are dismissing the electron as the current carrier... is this so? And if the electron is not responsible for the charges on the plate of a capacitor, what do you suggest is?

Regards, Farrah

[Aaron]

What is Potential?

Curious Aaron. Are you saying then that you do not believe that it is the electron that carries the charges to the plate of a capacitor?

There are a lot of assumptions woven into your questions.

What is potential, literally, as it relates to electric circuits? Do you have
a personal definition of it? Not potential flow - what is your definition of
potential in electric circuits?

If an electron is moved to one capacitor to the next, how is that potential
moving from one cap to another? Let's say electrons are a "charge carrier" -
what gets them to move?

[stevie1001]

Now everyone will rightly tell me that the protons within wires cannot flow,
while the electrons can. Yes, this is true... but only in metals.
And it's only true for solid metals.
All metals are composed of positively charged atoms immersed in a sea of
movable electrons. When an electric current is created within a
solid copper wire, the "electron sea" moves forward, but the protons within
the positive atoms of copper do not.


However, SOLID METALS ARE NOT THE ONLY CONDUCTORS,
and in many other substances the positive atoms *do* move,
and they *do* participate in the electric current.
These various conductors are nothing exotic.
They are all around us, as close to us as they can possibly be.

A battery or Waterfuelcell is an "ionic" or "non electron" type conductor.

What is "non electron flow"?
The electric charges in a waterfuelcell are entirely composed of positive and negative
charged atoms or "ions." During electrolysis, it was these charged atoms which flowed
along as an electric current. The electric current was a flow of positive potassium atoms,
negative chlorine, and numerous other more complex positive and negative molecules.
During the electric current, the positive atoms flowed in one direction, while
the negative atoms simultaneously flowed in the other. Imagine the flows as being
like crowds of of tiny moving dots, with half the dots going in one direction and half
in the other. The crowds of little dots move through each other without any dots colliding.
The postive atoms behave like a proton, but a proton with an entire atom attached.
The negative atoms behave like electrons which are dragging an entire atom along with them.

So, inside a waterfuelcell, which direction did the electric current REALLY go?
Do we follow the negative particles and ignore the positive ones? Or vice versa,
following the negatives? There is a simple answer, but first...

When you connect a lightbulb to a battery, you form a complete circuit, and the path
of the flowing charge is through the inside of the battery, as well as through the
light bulb filament. Battery electrolyte is very conductive. Down inside the battery,
within the wet chemicals between the plates, the amperes of flashlight current appears
as a flow of both positive and negative atoms. There is a powerful flow of electric charge
going through the battery, yet no individual electrons flow through the battery at all.
So, while the current is between the two plates of the battery, what's its real direction?
Not right to left, not left to right, but in both directions at once.
About half of the charge-flow is composed of positive atoms, and the remaining portion is
composed of negative atoms flowing backwards.

Of course in metal wires outside the battery, the real particle flow is only from negative
to positive. But inside the battery's wet electrolyte or in a waterfuelcell's electrolyte, the charge-flow goes in two opposite
directions at the same time.
(And if we built a circuit from hoses full of salt water,
with no metal conductors used, then all the current would be bi-directional.)

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/amateur/elecdir.html

[Farrah Day]

There are a lot of assumptions woven into your questions.

What is potential, literally, as it relates to electric circuits? Do you have
a personal definition of it? Not potential flow - what is your definition of
potential in electric circuits?

If an electron is moved to one capacitor to the next, how is that potential
moving from one cap to another? Let's say electrons are a "charge carrier" -
what gets them to move?

Whilst I fully understand that science does not yet have all the answers regarding current flow, and indeed all scientists are not in full agreement about the electron being the true flow of current, the electron surely does exist as a charge.

My interpretation of voltage therefore is quite simple: Basically an imbalance of electric charge (electron, ions) between two or more points.

And so, given the chance, this imbalance will endeavour to establish an equilibrium.

So with your capacitors, I would simply see the charges (electrons) flowing from the plates of one capacitor to the other. If the capacitors are in parallel, I would expect the overall charge to remain constant, but each capacitor now sharing the charge.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm right, this is of course the generally accepted standard model, and no doubt Rosemary for one would see things in a very different light, but this tends to be how mainstream science sees it.

Of course, if you are able to transfer the charge from one capacitor to another without diluting the charge on the first capacitor... then this creates a lot of questions that the electron charge fails to answer.

So coming back to potential flow, in my model I have basically a voltage potential and/or current flow, with an electrostatic field between any two voltage potentials. I have no concept of potential flow. Is it that you are describing the electrostatic field residing between two points of potential difference as potential flow?

I see Peter Lindemann frequents the forum, I wonder what his take on the original Meyer WFC is now?

I do recall seeing him give a lecture on this a long time ago, but I also remember struggling to get my head around the 'catastrophic dielectric breakdown' of water.

Stevie

As you rightly say, current flow is not limited to electrons, any moving charged particle constitutes current flow.

Many scientists used to liken the free electrons in a conductor to a gas cloud of electrons within an ionic latice.

What I've learned from Rosemary is that the various models do not answer all the questions. The models are great up to a point, but then upon digging a little deeper they trip-up somewhere.

Drude's classical free-electron model is just such a case. It explains many things very well, and indeed can generally be used as the working model without problems, but has it's weakness and failures.

Pauli improved upon Drude's model with his free-electron model, which went some way to explaining things that Drude's model could not, but this too has it's limitations, and does not explain every scenario.

Both free-electron models nicely explain Ohm's Law for example, and the heating effect within a conductor when current flows. But neither model answers every question posed of it.

Hence there is always room for newer models to overcome the current model shortcomings. Every now and then a new model will supersede an older one, but the old models will still retain some merit.

But I'm rambling now...

Regards, Farrah.

[Farrah Day]

Just then before this thread inevitably dies a death...

... is there no one looking in that is currently experimenting with the original Meyer-type WFC?

Farrah

[chasson321]

Just then before this thread inevitably dies a death...

... is there no one looking in that is currently experimenting with the original Meyer-type WFC?

Farrah

Yes, there is a least one.

[stevie1001]

Farrah,

A major part of the Stan Meyer theory is based on extracting electrons.
We agree on the fact that current in water is carried NOT by electrons.
One of the open questions is if electrons are freed in the electrolysis proces.
Lets assume that electrons are freed during this proces and that there are free electrons as well in the water.

Electrons are conducted by metal, like SS.

The electrons from the wires and tranformer flow till the SS electrodes and there
they stop......passing the current over to the ions/atoms.
Looks like the electrodes behave like a "current door" function.
If there are electrons freed in the water, then it should be at the electrodes, it think, because there is where the hydrogen and oxygen are produced. With a pulsing dc it should be possible to extract electrons from the waterbath in the downtime of the circuit. The door opens back towards another circuit where the charge of the ions/atoms "pushes" the electrons from the water back into the electrodes and EEC circuit. The question is if it is possible to do such thing.

Question:
What would happens if we take out electrons from the waterbath with the water?
Is less re-combining the result? Less particles in the water, so less friction=heat?
Better efficiency?


Stevie

[Farrah Day]

Stevie

If you can find any reference to electrons (free electrons) flowing through a liquid (non-metal) I'd really like to see it.

Perhaps you should be asking this:

If electrons could be pulled completely out of the water, what exactly would you be left with? It certainly wouldn't be any gases.

With a pulsing dc it should be possible to extract electrons from the waterbath in the downtime of the circuit. The door opens back towards another circuit where the charge of the ions/atoms "pushes" the electrons from the water back into the electrodes and EEC circuit

I don't understand why you think this should be possible?

Question:
What would happens if we take out electrons from the waterbath with the water? Is less re-combining the result? Less particles in the water, so less friction=heat?
Better efficiency?

Stevie, I don't know what you're thinking here, but you really have to be careful. However inconvenient it is, science obeys certain laws... always has... always will. Certain chemical reactions can take place and do... others can't, don't... and never will. And, rather unfortunately for some, no amount of conjecture or wishful thinking will ever change this.

Furthermore, and whether people like it or not, Meyer's science simply does not add up... or make scientific sense. Meyer's Technical Brief is littered with blatant errors and inconsistencies which I feel are primarily to blame for people getting such odd notions of how science operates.

But then, if you're willing to turn a blind eye to the gibberish - or don't know any better - I'm sure it all makes absolute sense.

Meaning no offence, simply trying to emphasise my point.

Farrah.

[stevie1001]

Stevie

If you can find any reference to electrons (free electrons) flowing through a liquid (non-metal) I'd really like to see it.
Perhaps you should be asking this:
If electrons could be pulled completely out of the water, what exactly would you be left with? It certainly wouldn't be any gases.

Maybe i was not very clear in this.
I do not suggest that electrons travel through a liquid, however, there is a part of the liquid who in in contact with the electrodes.
Accoording to the Helmholtz double layer theory there is no electron exchange at all.

Article:
The electrical double layer
The model which gave rise to the term 'electrical double layer' was first put forward in the 1850's by Helmholtz. In this model he assumed that no electron transfer reactions occur at the electrode and the solution is composed only of electrolyte. The interactions between the ions in solution and the electrode surface were asssumed to be electrostatic in nature and resulted from the fact that the electrode holds a charge density (qm)which arises from either an excess or deficiency of electrons at the electrode surface. In order for the interface to remain neutral the charge held on the electrode is balanced by the redistribution of ions close to the electrode surface.

The attracted ions are assumed to approach the electrode surface and form a layer balancing the electrode charge, the distance of approach is assumed to be limited to the radius of the ion and a single sphere of solvation round each ion. The overall result is two layers of charge (the double layer) and a potential drop which is confined to only this region (termed the outer Helmholtz Plane, OHP) in solution. The result is absolutely analogous to an electrical capacitor which has two plates of charge separated by some distance (d)

with the potential drop occurring in a linear manner between the two plates. It is perhaps no surprise that when impedance analysis is performed on electrochemical systems the response due to the electrolyte redistribution is modelled in terms of capacitative elements.
The model of Helmholtz while providing a basis for rationalising the behaviour of this region does not account for many factors such as, diffusion/mixing in solution, the possibility of absorption on to the surface and the interaction between solvent dipole moments and the electrode. A later model put forward by Stern begins to address some of these limitations

now the ions are assumed to be able to move in solution and so the electrostatic interactions are in competition with Brownian motion. The result is still a region close to the electrode surface (100x10-10 m) containing an excess of one type of ion but now the potential drop occurs over the region called the diffuse layer.
Many modifications and improvements have been made to these early models with the latest approaches using numerical modelling to follow the redistribution effects as the electrode potential is varied.

The Electrical Double Layer

But then, if you're willing to turn a blind eye to the gibberish - or don't know any better - I'm sure it all makes absolute sense.
Meaning no offence, simply trying to emphasise my point.
Farrah.

No problemo.

The issue is that if you read about Helmholtz layers and the fact that Puharich also refers to Helmholtz, then Stan Meyer theory on the EEC at least is not applicable towards the "electrolysis" proces.
Maybe EEC is only possible with gasses.

Stevie

[Farrah Day]

Hi Stevie

Yes, good stuff in that last post.

This actually was my reason for starting the Basic Electrolysis thread.

I was trying over there to highlight the fact that there is still a great deal not fully understood, even though most people would argue this.

As you have nicely pointed out, even in basic electrolysis there are multiple theories and great controversy between reputable scientists on exactly what is taking place, where and how. And this science has been around nearly 200 years!

The problem with this stuff, and I guess why most people prefer the KISS approach, is that the deeper you dig the more complicated things tend to get.

But the way I see it, the more we understand the processes - the whys and wheres - the better chance we have of influencing or indeed enhancing the processes in our favour.

Regards, Farrah.