Another site courtesy of smurdoch.
"... yes, we did get gas which wasn't air because it burned, although you couldn't see the
flame until you put something in it, and boy! what a reaction, steel wire reducing to
ash almost immediately...
.. efficiencies were quite high because I took some trouble over the transformer
(toroid compared to Danforths soft iron core) since a high rise time is needed...
minimum component solution using readily available components (some were canabalised)...
... yes, I DO believe that a resonance in the water molecule is involved and whether
this can be considered to be a chemical reaction or not is academic anyway
(chemistry is, after all, all about what the outer electrons are doing, nothing else).
Labelling is academic anyway, whether you call it electrolysis or bogsnorkelling,
who cares...
... Stan used pipes, for whatever reason, but I advocate using plates since this gives a
more compact design via increased surface area vs volume(Stan used plates in one of
the patents to determine the gap, I simply used more of them)...
... efficiency wise go for a large surface area (thus the plates), a high frequency
transfomer (toroid, maybe with silver-plated wire although I haven't used this)
and as pure a source of water as you can find since additives to the water (remember
I told you about the flouride, chlorine and aluminium found in British tapwater)
tend to render the system current rather than voltage based (increasing power
consumption and thus reducing the efficiency)...
... Stan mentions a number of things in his patents that, conventionally speaking, don't
make sense (thus the opposition from those such as xxx xxxxxxxxx, et al), especially
in respect of 'gtnt' where he mentions nucleic decay (which in my books is fission)...
Perhaps he's right but in respect of the grid above the pipes he seems to mention
current flow where normally there would be none... I didn't use this grid at all and
still obtained results. I began to feel that he was possibly obfuscating the issue,
perhaps having realised the potential dangers inherent in the device... and thus some backtracking was
necessary to deliberately confuse. Maybe I'm wrong...
... my approach initially was to try and determine an operating point but this proved to
be a waste of time since a possible back EMF from the cell took out the amplifier I
was using to drive it (again, another thoroughly unexpected phenomena)..."
"... many are quoting crap about the Faraday constant (a mole of monovalent ions of any substance is liberated by 9.65 x 10 to the 4th coulombs) which dates back to the early 1830s when electricity was thought to be of an atomic nature, 70 years before radio and 90 or more before the advent of quantum mechanics...
... okay the results are still valid but the gear used in almost all cases I've seen uses anode/cathode gaps far greater than Meyers (often by a factor of 1,000) and the DC used is continuous, NOT pulsed...
... the different methods are worlds apart ignoring the fact that an up to date look at this method of electrolysis (because thats what it is, no magic here) might shed light on phenomenon stimulated by transients..."
DN
"laveolus"
Meyers stuff does work - i have seen it. you dont actually need the
platinum, either, and whatever goes on in the circuitry, to put it in simple
terms, the "output" end of the wire goes to thin air. As for running on ac
converted to dc i have seen it run from a car alternator - in this case, due
to the lack of a car in the lab, the alternator was being turned by an
electric motor connected to ac - under the circumstances i think that was
reasonable. Also, they gave him an almighty fight just to get the patents
through and when he did it was by demonstration. Upon demonstrating in the
patent offices, they crapped themselves and cleared the building when they
realised how much H was being produced by the demo rig.
Wether or not ZPE is utilised here is arguable. you caould say that it is
in so far as the whole thing requires a high voltage resonance, but the
process is actually mechanical in nature, simply using opposing poles of the
unit to "pull the h or O towards one or other electrode. there is NO
electrolysis involved. effectively, if you run the power to it on the
positive terminal, you are leaving the negative terminal without a
connection. this is not a litteral fact, it is a function. The cell takes
the place of and adopts the function of a capacitor. by building up and
collapsing a high voltage in the aforementioned capacitor, you create a
mechanical stressing of the covalent bonds in the water. by repeating this
process rapidly enough, you break that bond. Most of the circuitry is for
this purpose. Meyer was originally aiming for a car run in this
manner[which, among other things, he acheived].
you could quite easily duplicate the process by discarding much of the
circuitry and replacing it with the ignition system of a car.
Much of his later work was with nasa - wether voluntarily or not, i dont
know but i have my suspicions. I also have very strong suspicions regarding
said court case and other suspicious events both in discussion groups and
around meyer. there is much rubbishing done by "individuals" from various
governments oooops sorry i meant countries of various topics, including zpe,
meyer, john searl and a number of others. go have a look at the energy 21
group. you should hear some of the stuff they have had to put up with.
I know one of them who has various cells working - he is harrassed and
rubbished frequently. the thing with the net is you never know who you
could be talking or listening to."
"'... Under no circumstances make any attempt to store any gases given off...' (see stan1) "... in this context a small working reservoir was employed using toy balloons negating the shrapnel problem presented by a steel vessel intended for pressurized operation. No problems were encountered..."
"I'm amazed by all the nay sayers that belittle the Meyers cell (and other technologies that they know nothing about). In the case of the Meyers cell, any halfway talented tech can easily build one, and SEE it work. Any junior electrical engineer can easily see that far more power is being produced (in H2) than is going in - by the classical model. The same thing happens when gasoline is ignited.
So, before you make a fool out of yourself, I suggest you get some help and BUILD one. Even a rudimentary piss-poor prototype will produce enough H2 to show the concept. I Know, as I have built one."
Off Ended
"I have not seen, but within my familly one of our members has built a lawn mower that uses this same principle to break down water for fuel. It caused quite a stir to see him put water(tap) into the fuel tank and start it up, then proceed to mow his lawn. This happened right in the middle of oil country. We thought he was quack until this happened. Now we all believe." metertech01@yahoo.com
"Somewhere out there, there is something truly amazing - a willy that can
type and use newsgroups!
David C