Stan Meyers Secret, Preventing Electrolysis.

[sebosfato]

I think you should think more about what you all really want. However the solution is here. Those with knowledge have understood this long time ago!!!

[lamare]

Lamare, consider this:

If it only takes around 1.5 volts before electrolysis occurs, how can water be considered anything like a good dielectric? As soon as the voltage exceeds 1.5 volts, the water conducts.

People have been forever stating the relative permitivity of pure water, (the keyword here being 'PURE'), and assuming this figure for any old water. And no one ever seems to be able to grasp the difference.

Pure water in this context is nigh on impossible to achieve. Not only does water readily self-ionise, but as soon as it's exposed to the atmosphere, atmospheric gases readily dissolve in it, to say nothing of contaminants from other sources. Bit of a bugger I know, but even de-ionised water makes for a poor dielectric, and as for tap water... well it's a far better conductor than insulator.

Water that can withstand kvolts before it breaks down and conducts is specially prepared in laboratories, and would cost more than petrol, which makes it all pretty pointless.

For what it's worth (probably not much) Meyer stated that he could use any old water. He certainly didn't use laboratory grade PURE water, that's for sure.

Oh boy. I know I posted the standard reactions for electrolysis and that was on purpose. Both half reactions are standard redox reactions which do not occur naturally, because it takes energy to take electrons from the negative ions and feed them to the positive ions to keep the reaction going. Normally, you do that using electrodes and a power supply, but there ain't no law of physics that forbids you to perform the exact same reaction more directly using a strong electric field.

I also realise that the data and water proporties I posted may be pretty far off because of the reasons you gave. However, they do give you some indication.

Geven the electric strength of pure water, 30 kV/mm, it is clear the required field strength is achievable with capacitor plates placed at a distance of 1 mm. When you are talking about the thin dielectric films used in electrolytic capacitors which are in the order of a few micrometer, you already come within the required range with something in the order of 60 V.

White I agree these are just rough estimations, in the end practice rules. And practice reported by none less than John Bedini says batteries can "cold boil". Naudin's tubes do produce gas. And the list goes on and on. I just try to find the possible mechanisms to explain what people report they saw in practice.

Let me add that it is not important wether or not water is a "good" dielectric. What matters is how the various atoms and ions inside the fluid react to an applied electric field. What happens when a dielectric breaks down is that electrons are freed from the material because they are ripped of the atoms or ions they were attached to suddenly turning the material into a conductor. According to Wikipedia, when one does this on purpose, one creates a "Disruptive device":

REF: Electrical breakdown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A disruptive device is a device that has a dielectric, whereupon being stressed beyond its dielectric strength, has an electrical breakdown. This results in the sudden transition of part of the dielectric material from an insulating state to a highly conductive state. This transition is characterized by the formation of an electric spark, and possibly an electric arc through the material. If this occurs within a solid dielectric, physical and chemical changes along the path of the discharge will cause permanent degradation and significant reduction in the material's dielectric strength. A spark gap is a type of disruptive device that uses a gas or fluid dielectric between spaced electrodes. Unlike solid dielectrics, liquid or gaseous dielectrics can usually recover their full dielectric strength once current flow (through the plasma in the gap) has been externally interrupted.

The following article handles about "dielectric breakdown" of water: Sandia National Labs Water-Dielectric Breakdown Data

[lamare]

I don't, I'm not the one saying that you can evolve gases by dissociating water by voltage alone... you are. You tell me!

In my world, as I stated previously, we always need a charge exchange medium when dealing with ions.

Lamare, for some reason, has simply posted the reactions of normal everyday electrolysis. Nothing new there, this is what we are all taught at school. Obviously the reactions pasted do not apply if no current is flowing. I'm therefore at a loss to find any relevance to the post, as voltage alone will not produce those reactions.

What you appear to misunderstand is the question *where* the current is flowing. Current is nothing more nor less than moving electrons around, which occurs when (free) electrons are subjected to an electric field. What is most common is to have electrons move around in a wire using a power supply, but there are other ways. For example in classic amplifier tubes, there is a heated wire which releases electrons into the vacuum, which are subsequently attracted to the metal shield surrounding the wire and that way you also get a current.

Using the same principle, pushing electrons around using an electric field, it is clear that you can also move free electrons around in a fluid, which *is* a current. It's just that the current remains locally inside the fluid, so you don't provide a current into the fluid yourself trough the terminal contacts.

In other words: if you somehow have been able to create free electrons inside your fluid, all it takes to make them flow trough the fluid is an electric field. And as it happens, you can create free electrons inside the fluid pretty easily. Just apply an electric field that is strong enough to rip electrons from the negative ions, a.k.a. "dielectric breakdown".

So, you are right, nothing new here. Just a matter of pushing electrons around

It's hard to know what to make of Naudin's replication as he won't answer emails and there is crucial info lacking on his website. But I know that a fully insulated cathode won't do what he is showing it to do. Most people simply take these things for granted - I don't!

At the bottom of the page he states he is currently building a WFC v2 - which I was hoping might shed more light on things - but nothing has happened for well over a year, so maybe this itself is an indication of things not quite going to plan.

IMHO you may be wrong about that. If the applied electric field is strong enough, it is able to create free electrons inside the fluid ("dielectric breakdown"). That way you get "real" electron based currents inside the fluid, instead of the (relatively slow) ion based currents that normally take place in water.

[Farrah Day]

Lamare

I just try to find the possible mechanisms to explain what people report they saw in practice.

This is also what I try to do. However, I usually find that in most cases the science simply does not add up and what is claimed is not what happens when attempts are made at replication.

What you appear to misunderstand is the question *where* the current is flowing. Current is nothing more nor less than moving electrons around, which occurs when (free) electrons are subjected to an electric field. What is most common is to have electrons move around in a wire using a power supply, but there are other ways. For example in classic amplifier tubes, there is a heated wire which releases electrons into the vacuum, which are subsequently attracted to the metal shield surrounding the wire and that way you also get a current.

Using the same principle, pushing electrons around using an electric field, it is clear that you can also move free electrons around in a fluid, which *is* a current. It's just that the current remains locally inside the fluid, so you don't provide a current into the fluid yourself trough the terminal contacts.

In other words: if you somehow have been able to create free electrons inside your fluid, all it takes to make them flow trough the fluid is an electric field. And as it happens, you can create free electrons inside the fluid pretty easily. Just apply an electric field that is strong enough to rip electrons from the negative ions, a.k.a. "dielectric breakdown".

Actually, I understand perfectly well, and current is not necessarily electron movement.

You however talk about 'free' electrons in the fluid medium, yet electrons are not the current carriers in a fluid medium such as water. The current carriers are ionic species, not electrons! How can you strip the OH- ion of its electron using an electric field when the ion itself will simply move in response?

Furthermore as already stated, there is no dielectric to break down in water - it's a conductor above around 1.5 volts!

What you're suggesting simply does not make any sense.

[lamare]

Actually, I understand perfectly well, and current is not necessarily electron movement.

You however talk about 'free' electrons in the fluid medium, yet electrons are not the current carriers in a fluid medium such as water. The current carriers are ionic species, not electrons! How can you strip the OH- ion of its electron using an electric field when the ion itself will simply move in response?

How can you rip of the bumber of a car using a rope, when the car will simply move in response?

(sudden) brute force....

Furthermore as already stated, there is no dielectric to break down in water - it's a conductor above around 1.5 volts!

REF: http://www.waterfuelconverters.com/e070401.pdf

We find that complete dielectric failure is likely to occur in water between a significantly field-enhanced anode and a less enhanced cathode...

So, you are right that under normal, low voltage conditons (with the associated low electric field strength) ions are the prime charge carriers in water. However, when an electric field with sufficient strength is applied to the water dielectric breakdown does undoubdly occur and then suddenly free electrons become the prime charge carriers, because they can travel much faster than ions since these are much heavier. Just google for "water dielectric breakdown".

[lamare]

The next problem is going to be coating the cathode with a dielectric coating....Naudin used a thin plastic sheet and then wrapped that in tape I believe. The thin plastic sheet he talks about sounds to me like something like screen protector plastic???

There are also liquid dielectric coatings available....You need a dielectric with a high dielectric constant and a decent dielectric strength....I would suggest you have a thickness able to withstand at least 3kV. Also, read up on dielectrics to better understand them.

Aaron previously suggested "Corona Dope". Interestingly, along with references that Stan Meyer supposedly did the same thing using Delrin, whatever that may be:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post20266

Here is what I believe is a necessary concept that must be throughly explored or it doesn't matter what circuit you have...if, you want to use only voltage potential to separate water with no current or bare minimum.

INSULATION to make the cell a capacitor in the true sense of capacitor.

Stan showed using delrin to encase an entire inner/outer tube setup.

I have seen attempts with van de graff's, etc.. and other high voltage means to accomplish pure electrostatic separation and nobody has succeeded in any significant ways. The voltage is leaking all over and dust and other stuff is attracted to the cell from the floor, etc... that means it is not a capacitor...it is not holding that voltage to any high degree in the water cell itself. If that is the case, there will never be enough voltage for true electrostatic separation.

[...]

Stan showed a delrin encasement around the annode with small openings at the top and bottom. The cathode is inside the annode. As water is drawn into the opening at the bottom of the delrin encasement, the ONLY PLACE THE WATER EVEN TOUCHES IS THE GAP. The inner part of the annode and outer part of the cathode is the ONLY part where the water touches without the voltage leaking out everywhere else. What that means is that the annode/cathode tube set really has become a capacitor to lock in as much voltage as possible where it counts...the gap where you want the water to split from nothing more than pure voltage potential.

Even if I had the 100% foolproof VIC circuit, it would do nobody any good at all hooking it up to a short circuited cell.

I'm not a machinist and am not interested in dealing with delrin. There is a product called "SUPER CORONA DOPE." It is a xylene lacquer type of mix that you can brush on to metal or whatever and then it hardens like a glass and resists 4000volts per mil or 40,000 per mm thick. If you had 2 flat plates and each was thoroughly coated with 1mm each, that is a dielectric strength high enough to hold back 80,000 volts.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post35607

Many months ago, I showed a few references to Peter and he helped me build something at his shop...a real water capacitor...what that project was is irrelevant... what is relevant is that the goal is to have a water cell where voltage potential WILL NOT LEAK. The project was far from perfected but this concept is clearly spelled out in Tay Hee Han's patent as well.

Meyer shows this very clearly with his diagram of the delrin encasement.

Delrin isn't practical for anyone unless they have access to some machine stop probably. My homebrew solution was to get a can of plastidip to coat the outside positive tube in to isolate it from the water. Also, super corona dope can be painted on the outside of the positive tube, which I have a few quarts of this for this purpose.

Interestingly, in this post, another (now deleted) post is referred:

Since so much has been already said on the WFC the only thing I have to add is to make them so the outside of the outer tube is isolated out of the water bath and to ground the water bath just as Stanley Meyer shows too do, and isolated ground right in the water bath. But isolating the positive from the water bath helps keep the voltage from leaking. And the circuitry any way you find that will pulse the transformer should work, just make sure when you have everything set that you are able to raise and lower the voltage independently of pulsing and frequency. In the alternator all Meyer had to do was turn a variable resistor to raise or lower the voltage to the rotor field winding.

So, there are indications that Stan Meyer also used insulation in his WFC..

Here it says the following:
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Ravi%20Cell.pdf

In one of Stan's patents he talked about using polyoxymethylene (Delrin) which has a high dielectric constant. He used Delrin on the outside of the outer pipe and the inside of the inner pipe to contain the electron leakage. The barrier formed by the conditioning coating has a comparatively lesser dielectric constant than the Derlin material thickness used.

[tutanka]

you are lost time and money..

You are every thinking about hydrogen production that is unusable in an endothermic engine and very dangerous but that is been written on forum from more time. For that I don't understand you.. probably you have more time to lost

[lamare]

Coming to think of this, the pieces of the puzzle are starting to drop into place.

The electric field is an infinite energy source (Bearden, see my referenced discussions at Article:The Electret Effect - PESWiki ) where it not that in normal electrical circuits electrons have the nasty habit of flowing in such a direction that they "kill" the voltage you have created to make your electric field. This is what Bearden has been talking about for years. "killing the dipole".

However, if you manage to create an electric field such that the electrons you are moving around with it cannot reach the circuitry you use to create the field, then they cannot kill "the dipole", hence you get to use the field for free, only having to pay for the losses that occor to maintain the field. Apparantly, the WFC with proper insulated capacitor plates can do just that, because the electrons flowing from one half reaction tot the other stay within the substance, whereby the net effect is that some atoms have been rearranged such that they are now hydrogen and oxygen gas, instead of water. The electrons however, stay where they were: in the substance.

And since the electrons in an electrolysis process do not leave the "water" if they are moved from one atom/ion to the other, they cannot "kill the dipole". As it turns out you can actually split water with little more than just a spark plug, and immediately burn it afterwards, by which it appears energy can actually be "gained", which of course is actually being pulled in from the vacuum:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post22496

ROSCO, you're the plug expert, can you verify these results under compression? I did use the resistorless NGK motorcycle plug and sprayed water and it does explode water mist like in Gotoluc's vid. Would be interesting to see this circuit sparking your Firestorm duplication!

This should be really simple to replicate.

[Farrah Day]

How can you rip of the bumber of a car using a rope, when the car will simply move in response?

(sudden) brute force....

Nice analogy Lamare, but this assumes that the electron bond is a rigid and weak link - I'm not sure it is. You couldn't so easily pull the bumper off the car if it completely surrounding the body... and on strong and elastic fixings.

Anyway, here's something else for you to think about. Once you insulate an electrode from the water, then that insulation on that electrode becomes the dielectric.

All the voltage is then across this insulation, not across the water. The water simply becomes an extension of the uninsulated electrode, and the only dielectric breakdown that will occur will be that of the insulation (which will not self-repair).

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

[Farrah Day]

Everyone remember stan mentioned that he needed to build the entire system in a garage environment to protect the technology from being blocked. He used no exotic parts or materials to also protect the technology from being blocked. The dielectric needs to be something widely available, and cheap.

Lol, he needn't have bother need he. I don't know about you but I'm yet to see a Meyer buggy on the streets!

[lamare]

Nice analogy Lamare, but this assumes that the electron bond is a rigid and weak link - I'm not sure it is. You couldn't so easily pull the bumper off the car if it completely surrounding the body... and on strong and elastic fixings.

True, but given the many references to "dielectric breakdown" of water, you will really have hard time maintaining this is principally impossible. It may take strong electric fields, yes, but it is definately possible.

Anyway, here's something else for you to think about. Once you insulate an electrode from the water, then that insulation on that electrode becomes the dielectric.

All the voltage is then across this insulation, not across the water. The water simply becomes an extension of the uninsulated electrode, and the only dielectric breakdown that will occur will be that of the insulation (which will not self-repair).

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

This is more or less what sebosfato is saying, too:

Guys I naudin got nothing, that step charge effect means nothing... I already done that is very easy and stupid... and wont generate any gas... why insist on theories that were proved to be wrong?

I again tell you, I already did this experiment... The step charge effect were the same, however no gas can be generated.

There is something called electric field distribution that occurs when you have two different dielectric constants in series. Where you will find the biggest electric field will be on the smallest value of dielectric...

For you to understand it well, take a 10nf capacitor and a 100nf capacitor and connect them in series to a power supply and measure the voltage across the capacitors... You will understand what i'm talking about.

I think you will have to keep in mind that the electric field travels at the speed of light, 300.000 km/s, which means it has already traveled 30 cm within one pico-second, much faster than ions or even electrons can react.

In normal circuit design, these kinds of considerations can be safely ignored, but when you are talking about circuits that are able to extract useable energy out of the vacuum using an electric field, then the speed differences between the electric field and the movement of electrons/ions is very important, because the delay between the "cause" and "effect" is exactly one of those little understood windows of opportunity that we are trying to exploit.

This is also what Bedini more or less keeps on repeating. One of the secrets for "over unity" is to use high voltage DC spikes. Why?
Because then you have a fraction of a second to use the energy provided by the field, before the charge carriers start working against you.

I posted about this before:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post75378

However, I do like Beardens "don't kill the dipole" and "how circuits are actually powered" theories:
How An Electrical Circuit is REALLY Powered - Bearden for Dummies

"Let me put it this way. Every electrical system we ever built, and every one today, is powered by EM energy extracted directly from the active vacuum by the source dipole in the system."

He explains this concept also very nicely in some of the video's out there. Whenever charge is moving from the + to - poles of a battery or generator, a current flows, which opposes the very reason the current occurs, which is the electric field or potential.

So, it is the electric field that causes the charges to move (do work), while this same movement of charges (current) kills the very reason of it's existence: the field, or the potential on your battery or generator. If you could somehow use the potential of any dipole without killing it, you could get an infinite energy source. In other words: you have to disconnect "current" from "potential" one way or another.

In this line of thinking, the following paper by Klaus Turtur is most interesting:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

In this paper, he shows that the electric field emitted by any charge carrier not only is dynamic (spreading with the speed of light), but it also contains energy. That energy comes from somewhere, which you might call "the Dirac sea" or ZPE, or whatever. Bottomline is: any charge carrier continuously converts some of this "vacuum energy" into a constant stream of "static" electric field energy:

"On the one hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently supplies the charge with energy (first paradox aspect), which the charge (as the field source) converts into field energy and emits it in the shape of a field. On the other hand the vacuum (= the space) permanently takes energy away from the propagating field, this means, that space gets back its energy from field during the propagation of the field. This indicates that there should be some energy inside the “empty” space, which we now can understand as a part of the vacuum-energy."


Probably the most important thing to realise is that there are two energy flows in any circuit or wire:
1. the electric (or EM) field(s) - or "radiant energy" as John likes to call it.
2. the current -- charge carriers moving along inside a conductor.

The E(M) field comes for free, it's a continous stream of "vacuum energy" being converted by any charge carrier.

What we're after in all electrical free energy circuits is to find a way to extract this "vacuum energy" without paying the price by killing our dipoles. And as far as I understand, the basic trick for doing that is to exploit the difference in propagation speed of the E(M) field vs. the charge carriers.

If you look at the SG, the Gray tube and the water spark plug, you see that one possibility is to work with abrupt switching of high voltages. So, apparantly fast switching (fast rise/fall times) of high voltages offers one "window of opportunity" to exploit this propagation speed difference.

In the Tesla switch, you're working with batteries, where the charge carriers are ions moving in a fluid. These move much slower than electrons trough a wire, which is why you can exploit this speed difference between E(M) field and charge carriers at much lower frequencies (switching speeds) in comparison to coils, etc.

In a way, a battery can be seen as a very long wire (as Bearden has talked about). When you put some current (charge carriers) in on one side, it takes a relatively long time before they come out on the other side. So, whenever you reverse the current before that time has passed, you can use the potential (Electric field) without killing the dipole.

So, I think that is what all this comes down to: an exploitation of the difference in propagation speed of the EM field vs. the movement of charge carriers.

[Farrah Day]

True, but given the many references to "dielectric breakdown" of water, you will really have hard time maintaining this is principally impossible. It may take strong electric fields, yes, but it is definately possible.

Not really. The problem is, you will find that none of these references use anything like ordinary, everyday tap water.

Of course the beauty of a 'pure' water dielectric is that it self-repairs once the voltage drops below the break down level. But this is all quite irrelevant when we are talking about everyday water which breaks down at a lowly 1.25 volts. Quite simply, everyday water is a better conductor than it is an insulator, so it will never, ever make a very good dielectric.

With normal water we can easily achieve plasma arcing with such as carbon rods, but of course this is high current plasma electrolysis, which I think we can rule out as any part of the Meyer concept.

All very interesting, but the same stumbling blocks tend to come up over and over again.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Keeping on topic

Well I would just like to say first of all that preventing electrolysis was probably the wrong terminology, unless you want to have a bulk tank of water and place electrodes of some sort in the tank and not create electrolysis to break it down.

You are barking up the wrong tree, Meyer did this at first and improved on it, but still could not produce sufficient gas to run his buggy, that ran on a different system and not one of electrolysis. Correction, at first he ran his buggy on electrolysis, but only on tick over in his drive way, he could not run it on revs: for a drive.

That led him to find another way, and that as I have gone blue in the face is, NOT ELECTROLYSIS. High voltage is needed, but you will never get it to work in a tank of water and you do not need a tank of water, well as a reserve maybe. A high humidity will be sufficient so look more at HV into a high humidity in a none combustible gas such as N2. Look up patents that produce water break down using RF, they work, but even that is not the real answer, but at least will show that hv will break down water if used in a different way.

I am not talking MW here, the patent that I am refering to uses VHF and UHF band as a push pull harmonic resonance (145mhz and 450mhz).US 7,378,063 B1. This is close to the right idea, so don't waste your money on building an item that will not give you what you want, well I don't think it will, and probably my thoughts don't count.

Mike

[sebosfato]

Nice analogy Lamare, but this assumes that the electron bond is a rigid and weak link - I'm not sure it is. You couldn't so easily pull the bumper off the car if it completely surrounding the body... and on strong and elastic fixings.

Anyway, here's something else for you to think about. Once you insulate an electrode from the water, then that insulation on that electrode becomes the dielectric.

All the voltage is then across this insulation, not across the water. The water simply becomes an extension of the uninsulated electrode, and the only dielectric breakdown that will occur will be that of the insulation (which will not self-repair).

Yes Faraday This is what i was talking about... The electric field will be distributed more on the lowest capacitance (more clearly the plastic insulation they want to use)

Actually the patent about collision witch meyer cited was wrong in that there were not actually happening collisions but ion exchanges with the ceramic dielectric coatings...

And than i just gave to you two pages for reading with the answer to exactly how meyer and all the others did and are doing even i. Witch don't break physics laws and is written on a physics book Mr Tomlin.... where the energy really come from ... you just need to organize it!

Guys is just unbelievable that i rubbed the true on your faces and you just did't understood...

There is aways time to get saved...

water must be the capacitor but must behave like the inductor, capacitor and generator at the same time... Also water is not the only capacitor in the circuit... (and i'm not talking about interwinding capacitance, don't be silly)

Resonance must be 360° for that you need two pairs of electrodes at least...

Is far easier also to generate pure h2 and 02 and even more safe... The efficiency is greater because less gas get recombined...

The electron extraction circuit is nothing more than the way to capture the bounding energy and converting it to electricity. Witch is the most complicated thing. However is just a matter of understand what you are doing...

hope you can understand what i mean...

[sebosfato]

The last clue

Energy generation apparatus - Google Patent Search

GET THE TIME TO READ ALSO ALL THE CITATIONS OF ALL THE PATENTS THAT YOU READ...