1 Attachment(s)
My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.
The next diagram (Below) is a copy of my original diagram of Meyer’s VIC (Modified Sunday, April 15, 2007, 9:09:31 AM ) with TX4 & TX5 modified to clarify that they are bifilar wound, and all coils have been given polarity marks. I further modified this diagram to point out the two parts which make up the capacitor which is active in forming the resonant L/C circuit. The labeling of TX2 has also been changed from “Secondary Coil” to “Electrode Biasing Coil” (Which I find more descriptive).
Attachment 2351
It may sound odd, but I’m of the opinion that voltage, when applied to a wire 50 miles long, may immediately appear at the other end. Let me explain. We currently have no means of measuring voltage without electron flow, and that electron flow is appropriately called current. We have instruments known as volt meters, which measure current, that current representing the voltage required to create said current. We have resistors which limit current flow based on the voltage pushing the current, but no real way of verifying actual voltage drop, just current drop. I say all this after seeing the circuitry involved in an experiment where +15,000 volts was momentarily (fraction of a second) applied to an electrode in a container of water via a large choke, and the water immediately broke down into hydrogen & oxygen, then ignited, reforming water, and very little power was expended during the entire process. My conclusion is that electrons were not the operative force in this experiment, leaving voltage as having caused the reaction, and that reaction took place before electron flow could accelerate and have any significant impact. It does make sense that electrons were yanked off the water molecules, allowing the hydrogen & oxygen to break free and form a gas pocket in the water, but massive electron flow didn’t take place, partly because of the brevity of the application of power, but also because of the choke. Electron flow appears to have some form of inertia, and that inertia seems to have some connection with the creation of a magnetic field. To me, it appears voltage affects all electrons in a conductor immediately upon application, but the electrons have to follow some sequential set of rules in order to move or flow.
Also, it appears an inductor or electromagnet can create a much greater magnetic field than it can sustain without damage. For instance, an electromagnet rated for continuous use at 10 volts might be driven for a fraction of a second at 1000 volts without even getting warm, but produce a massive magnetic field while powered, and use only a fraction of a watt in the duration of the process. Case in point, Edwin Gray’s motor.
It may appear I’ve been chasing rabbits, so let me get back to the point, that IF voltage, when applied to a length of wire, immediately appears at the other end, the Meyer’s bifilar winding has 4 purposes.
1) An efficient method of ionizing water molecules based on a resonant L/C circuit.
2) A method of applying a bias voltage to the electrodes of the watercell.
3) A method of delaying electron flow to the electrodes of the watercell.
4) A method of entraining water molecules so the electrodes become insulated from each other.
(Continued)
My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.
A similar technology developed by Bob Boyce appears to me to use 3 of the afore mentioned methods. (1, 2, and 4)
The story of how Bob discovered his technology, (as I remember) had to do with Bob’s racing boats, and finding a performance boost by using HHO from an on-board electrolyzer. As the story goes, his alternator suffered a malfunction where a rectifier shorted, and when he hit a certain RPM, his electrolyzer would produce HHO well beyond expectation or design. I don’t recall that Bob ever revealed which rectifier shorted, be it on the positive or negative rail, so one is left to wonder. Bob also never revealed the actual waveform this malfunctioning alternator applied to his electrolyzer. Apparently, Bob put a lot of effort into reproducing the effect, and while he claims to have succeeded in discovering the correct waveform to reproduce the effect, he may have complicated the issue.
One can figure out the basic waveform Bob’s alternator should have produced having one rectifier shorted, supposing all other rectifiers remained operational. What would be lacking would be any harmonics which might have been generated. But, what if the electrical effects applied to Bob’s electrolyzer were similar enough to Stan Meyer’s methods to produce the same results? What if one were to attempt to apply Stan Meyer’s methods to an alternator, and run the alternator at a speed that approached the output frequency needed to stress the water the same way Meyer’s methods accomplished?
Meyer did have one application which used an alternator, and that application used the same method illustrated in some of Meyer’s earlier documentation were he used 3 electrodes, two electrodes closely spaced, and one electrode placed some distance away from the closely spaced pair. The far electrode allowed efficient breakdown of the water (at non-resonant frequencies) by entraining water molecules in conduction paths from the closely spaced electrode pair to the far electrode, then applying a bias voltage to the closely spaced electrode pair when they were insulated from each other, and removing that bias after fractured molecules broke established conduction paths, which released entrained water molecules to form new conduction paths between the closely spaced electrodes. After having removed the bias voltage from the closely spaced electrode pair, the freed water molecules would reform conduction paths to the far electrode, thus regaging the process. So, Meyer’s alternator method worked outside any L/C circuit resonance due to the use of a 3rd electrode, but did require regaging, and any chokes/inductors used in Mayer’s alternator application were not there particularly for resonance, but to mitigate momentary/periodic electron flow that might occur between biased electrodes before regaging events. Meyer was after reducing as much current flow as he could, using any means necessary.
Bob’s focus has always been production, and while the basic effect does increase overall efficiency, Bob’s focus has not been efficiency. I’m not attempting to discount Bob’s achievements, but rather, I am attempting to point out my belief that both Bob and Stan were creating the same sequence of events in water which ultimately results in the breakdown of the water molecule.
It appears to me that if one does not use a 3rd electrode, the only way to entrain enough water molecules to insulate the biased electrode pair is to run at circuit resonance or better, and running a circuit above it’s resonant frequency requires the application of more power, thus the reason Meyer used pancake windings in an effort to reduce stray capacitance in his transformer windings, thus increasing the frequency of his L/C resonant circuit. Also, if it did not occur to the reader, using a 3rd electrode reduces the efficiency of the process due to the fact that current from an external source has to be applied to that 3rd electrode to entrain the water molecules into conduction paths, and this amounts to more power than is required to keep a resonant circuit bouncing along.
(Continued)
2 Attachment(s)
My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.
Back to Bob’s technology. Below is a diagram that is somewhat along the lines of what Bob described in the malfunction of his alternator. I have assumed the rectifier which shorted was on the ground side, and have also removed the rectifier for that winding from the positive rail as well. The included waveform is what I believe would be applied to the electrodes by this circuit. The waveform in this diagram looks similar to Meyer’s technology in function, and will require the alternator to be run above a certain RPM to achieve the desired effect.
Attachment 2352
If one removed the full wave bridge rectifier, one would likely see the waveforms shown in the following diagram applied to the electrodes. Just looking at the waveforms in the diagram below, it doesn’t appear to me that this would work well, if at all. I say this because a bias is established across the electrodes before conduction paths can be formed into the rest of the water as needed to insulate the electrodes from each other.
Attachment 2353
Any method which breaks water down more efficiently is progress. And, any method that accomplishes this feat to any great degree appears to require the sequence of entraining the water molecules in active conduction paths, then applying an electric field across those active conduction paths at a 90deg angle, then regaging in order to re-entrain any water molecules freed from the previously created conduction paths.
Well, one can only connect the dots using what knowledge one has, and I have arrived at these conclusions based on my research and experiments. I have caused two electrodes to become insulated from each other when spaced 3mm apart as part of a resonant L/C circuit. I have also broken down water using one wire in a cup of water insulated from everything else which might conduct any current, only using 60 cycles.(So much for molecular frequency theory)
I’ve been watching and waiting for someone to explain how Meyer’s technology works since 1996. I’ve seen faulty logic used to explain this technology, and most of it was apparent at the time. Pieces were left out. Wishful thinking was plugged in. It looks as if my logic is correct on this, at least to me. Time and results will prove me right or wrong. I’m not looking for recognition, just results.
I didn’t set this documentation up in the fashion of a wiki or mind-map, and so, the ideas presented may not have been as cohesive as they might have been, but I hope you didn’t find reading the info presented here to be too laborous and that you may have come up with some ideas of your own.
Voltage propgation speed and CUrrent Inertia.
Quote:
It may sound odd, but I’m of the opinion that voltage, when applied to a wire 50 miles long, may immediately appear at the other end. Let me explain. We currently have no means of measuring voltage without electron flow, and that electron flow is appropriately called current.
A very old fashioned foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with no current flow. A more sensitive detector is this modern one The Foil Leaf style can be observed much faster than visually with the addition of a Laser diode and a photo cell to detect the slightest movement of the leaves.
The most used description of current flow is; Electrons jump from one atom's valence shell to the next at the speed of light in the conductor. Generally that speed is considered to be C x .95 in copper.
Voltage potential is basically the difference in the density of free electrons between two points in a circuit or between two unconnected Circuits. Since it takes some time for any free electrons to move to the end of a conductor, it also takes some time for the density at the end to increase.
To travel 300,000M takes an electron 1.0526 milliseconds in copper. It will also take that long for the voltage to be detected by the fastest, most sensitive method. Since the wire and earth form a reactive circuit, it will take longer for the full voltage to be detected.
Something to be aware of is that at higher frequencies, ( IDR how high,) the apparent resistance increases due to Skin Effect. At 1 MHz use solid, not stranded wire. At higher than 3 MHz, I would research Skin Effect.
You may also be interested in Normal vibrational frequencies of water molecule