My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.

[Retro]

I have to state that you have absolutely no reason to believe that I have any idea what I am talking about or that what I have to say bears any resemblance to reality. Let me also state that I cannot, within the confines of this document, give you an understanding of electronics, which is a major portion of my discourse concerning Meyer’s technology. With that said, let me begin…


After having studied Stanley Meyer’s patents for some years and not having managed to discover a link between Meyer’s claims of high voltage, low current, resonance, and capacitance, I thought either I didn’t have the firm grasp on electronics and physics that I though I had, or, Meyer was a fraud as other’s had been saying. Being open minded as I am, I filed Meyer’s invention away in the back of my mind as one of those mis-understood phenomena of which I never lose hope of someday understanding.


One day, I stumbled upon a link to a forum which discusses Meyer’s technology. One of the discoveries I made that day saddened me greatly. That being the death of Stanley Meyer.

(Continued)

[Retro]

I continued reading through the posts on that site and came across Meyer’s Voltage Intensification Circuit (VIC) in a form that made more sense to me. (VIC PDF Link) Here, I found the lost link to my understanding many of Meyer’s patents concerning the fracturing of water. Yes, Meyer does have patented technology using plasma to break down water to form ammonia and nitrous-oxide as a combustable mixture, but that is not discussed here.


You will notice a difference between the diagram of the VIC in the PDF above, and the diagram of the VIC on the next page. The difference being that I have added polarity markings to the coils depicted in this version to help show what Meyer was doing with this transformer.


Notice the ground applied to TX2 and TX5. This ground is significant to the resonance of the whole circuit. Also notice that TX4 and TX5 are applying the same polarity to each of the electrodes to which they are connected. TX4 and TX5 are wound and perform identically. They also happen to be the windings that supply the high voltage to the cell as a whole. The way that TX4 and TX5 supply this high voltage to the cell is called unipolar (they are both applying the same polarity). They are also the conduit for supplying a bias or differential voltage from TX2 & diode, to the electrodes. So in addition to forming the inductive part of a resonant L/C circuit, TX4 and TX5 also serve as an extension cord connecting TX2 to the electrodes.


Notice that TX2 is in serial with TX4. In this configuration, TX2 augments the voltage supplied by TX4 during the positive AC cycle when the diode will be forward biased and able to conduct, thus providing a complete circuit for current to flow.


Let’s say that TX4 and TX5 create a positive 2,000 volts each, and TX2 creates a positive 300 volts when the VIC transformer is on the positive half of it’s resonant cycle. The actual voltages applied to the electrodes would (in reference to the ground) be +2,000 volts to B-, and +2,300 volts to B+. Notice that this scenario doesn’t take into account any losses due to the resistance of the wire used in any of the coils.

Attachment 2338



After having given the reader a chance to look at the VIC circuit (above), let me state for clarity that TX4 and TX5 are wound identically. Being identical, we could reconfigure the circuit and do away with one of the windings. Doing away with one of the windings will reduce the total circuit resistance involved in biasing the electrodes. If you really want that resistance or find you need it, it is much cheaper to use a resistor than to use 304 stainless steel wire as Meyer has suggested. I see no magic to be gained from using exotic metals/alloys in transformer windings just to gain resistance. It’s an added expense that most of us can do without.

(Continued)

[Retro]

Now a word about the pulse trains used to drive the VIC and the resulting waveforms in reference to Meyers original diagram. Many may be of the opinion that the rising pulse train represents the resonant frequency. But I have a different opinion. In the illustrations (below), notice the three wave forms. I believe the waveform labeled “Cathode” represents the waveform that exists between ground and the connection of the diode’s cathode to TX4. Connecting an oscilloscope directly to B+ and B- at the very least would change the resonance of the whole circuit.

Attachment 2339 / Attachment 2340 / Attachment 2341

I also believe the waveform labeled “B+ and B-“ is the correct representation of the differential that exists on the electrodes (B+ and B-) at any point in time during the pulse train. The waveform in black being the differential that exists on the electrodes, the red being the differential that exists between ground and the junction of the diode to TX4.

(Continued)

[Retro]

Now let me present the actual resonant circuit, devoid of all other circuitry.

Attachment 2342

In the diagram above, we have TX5 connected to ground on one end, and to the watercell on the other end. This is the resonant portion of the circuit, and this is as simple as it gets. Here, one can change the resonant frequency of the circuit by adding or removing water from the cell, changing the electrode size, or adding or removing windings on TX5. If one were to add a pickup coil to this transformer, one could build a free running oscillator to drive this circuit, (basicly just amplify what the pickup coil provides) and any changes to the resonant frequency of this circuit would change the oscillator frequency as well. Pretty simple. Add windings to TX5 and the resonant frequency drops while the voltage to the cell rises. It’s a ratio of inductance to capacitance, and the balance determines the resonant frequency of the circuit as a whole. This circuit accomplishes the basic task of creating conduction paths in the water, where all available water molecules effectively become entrained in shoulder to shoulder single file bucket brigades for the purpose of passing electrons into and out of the rest of the water in the cell. Each water molecule having only two neighboring water molecules with which it cooperates in passing these electrons, and refusing to cooperate with any other water molecules for similar purposes. Attempts to pass electrons at 90deg to this path will be ingored and refused.

(Continued)

[Retro]

Now, you may find this a bit odd. The modified VIC (without TX4).

Attachment 2346

Notice TX5 supplies the high voltage pulse to B-, while TX2 supplies the bias voltage pulse across both B- and B+. We get approximately identical results, except for three issues, (1) concerning delaying the bias applied to the electrodes (explained later), (2) concerning the mass of TX2 being added to the cell’s mass, and (3) any stray capacitance involved with TX2, which would reduce the resonant frequency of the circuit. In effect, a whip doesn’t crack if the cracking end is too heavy, and the word “cracking” as used in this analogy is not in reference to cracking water. Any stray capacitance added to this circuit reduces it’s effectiveness.

This brings us to the reason for the pancake windings of TX4 & TX5. That being the capacitance that exists between the windings and the voltage differential present between interactive windings. If one considers the standard way of winding a transformer, there are likely to be 100 windings connecting any two interactive windings which would influence each other via stray capacitance, and the pancake method of winding substantially reduces the number of windings between interactive conductors and thus the voltage levels involved, and thus the leverage this capacitance would have in reducing the resonant frequency of the circuit. (Consider the Tesla Coil here) If one were to compare a standard wound coil with a pancake wound coil, and test the resonant frequencies of these coils without any external connections to the coils, one would find the pancake coils would resonate at a higher frequency. One might feel this is actually more effort than is needed, but Meyer was after efficiency, and being able to entrain more water molecules into forming conduction paths would insure the electrodes were effectively insulated from each other. Who knows, maybe standard methods of winding transformers could be modified to perform just as well if extra insulation were added between the layers. I don’t feel I described this as well as might be needed, but hopefully, I have gotten the point across.

(Continued)

[Retro]

But, what if we could do away with the pancake coils, and allow any stray capacitance to lower the resonant frequency without loosing effectiveness? To do this, we will need to go back to Meyer’s earlier method of using 3 electrodes, but I believe I have found a way to use 3 electrodes and still retain most of the efficiency of the resonant circuit.

Attachment 2344


Then too, since the effectiveness of this circuit is no longer dependant on the driving coil being mostly devoid of any stray capacitance to be effective, and any stray capacitance in the driven coil not only slows the resonant frequency, but also effectively increases the number of conduction paths created in the water by requiring more current to drive it. Plus, without the diode, the red & blue electrodes no longer remain polarized, and will further slow the resonant frequency by requiring more current to drive the changes in electrode polarity, thus ensuring more conduction paths are needed in order to pass enough current to re-bias the red & blue electrodes. And since the red & blue electrodes no longer remain polarized, they will both return to zero bias twice per cycle, and at that point, are likely to effectively regage the process, allowing any conduction paths which may have formed between the electrodes to disband, freeing those water molecules to form new conduction paths to the green electrode, thus re-establishing full insulation between the red & blue electrodes.

(Continued)

[ZavraD]

In reply to post #3

Now a word about the pulse trains used to drive the VIC and the resulting waveforms in reference to Meyers original diagram. Many may be of the opinion that the rising pulse train represents the resonant frequency. But I have a different opinion. In the illustrations (below), notice the three wave forms. I believe the waveform labeled “Cathode” represents the waveform that exists between ground and the connection of the diode’s cathode to TX4. Connecting an oscilloscope directly to B+ and B- at the very least would change the resonance of the whole circuit.



I also believe the waveform labeled “B+ and B-“ is the correct representation of the differential that exists on the electrodes (B+ and B-) at any point in time during the pulse train. The waveform in black being the differential that exists on the electrodes, the red being the differential that exists between ground and the junction of the diode to TX4.

(Continued)

I am glad I am rereading your thread, because this time I can view the attachments. It makes a lot more sense this way.

It is my belief (mostly due to the pulsed square wave input, that the VIC = the Resonant Cavity is a ringing transformer. The Pulse Input wave form should have a reference voltage of 0vdc across the middle of the waveform. The Cathode Waveform should (IMO) be flipped left to right, should have its 0vdc reference line at the bottom. and the Anode's waveform would be Identical to the Cathode's except inverted. Note that for all three, the top of the image is the Negative voltage referenced to ground or neutral.

Note also, that the input shows 6 pulses, but the cathode's image only shows 2 of those input pulses. T

TX1, 2, and 3 are primarily tuned to the frequency of the input pulses.

TX 4 and 5 and the "Resonant Cavity" are tuned to the resonant frequency of the Ringing oscillator they form. IMO, the oscillator is triggered by the leading edge of the input pulse. Power is supplied to the oscillator by the Pulsing Core during oscillation, (ringing). Only current required to split H2O molecules actually flows thru the oscillator circuit.

I am sorry, I can see why it works, but I can't articulate how it works just yet. In the US Navy, in the early 70's, this type of circuit was a week long course all by itself. It is a really fascinating piece of work.

IT might help to think of it as several "Black Boxes." I am ignoring TX3 for now.

TX1 and TX 2 and the Diode are one black box (Input Box or IB). In the IB, the diode effectively stops most current flow in one direction. That is because solid state diodes do not absolutely block reverse current. Another BB, the Control Box, (or CB,) consists of TX4 ad 5. The Resonant Cavity (RC) is another BB and last is the Oscillator Box, (OB), which is made up of the CB and the RC.

The totality of the IB consists of TX1 and 2, the diode and the CB. The CB effectively blocks most current flow during the half cycle that the Diode doesn't. Note that neither one absolutely blocks current flow. In fact, within the OB, effectively, current flows just fine.

The IB operates at highest efficiency at the Input Pulse frequency, while the CB does so at a much higher frequency.

IMO, it is a requirement that inside the OC, the CB either stops current flow during half of each cycle or keeps the cathode negative with respect to the anode. Otherwise the 2H and O Ions would be trying to convert to H2.

[Retro]

Ahhh...Okay....
One must be logged in to see imbedded images when browsing the thread.

You make some good points concerning the pulse trains.

I'm inclined to believe the pulse input is just a logic level representation.

I should probably go back and re-think the cathode waveform.

Concerning the transformer and resonance, I think Meyer made things more complicated than they needed to be. I think with feedback to an amplifier, and this amplifier driving the transformer and associated circuitry, this could all operate as a free-running oscillator which would automatically run at the resonant frequency. No tuning needed.

I believe the following image is the basis of the resonant circuit.


I've been contemplating all this for around 18 years, running tests now and again to validate theories. I tend to think in pictures, pictures being worth a thousand words, something usually ends up being lost in translation.

The operation of this device is a vortex of sequences, so black boxing it is a good choice.

I think I'd black-box TX1 & TX3 as a free-running oscillator.(includes amplifier)
TX2 & diode as the electrode bias generator.
TX4 & TX5 could possibly fit into two black-boxes 1) water formatter 2) electrode bias conduit.

TX4 & TX5 are the main influence for the resonant frequency, being the largest inductors and being connected to the two individual masses which in effect make the capacitor, those individual masses being ground and the container of water.

[ZavraD]

I got hold of some more of Meyer's work, (stan-meyer-water-fuel-cell-technical-brief.pdf,) and I think we need to quit using the Term "Resonant Cavity."

The reason is that he used the same theory of language as Humpty Dumpty in Carrol's "Through The Looking Glass," ie 'When I use a word,'[Humpty Meyer] said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

When most people say "Resonant Cavity," we mean an electronic device. When Stan says it, he means a container of hydrogen ions in Brownian-like movement.

The tuned circuits in his contraption do have a resonance and a resonant frequency, which is affected by the physio-electrical characteristics of the cell used in his hydrogen generator, but those circuits have nothing at all to do with his (in)famous "Resonant Cavity."

HHO's definition of Meyer's Resonant Cavity = "Cell," neither more nor less.

He also had a habit of mixing and matching labels, terms, and definitions, such as labeling an inductor as "C", a circuit's resistance as Z, etc. as well as drawing his schematics (sometimes) from right to left.

The operation of this device is a vortex of sequences,

I love that

Now that I have read some of his own words, I think that I personally would disregard much of what I have previously written in this thread.