"New" old Stan Meyers video

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi all,

There is a member at another forum I belong to named "Roland Jacques" many may know him brought this to everyone's attention there.   

I personally had never seen this video before and is quite good .... over 37 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI5XVbvGarA

Regards,
Glen

[Farrah Day]

And another - perhaps even more informative - Meyer video that has recently come to light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1p4-Az5qY&feature=related

[giantkiller]

Excellent post Farah!
That was simplest explanation yet.
I know Stan is gone but happened to his injectors?

@28:00 Stan mentions resonance. May I add 'Sympathetic vibratory resonance' where any material can produce an effect. He mentioned at above that at above a cert high voltage...'

[rizla]

Hi giantkiller,

Meyers injectors mix unstable oxygen atoms (ionized) with polarized water and burnt exhaust gasses, people get confused when meyer keeps mentioning resonance which as far as i know is to do with the VIC and polarizing of water in the injectors. I don`t think it has anything to do with sympathetic vibratory resonance but i do like your lateral thinking on this, i have not yet to looked into the injectors in detail.

[Farrah Day]

Questions Rizla:

What exactly  is 'polarized water'?

What burnt gases are there?

[rizla]

Hi farrah

Burnt gasses is the easy one, taken from the exhaust (or from a flame) and fed back and mixed in the injectors, cos hydrogen or hydroxy burn fast this is needed to control the burn rate.

Polarized water is more fun, the water is possibly heated with his steam resonator then fed into the injectors at 125 psi (from memory) thru a tapered cavity that has a pulsed 20kv+ that is amp restricted so no spark just a hv field.

Now my chemistry is not that good, so does all the water split into h and o at  such a high pressure? Maybe the water is given a charge by stripping electrons and like charges repel so the water turns into mist that then reacts with the unstable oxygen atoms from the gas processor? That could be what he means by polarized. 

What i do know is his vic is fact, the basics of all his work and that water can be split with just voltage, if you can`t prove the basics it`s a waste of time with the rest. So hows your chemistry? maybe you can tell me what stan means by polarized water.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rizla, I questioned your post because from the way you spoke, I assumed that you had some insight into electrochemical processes occurring, or at least knew what 'polarised water' is.

Many people claim to understand the principles and operation of Meyer's technology, but I'm yet to see anyone reproduce it. I'm also yet to see anyone spilt water into its component parts of oxygen and hydrogen by voltage alone.  I'd really love to see someone showing the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen with voltage alone, as this would seem to be the very basics of Meyer's claims, yet I never have. The key to any of this would be the 'basics', that is the basic electrochemical and chemical processes taking place, but this is yet another area that is at worst ignored, or at best simply conjecture.

As I understand it, polarised water would be water whereby its molecules had oriented themselves within an electric field. Stick a voltage across a body of liquid water and the molecules will align. I assume water vapour would do the same thing.

You say 'burnt exhaust gases' are the easy one, yet logically the only thing coming from the exhaust when hydroxy is burnt is water itself! Water is the ash from combusting hydrogen and oxygen.  

We've all seen the videos and read Meyers Technical Briefs, the problem is it is not until you start asking searching questions and nit-picking the science does it become very clear that not everything Meyer said or claimed, makes sense.

[Chet K]

.

[rizla]

Hi ramset

thanks for your input

hi farra
will post another reply but a little later busy at moment

[rizla]

Thanks farra for yor reply

I like your sensible questions they bring down to earth any nonsense or poorly thought out comments. i base many comments on the fact that i have proved the basics of meyers work so any comments on the injectors are not proven by me. see your pm

I will just look at his injectors for the moment.

The water is passing thru a tapered tube  (at 125psi) with 20kv+ electric field with no current to make it spark across, so the question is what happens to that water as it passes thru the hv zone?
Here is a post by h2o power that may shed some light on the working of the injectors, i think it is tapered to  increase the voltage applied to ultimately ingnite the mixture looking at his patents.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The injectors work the same way a Taylor cone works for the mostElectric charge fields are always perpendicular to the surface as the surface area decreases so does it's ability to hold a charge, but at the same time the magnetic field strength increases. That is how you get voltage to do work by physically changing the area of the capacitor's surfaces.

Here is another cut and paste:

Now this is why answering that question had so much importance in understanding what the water fuel injectors are really doing, and the switch from gaseous injectors too water injectors. Understanding the answer to the question answers where the hydrogen comes from to start the reaction when all that is being pumped in is; water mist, ionized air gases, and recirculated exhaust gases.

Stanley Meyer used this to aid in breaking down the water molecule. His first capacitor like this can be found in the SMTB page 6-6. In this capacitor he has clearly made it so the physical area of the capacitor changes as the dielectric liquid moves through it. This allows voltage to preform work on the water molecule. Now the second time he did this is not self evident as with the tappered resonant cavity. In order to understand what Stanley Meyer did with the water fuel injectors we will have to go over the properties of water.

Although water is generally considered to boil at 100 °C (212 °F), water actually boils when the vapor pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure around the water. Because of this, the boiling point of water is decreased in lower pressure and raised at higher pressure. This is why baking at elevations more than 3,500 ft (1,100 m) above sea level requires special baking directions.


Quote:
Factors influencing the rate of evaporation


Concentration of the substance evaporating in the air
If the air already has a high concentration of the substance evaporating, then the given substance will evaporate more slowly.

Concentration of other substances in the air
If the air is already saturated with other substances, it can have a lower capacity for the substance evaporating.

Concentration of other substances in the liquid (impurities)
If the liquid contains other substances, it will have a lower capacity for evaporation.

Flow rate of air
This is in part related to the concentration points above. If fresh air is moving over the substance all the time, then the concentration of the substance in the air is less likely to go up with time, thus encouraging faster evaporation. This is the result of the boundary layer at the evaporation surface decreasing with flow velocity, decreasing the diffusion distance in the stagnant layer.

Inter-molecular forces
The stronger the forces keeping the molecules together in the liquid state, the more energy one must get to escape.

Pressure
In an area of less pressure, evaporation happens faster because there is less exertion on the surface keeping the molecules from launching themselves.

Surface area
A substance which has a larger surface area will evaporate faster as there are more surface molecules which are able to escape.

Temperature of the substance
If the substance is hotter, then evaporation will be faster.  

Water is a di-electric medium.

Quote:
Within the macro-dielectric media, however, the water molecules themselves, because of their polar nature, can be considered micro-capacitors.  

Taken from Canadian Patent # 2,067,735

Now these micro-capactors surface areas are decreasing due to evaporation, as a result voltage again preforms work. As the water evaporates, the analyte molecules are forced closer together, repel each other and break up the droplets. This process is called Coulombic fission because it is driven by repulsive Coulombic forces between charged molecules. The process repeats until the analyte is free of solvent and is a lone ion. There is still debate about the exact mechanism of the process, particularly the last stage, when lone ions form. A lone ion of water is called hydronium h3o+. This special case of water reacting with water to produce hydronium (and hydroxide) ions is commonly known as the self-ionization of water. But it can not exist in water evaporate so you get a free Hydrogen as a result(H2O + H). But it also might do it in another way through direct short circuit of the water molecule.

Water is a dielectric liquid so by giving it this charge and atomizing it at the same time created little tiny capacitors that short circuit as it evaperates creating lone ions.

These tiny droplets are less than 10 µm in diameter, (1 µm = 1 millionth of a meter!), and fly about searching for a potential surface to land on that is opposite in charge to their own, but the whole engine is negetive so they seek out the positive unstable oxygen gas atoms. As they fly about, they rapidly shrink as water molecules evaporate from their surfaces. Since it is difficult for charge to evaporate, the distance between electrical charges in the droplet dramatically decreases. If the droplet can't find a home in which to dissipate its charge in time, the electrical charge reaches a critical state and the droplet will violently blow apart again. The steam resonator aids in the water molecule turning instantly into vapor when injected into a vacuum for just like Albert Bowes water manipulation motor - Google Video the steam resonator is heating up the water prior to injecting it.


Quote:
Ionization mechanism
There are two major competing theories about the final production of lone ions, the charged residue model (CRM) and the ion evaporation model (IEM).[7]

Electrospray droplets start off highly charged, and as they shrink through evaporation the Coulomb repulsion forces approach the force of surface tension that holds droplet together. The droplet then becomes unstable and disintegrates into several droplets of smaller radius.

The Charged Residue Model suggests that electrospray droplets undergo evaporation and disintegration cycles, with each initial droplet leading to a multitude of much smaller "daughter" droplets. Each final "daughter" droplet contains on average one or less molecule of analyte. When the last solvent molecules evaporate from such droplet the analyte molecule is left with the charges that the droplet carried.
The Ion Evaporation (Desorption) Model suggests that as the droplet reaches a certain radius the field strength at the surface of the droplet becomes great enough to push or desorb ions directly out of the droplet. Characteristically, the fission event corresponds to an almost negligible loss in droplet mass, but a significant drop in charge.
It has been suggested that both models probably occur for different analytes/solvents and in the limit of both models they have a tendency to converge. That is to say that the distinction between a droplet containing an analyte molecule and an analyte molecule surrounded by a layer of solvent eventually disappears and coulombic fission looks a lot like ion evaporation. The real question is scale and timing and the techniques to definitively determine this are not yet available.

The use of the word "ionization" in "electrospray ionization" is criticized by some because many of the ions observed are thought to be preformed in solution before the electrospray process or created by simple changes in concentrations as the aerosolized droplets shrink. It is argued that electrospray is simply an interface for transferring ions from the solution phase to the gas phase
part. They give the water a negative charge by passing it through a positive voltage potential zone, and that charge creates an ever expanding plume of ever decreasing size water droplets that repel each other. This aids in mixing for the water molecules will not combine to form larger droplets but break up into smaller ones instead."

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heres something to think about, can it really be that difficult to work out?

[Farrah Day]

Relating to Meyer, for me at least, there are three particular phases of development that have captured my interest.

The first phase is the demonstration of low current electrolysis (500mA) – apparently water being dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen at very low powers. Claimed to be 1700% over-Faraday. As seen in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA&feature=related

Later we then get the phase whereby he claims to run a VW Beach Buggy. But this is far more complex procedure involving gas ionisation chambers, exhaust gas re-circulating and all the elements seen in this latest video to come to light.  This phase is then finally to be superseded by the development of much simpler injectors.

What is really lacking – and always has been – is the science to support these claims. And, if genuine, Meyer does not help his cause by inventing his own terminology and creating his own version of science in the process.

If we start at the beginning, with Meyer's workbench demonstration of his basic WFC, we are led to believe that he is creating hydrogen and oxygen from high voltage, low current electrolysis, and indeed producing far more gas than standard Faraday electrolysis says is possible.

For me the problem here is that we only have Meyer's word for this. And the very fact that at least some current  (+500mA) flows immediately eliminates him as dissociating water with 'voltage alone'.  I'm not convinced that the demonstration of the workbench WFC has any merit at all, because the amount of gas seen to be generated is clearly not excessive, and of course none of this was ever independently verified.  Furthermore, it looks like a lot of gas to many people (including some scientists) whose only experience of electrolysis is the tiny amounts of gas being produced in a high school science class. So, simply add one dumb reporter who hasn't got a clue what he's looking at or talking about and, 'Hey Presto!' he has a news story.

The important thing is that if all Meyer's future work was based on this initial WFC, then you would expect it to be the genuine article, and at least partly work as described.  However, if it never did what it said on the tin, if this was a hoax, then it does not bode well for the later developments, right up to and including the VW Beach Buggy.

My single biggest gripe with dissociating water via 'Voltage Alone' is that if this is the case, if it can be done, then electrodes would never actually have to be in contact with the water... would they? Yet Meyer's electrodes are ALWAYS within the water.  If for example the electrodes were insulated or even just placed outside of a glass jar containing water, there would be no need for so-called amp-restricting devices as the glass would serve this purpose and voltage alone would surely be doing the work. Yet this is never the case, and this is yet something else that most people fail miserably to see or understand, or worse, blatantly ignore.

Meyer's very clear lack of scientific education has always grated on me. I mean, how can you take seriously someone so lacking in scientific knowledge, that he needs to invent his own version of science, pseudo-scientific jargon and plain old gibberish.  This fact has always been a very loud and clear warning to me and set my alarm bells ringing from the time I first saw his video lecture and read his technical brief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDBthFaf95k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXCkUF9fkM&feature=related

You will note that one person in the video asks Meyer, to 'describe what a covalent bond is', which I think gives us a good indication of the general level of education of his audience.

Meyer has always stated that a high voltage will tear apart the water molecule into its component parts of oxygen and hydrogen, as he puts it: 'by turning off the covalent bonds that holds the elements together'. I say rubbish!

Personally I think this is nonsense. The water molecule will never break cleanly into oxygen and hydrogen.  If enough energy is absorbed by a water molecule, then one covalent bond will let go to give rise to H+ and OH-. Not a clean break as Meyer states – ions not molecules.  To make matters worse, once this covalent bond has been broken, the remaining O-H covalent bond, by itself, is far, far stronger and so requires far, far more energy to break.  Hence the best we can expect from voltage is the polarisation (aligning) of the bipolar water molecule and its ionisation into H+ and OH-. And of course the lone proton quickly bonds with the nearest water molecule to become hydronium, H3O+.  

So, where does that leave us with Meyer's version of events?  Well for me this was my introduction to Meyer pseudo-science and from then on it was hard to take him seriously. In fact, due to the blatant gaping holes in his science I find him one of the least credible people I've ever come across (Fast Freddy Wells probably just pips Meyer here).

Like I said in my previous post, I'm yet to see anyone dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen with voltage alone.  If you are claiming to have done this Rizla, then you have my full attention and I look forward to hearing the full details.

What I have never seen, and would dearly like to see, is the final stages of the chemical reactions that ultimately provide the energy.  I know well how burning hydroxy works, the energies involved and indeed I understand the balanced chemical equations. But it is being suggested that ions (not atoms or molecules) are taking part in the final stage of Meyer's process.  From all the claims of understanding Meyer's process - from many people and in particular, H2Opower - no one is yet to provide anything by way of balanced chemical equations for the various reaction processes that are said to be taking place... and without this to support various ideas and claims, there is in truth nothinmg more than mere conjecture.

[rizla]

@farra

I sent you pm i think i got it right this time. 

[rizla]

Yea first one sent was a pm to myself 

You should be able to prove voltage alone splits water with distilled water, i remember reading a stephen meyer article about this. I have had gas production from a switched HT supply thru purified water, at uA current can that be straight forward hydrolysis? and with voltage with current restriction. As for insulating the tubes i can see what you are saying but it adds a open circuit to the equation, i think you have to take that into account. I use words like "field" that is probably not the correct description for voltage with current restriction this may confuse matters little.

You say his tube assembly does not give off much gas, come on thats just mean! 

Ions are atoms with missing/to many electrons, they will be looking to off load or add electrons, yea? I think maybe you enjoy arguing against this technology a little to much?

Anyway my sceptical counter is reading off the scale so just like fukushima reactor it`s time back off a bit till it cools down, on goes the rose tinted glasses and i shall bask in meyers glory 

[Allcanadian]

@Farahday

Meyer's very clear lack of scientific education has always grated on me. I mean, how can you take seriously someone so lacking in scientific knowledge, that he needs to invent his own version of science, pseudo-scientific jargon and plain old gibberish.  This fact has always been a very loud and clear warning to me and set my alarm bells ringing from the time I first saw his video lecture and read his technical brief.

I think we should never judge a book by it's cover, recently I read an article about the top 10 most brilliant people with the most potential to do great things. One was a young physicist who talked like a surfer dude, always wore khaki short and bright Hawaiian shirts and surfed every morning. He looked and talked very different from his colleagues but that does not change the fact that all agreed he was the most brilliant, creative and intelligent person they had ever met. Judging anyone solely by how they look, act or talk is a mistake in my opinion.

Meyer has always stated that a high voltage will tear apart the water molecule into its component parts of oxygen and hydrogen, as he puts it: 'by turning off the covalent bonds that holds the elements together'. I say rubbish!

I am not so sure, first we know for certain that despite any terminology we may choose to describe water reactions we know as a fact that the forces involved are solely electrostatic in nature. It is not covalent bonds, not current, not chemistry nor physics --- fundamentally the only thing which holds the atoms/molecules together is an electric field which is electrostatic in nature. As such it would not seem unreasonable to speculate that an applied high voltage source with the right properties could effect these electric fields in some way and cause required reactions. If there is one thing we know as fact, that cannot be disputed, it is that running large currents through anything produces large heat losses and poor efficiency yet this is what we always do, we know this is the worst possible way of doing things but we still do it.

I have to run but I will make a post later today as to why and how water could be disassociated efficiently by understanding the mechanical equivalent of what is required.
Regards
AC

[rizla]

I agree with you allcanadian, i look forward to your next post it sounds interesting.

I have split water with just voltage, so saying it cannot be done does not put me off researching the subject and the reason this method is not used? Just look into the suppression of teslas work for a start.

[Chet K]

rizla
Sorry for the blank post up there,I was trying to post pics from Meyer's circuits and boards that were given to me from a replicator of the tech.

This forum won't let me post that big a file,I will however persevere!
Thank you for your contributions and welcome!

Chet

[rizla]

Hi ramset thanks for the welcome

I was thinking the empty post was you just being a bit shy, shrink the pic and re-try.
Hows the repllicator you talk of doing? Have you looked into meyers stuff yourself?

cheers

rizla

[Farrah Day]

I have had gas production from a switched HT supply thru purified water, at uA current can that be straight forward hydrolysis? and with voltage with current restriction.

Therein lies the problem. Any current flowing - however little - will provide the means to produce gas at the electrodes. The ionic species will be dropping off or collecting electrons in order to become atoms and molecules and hence evolve as gas.  I don't see how you can say that you are dissociating water with voltage alone, but in the same sentence say that you have a current flowing.    What you actually seem to be saying to me, is that if you do stop all the current flowing, then the gases also stop evolving.  If this is the case it is clearly a current driven reaction and basic everyday Faraday electrolysis.

Ions are atoms with missing/to many electrons, they will be looking to off load or add electrons, yea? I think maybe you enjoy arguing against this technology a little to much?

I know what ions are, but my point is that when you burn hydroxy, you are dealing with stable molecules and hence the reactions - and balanced equations for those reactions - are based on covalent bonds being broken and reforming.  Once you start talking about ions instead of atoms and molecules, then there is either a deficit or surplus of electrons which will at best inhibit covalent bonding - and hence molecule formation - and at worst prevent it altogether.    For example two lone protons will never bond to form an ionic hydrogen molecule, why would they, they are both +ve charges, hence we need electrons.

When burning hydroxy, the heat energy comes from the hydrogen recombining with the oxygen to form a stable water molecule. And it can only do this if we are taking about atoms and molecules.  An oxygen ion that is short an electron will have no reason whatsoever to bond with a hydrogen ion that is also short of an electron, there is simply no benefit to either. So when Meyer talks about stripping electrons from oxygen and hydrogen, I'm obviously a little puzzled as to what he thinks the resulting reaction would be.

I'm not arguing against any technology here, I'm simply emphasising issues that are clearly being ignored.  It just seems to me that for many people, once the science gets a bit too technical it's more convenient to sweep it under the carpet out of the way.

[rizla]

Farrah day by name farrah day by nature, thanks for your input.

I think i will post some pictures of my VIC soon, the 4 coil version is not working properly yet, i think i know what the problem is tho, the inhibitor choke and charge choke needs to be wound alternate down the spool, not the inhibit choke on one half and the charge choke on the other. Winding coils should be made compulsory for death row prisoners as a punishment, but then death may not be so bad after years of coil winding. Any sickos out there fancy winding some coils for me?

[rizla]

You cannot build and test any of meyers water technology without the vic, all the information for building it is in the patents minus some vital information, one being the primary winding.

He said the primary is bi-directional wrap...bi is 2, 2 directions and wrap means wrapped around the former. The bi-directional is one half of the transformer primary is wound in one direction and the other half is then wound in the opposite direction forming 2 coils of opposing magnetic fields, this is wound longitudal to the chokes and secondary.

i have worked that out building a 3 coil  version that has current restriction.

Time now to build the 4 coil with his charge choke, still  no takers for helping me wind it?