Alleged New discovery explains Stan Meyer's Energy Harvesting Method

[Chet K]

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StanMeyersSecret

From here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14429-secret-even-stan-meyer-himself-did-not-know.html#post239517

Thx
Chet

[TinMan]

I would say that the glow is from phosphorus buildup,along with the calcium buildup from electrolite impurities.
You often find many of these Stan lovers come up with all sorts of claims,that can be explained very easly.
Go down the beach one night,and kick the sand-green glowing phosphorus everywhere.

There are many ways to create a glow,and some i have listed below.

1-•Photoluminescence- is the emission of light from a molecule or atom that has absorbed electromagnetic energy.All these contain phosphor.
2-•Chemiluminescence - the emission of light without the emission of heat as the result of a chemical reaction. And who knows what chemicals there using for elite?
3-•Radioluminescence - created by the bombardment of ionizing radiation.
Jellyfish glow in the dark aswell,and now it seems we can make any animal glow in the dark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3FvqZB2Wmg

[Centraflow]

The glow is a dielectric barrier discharge "plasma" brought on by the step charge and final dielectric "water" break down due to the very high voltage. This will only happen if one of the electrodes is insulated and so forming the charge on the surface of the insulator.

Look up DBD "dielectric barrier discharge" on the net.

Stan Meyer used a clear insulator which was spray coated onto the electrode, it could not be seen until you touched it, it was like glass, this was one of his secrets, others used a ceramic "alumina". I use this in my DDBD reactor along with nickle for making synthetic fuel. DDBD stands for double dielectric barrier discharge.

Mike

[Farrah Day]

Some things just never change do they... some folk still going around in circles, others redigging old ground, yet others inventing their own bullshit to add to the mix and others still failing to learn anything from the past experiences.

'The secret to Stan Meyer's invention was electropolished stainless steel'!  This is just laughable. 

Then you have Lamare claiming he knows it all now, still harping on about electrolytic capacitors and now asking for donations for his research... even though he doesn't have a working prototype.    I just hope people are not daft enough to buy into this nonsense. Yet another charlatan going about his business.

Where has all the common sense and reasoning gone? Why, oh why, would electropolishing make any difference? This is simply a surface treatment for cosmetic enhancement. Stainless steel already has a protective layer formed by the chromium oxide, that's why it does not corrode in water in the first place... Duh!

Aluminium is the same, it has a protective oxide layer too, but neither the oxide layer on the SS or aluminium will block electron flow.

And as for this post, lol... well let's just say, 'You can bullshit most of the people most of the time...', eh, Mike!

The glow is a dielectric barrier discharge "plasma" brought on by the step charge and final dielectric "water" break down due to the very high voltage. This will only happen if one of the electrodes is insulated and so forming the charge on the surface of the insulator.

Look up DBD "dielectric barrier discharge" on the net.

Stan Meyer used a clear insulator which was spray coated onto the electrode, it could not be seen until you touched it, it was like glass, this was one of his secrets, others used a ceramic "alumina". I use this in my DDBD reactor along with nickle for making synthetic fuel. DDBD stands for double dielectric barrier discharge.

Mike

I'd just love to know where you got this 'spray coating on the electrode' from because I don't know of anywhere that it was ever mentioned by Meyer. No doubt you have your secret source, eh? 

All I can say Mike, is that there must still be a whole lot of really gullible people out there if you're still able to get away with the nonsense you post. I reckon if you keep posting it, one day you'll actually fool yourself into thinking you know what you are talking about. Better still, you might get lucky and by sheer chance actually post something with some scientific merit... that said, you've probably got a better chance of winning the lottery!

I really hope no one here ever takes you seriously.

[Farrah Day]

Tinman, you are thinking along the correct lines. 

I've done many experiments in this area and can tell you that building up even a thick calcium carbonate layer on the cathode will not prevent current flow because, although the compound is an extremely good insulator, on a microscopic level this insulating layer is extremely porous. However, what can happen is that electrons can build up around the microscopic pores of this insulating layer. They build up because they are sometimes unable to physically reach and hence react with relatively, far larger ions and water molecules.  So on a molecular level there comes a point whereby the electrons build to such an extent that extremely high localised voltages are produced, which, in turn, at some point inevitably discharge. This creates tiny localised plasma discharges that not only break down the water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen atoms and molecules and ions, but also other species such as 2(HO) and radicals such as HO.

YES, the plasma reaction will create a luminescence glow, and YES, the effect can last for some time after the power to the cell is switched off. Furthermore, because plasma electrolysis has been found to be more efficient than Faraday electrolysis, and the process does not comply with Faraday's Laws of electrolysis, it can appear that more gas is produced than the given input power should allow.

[Allcanadian]

@FarrahDay

YES, the plasma reaction will create a luminescence glow, and YES, the effect can last for some time after the power to the cell is switched off. Furthermore, because plasma electrolysis has been found to be more efficient than Faraday electrolysis, and the process does not comply with Faraday's Laws of electrolysis, it can appear that more gas is produced than the given input power should allow.

If my memory serves me correctly a while ago you stated nothing can exceed Faraday efficiency and now you seem to be stating that plasma electrolysis can. Why the change of heart?, I'll bet you learned something new which is generally the way things work.

I have always found this a little odd, a person criticizes everyone else for their thoughts and then they learn something new at which point they are criticized and they cannot seem to understand why. A person has to wonder why any person would believe the rules they apply to others would not apply to them. However that is what we do isn't it, we degrade others to elevate ourselves as the balance of forces must be maintained.

Now let's imagine you discovered something new and revolutionary, do you think your friends or colleagues would welcome you with open arms?. More likely they would nail you to the cross as some kind of heretic,lol. You would most likely find yourself saying why won't they listen to logic and reason... what is wrong with them?. I hope you do succeed Farrah and when you do you will learn a lesson concerning the Human Condition you will never forget.

AC

[Chet K]

I just hope she gets some manners......
thx
Chet

[Centraflow]

AC, Chet 

[Allcanadian]

I should note that I read some of my own posts from a long time ago and my god I just had to cringe. Who was that person and what in the hell were they thinking?,lol. We live, we learn and hopefully we grow as a person. In a way I am very thankful because if my thoughts and beliefs had not changed in any way then obviously I have not learned anything. So I do not think we should be overly critical about anyone who has changed their mind or come to a new understanding of things.
If there is one constant it is change.

AC

[Farrah Day]

@FarrahDay
If my memory serves me correctly a while ago you stated nothing can exceed Faraday efficiency and now you seem to be stating that plasma electrolysis can. Why the change of heart?, I'll bet you learned something new which is generally the way things work.

AC

No, AC, unfortunately memory certainly does not serve you correctly, as you will be able to corroborate if you can be at all bothered to check old posts. No change of heart on my part - must just be old age catching up on you.

Rather, I have always insisted that standard Faraday electrolysis is always 100% efficient, irrespective of what electrolyser is used, and that any perceived inefficiencies are merely power related and come down to poor electrolyser design. Faraday and his laws are as solid as they have ever been and always will be. Unlike standard Faraday electrolysis, plasma electrolysis does not rely on a charge exchange medium or charge exchanges at electrodes and so is not governed by Faraday and his laws.

Like I said, funny how people just keep going around in circles.

I just hope she gets some manners......
thx
Chet

Who is 'She'?  The cat's mother?

Tell you what Chet, I'll get some manners when you get some common sense! Won't be holding my breath - will you ever grow up, will you ever learn?  

AC, Chet  

That's it?  

Oh, I see. You're hoping that most people will respond like Chet and immediately see me as the bad girl because of my rather brusque attitude towards you. Well that's their lookout really isn't it. Chet is the most predictably naïve individual on any forum I've ever frequented, so it is a given that he would respond this way... and let's face it, people like Chet are exactly the reason why you continually get away with posting the nonsense you do. For some reason my manners are more important to Chet than the fact that you are a charlatan posting utter garbage. What a strange world we live in...      

I should note that I read some of my own posts from a long time ago and my god I just had to cringe. Who was that person and what in the hell were they thinking?,lol. We live, we learn and hopefully we grow as a person. In a way I am very thankful because if my thoughts and beliefs had not changed in any way then obviously I have not learned anything. So I do not think we should be overly critical about anyone who has changed their mind or come to a new understanding of things.
If there is one constant it is change.

AC

I too cringe at some of your old posts, AC. But to be fair, you have nothing on Chet. And as for the 'human condition', if Mike John Nunnerley is anything to go by, I want no part of it.

[Farrah Day]

OK, my previous post may have seemed quite hostile, but I assure you, not without good reason.  So let me defend myself.

I have been around these forums for a good many years now, and what many of you do not realise is that certain characters have been playing their games for along, long time. It is a real shame that when people such as myself and Exn expose frauds, con-men and charlatans for what they really are, that we are often the ones that are regarded in a bad light. The truth is that I have come to despise Mike Nunnerley and people like him, not only because of the constant nonsense they spout, but also because of what they stand for.

People need to understand that there are those that thrive in the spotlight, those that pose as authorities on the subject, those that make all manner of claims and those that will happily take credit for other peoples work. Mike John Nunnerley is one such individual. Over the years I've seen them all come and go. Among the ranks are the likes of Aaron Murakami, Bob Boyce, Tutanka, Alaskastar, H2Opower, Gadgetman, Lindemann, to name but a few. But MJN is right at the top of the pile with Murakami and Lindemann, because not only has he persistently peddled his bullshit, sucking in the pitifully naive and gullible for years now, but he ultimately aims to profit from it.

I defy anyone to find even one scrap of useful (or meaningful) information that MJN has ever brought to the party. I defy anyone to find a post whereby MJN backs up one of his (many) invention claims with any kind of supporting evidence whatsoever. You won't be able to, because Mike steals other peoples work and other peoples ideas and claims them as his own, the downside of this for him though is that he never fully understands the processes or the concepts. For years he has taken credit for other peoples work, and yet, in fact, actually produced nothing tangible himself. Of course he will tell you different, stating that he has achieved this, that and indeed the other, but it really is just all empty talk with absolutely no substance. If you look hard enough you will find that what he does is lay down a wide variety of snippets of information gleaned from other sources, but claimed as his own, in the hope that, if or when, someone actually produces the goods, he can lay claim to being the originator. He has done this for years and still does.  He claimed that Audi stole one of his inventions, and indeed tried to take some credit for the Kanzius (burning water) discovery, claiming he had in fact done this years ago.  He claims he has had patents stolen and that other patents were in fact his work, etc, etc.  In fact, over the years he has fabricated a whole elaborate history of claimed inventions - none of which, rather strangely, have ever seen the light of day on any forum.

Ask him a technical question about one of his so-called inventions, or ask him even a basic question about the science involved and he is completely flummoxed. His usual response in such circumstances is to 1. Be highly evasive, 2. Completely change the subject, 3. Attempt to belittle the person for asking a 'dumb' question, 4. (the classic fall back) Claim he is restricted by a non-disclosure agreement or a patent-pending, and 5. (the one I love) You will have to figure it out yourself... like I did. ...Yeah, right! Anyway, which ever excuse is deployed, you can be certain of one thing: you will be told nothing of any consequence, you will be shown nothing of any consequence, you will  learn nothing from anything he posts, and ultimately be non-the-wiser for the interaction. At some point - provided that you are not one of the super-gullible that will believe anything and everything anyone posts - you will realise that you are being led on a very pointless, merry dance. MJN is quite simply a fraud, and a man that relies heavily - and indeed preys on - the gullible.

His website is an absolute joke, and clearly exists solely because he hopes to benefit financially from the 'Donations' button. There is nothing of any consequence on his website, just inaccurate information and snippets of the same old rubbish he posts on forums. It is unfinished and it hasn't been updated or added to since its creation in 2008 (rather coincidentally around the same time that the Kanzius discovery came to be public knowledge).

So, people really do need to understand that MJN (very much like Aaron Murakami) has his own agenda. Don't be fooled by him, he has little knowledge and even less understanding of the things he claims. Look up 'Charlatan' in the dictionary; the definition perfectly describes MJN.

With me, what you see is what you get. I work the science and proffer information gleaned from my knowledge and experience. I never make unfounded claims, or claim to be anything I'm not. So before you knock me for my bluntness, my rude ill-mannered post, ask Mike a few scientific questions about his synthetic fuels or his super efficient SMD electrolysis... and then ask yourself who should you trust... MJN or myself?

Now that's off my chest, on to the science... or rather, lack of.

The main problem with the whole insulating oxide, dielectric layer idea, is that it is flawed - and those that stand by it are clearly lacking not only in aptitude, but also in an understanding of basic science.

If as MJN states, one electrode has to be completely insulated, then this insulation layer becomes the dielectric, the voltage sits across this layer and has no effect on the water which simply becomes a conducting extension of the uninsulated electrode.  Water is a very poor dielectric - of course it is, it is a far better conductor than it is an insulator!

I have stated this many a time, and surely common sense and logic dictates that the voltage will sit across the insulation, not the water - what is wrong with people? Naudin at JLN Labs experimented with this by completely insulating one electrode, and, guess what... nothing happened. I really can't emphasise enough that MJN doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, he is simply doing what he always has done, that is, creating a persona of someone who is an authority on the subject, whilst in reality he is just bullshitting his way through. And I might add, he does this exceptionally well, because he has fooled people for many years with this technique. He does this so well in fact that many of the unscientific and gullible folk out there consider him an authority on a subject that he clearly knows nothing about. Incredible really.

[Chet K]

Farrah
As a completely anonymous individual calling out a known man by his surname in a public forum with all manner of
disrespect and vitriol ,while steadfastly maintaining your anonymity is at the very least Cowardly and in VERY Poor taste.


As far as myself , I will never learn .............

I will never learn to stop seeking or encouraging others to do likewise ,I have a very grateful heart and A great love for my fellow man
[even you too]

I must add I do not walk blindly to the slaughter,I pay attention and work with all my ability to increase my knowledge.

This is my Passion ...To learn and to help others learn How we can make this world a better place than we found it.
And I do believe that Mike has a similar goal.

Thx
Chet

[muDped]

Truth can be very painful.

Love can come to us with
varying levels of comfort or
toughness.

Whatever Farrah is, is certainly
not cowardly.  Whatever
would give you that idea?

If you fall, I will be there.
-Floor

The efficiency of various electrolyzer
plate materials has been studied.  It
has been found that there is a
"conditioning process" which modifies
the outer surface of electrolyzer plates
by building up a layer of compounds.
These compounds can act as catalysts
which cause electrolyzer efficiency, after
a suitable period of passivation and
"break-in," to increase dramatically.

The compounds which form on the
positive plates are predominantly
metallic oxides.  Those which form on
the negative plates may be hydrides or
other compounds.  Some researchers
have even reported that new elements
are found in the layers as if some sort
of transmutation is taking place.

We still have very much to learn about
the simple process of electrolysis.

[Farrah Day]

Farrah
As a completely anonymous individual calling out a known man by his surname in a public forum with all manner of
disrespect and vitriol ,while steadfastly maintaining your anonymity is at the very least Cowardly and in VERY Poor taste.


As far as myself , I will never learn .............

Thx
Chet

Jesus, Chet, what planet are you on?

Firstly (which you SHOULD already know if you ever paid any real attention), Mike used his full name on EF for years and years... his full name WAS his username. Only here has he become Centraflow, at EF he was, dah, dah, daah... Michael John Nunnerley.

But the crux of the matter, Chet - and clearly something you will never understand - is that it is about science; peoples feelings are largely irrelevant, but especially so when such people are blatant frauds, posturing as authorities. And if you really think I'm being too harsh, then challenge him to show a working heterodyning device that uses RF to dissociate water or his super-efficient SMD electrolyser... or even just get him to explain what it does and how it works. Or ask him how he creates his synthetic fuels and where is he using them...

You forget that Mike is from the same mould and indeed a close buddy of Mystic Murakami, they play the same games, they prey on the same people, they lead folk along winding paths to nowhere, and they defend each other's nonsense with a passion - they are effectively partners in crime. They have all done this for years. I really do not know what he is doing plying his trade here. This forum does not need the likes of MJN to play his games and spread his misinformation - that's what EF is for.

Because of your extremely lacking grasp of science and indeed your inability to see people for what they really are, it may not be obvious to you Chet, but I can tell almost immediately when someone is posturing. I can tell from what they post and how they post whether I'm dealing with a genuine individual or a clueless someone who is just blagging it for the attention.  MJN is and always has been all talk and no substance, and furthermore you will never see anything from him to suggest otherwise.

[Chet K]

Dumped
The veil of anonymity affords a courage all its own,at first it starts with little pokes and eventually develops into something like we see happening here,usually dependant on a persons character?
Pull away the curtain and see where your "courage" goes.

Regarding "Coatings" and anomalies as per Lamares thread.
it is quite apparent we are only beginning to understand what can be done there,also quite apparent that things are not always as they appear ,Have a look at all the electron beam microscopes for sale on Ebay ,.
The world looks very closely At this "coating" and needs an ever tighter View [thus all the old scopes for sale].

I would never Dismiss Lamares coating investigation without further investigation ?

Farrah fights an old war from behind a tattered Curtain making Hugh assumptions with very little information.
Information changes things ,some seek it for profit ,some for fun,some just want to do the right thing.

things change ,sometimes if we pay attention we get a chance to change too...

thx
Chet

[TinMan]

Hi Farrah,good to see you again.
You certainly liven up a thread lol.
I guess we all have our own feelings toward others,and have to vent those feelings some times.
But i have to say Farrah,that i have found Chet to be one of the kindest people i know. His effort on seeking the new for us to look at,has been up there with the best.If he finds something new and exciting,he calls me to let me know about it. This being at his own cost,and you don't get a much longer distance phone call-America to Australia.

But there is also things that i agree with you on 100%. That Arron I'm a rookie is only there to fill his pockets from peddling garbage. I must say that i have never seen any change in MMW after conditioning my cell's,infact i believe that the crosshatched clean S/S cells perform the best. We know people love coming up with something new-it puts there name on the map.
But i just cant understand how people still believe in the Stan Meyer stuff. I mean,surly by now,with all this advanced tech,some one some where would have cracked it by now?. That in itself should be enough to give you a yes or no answer on the Stan Meyer claims.

We only have to look at history to see this would be the case.
Man invents internal combustion engine--not one year later,and many men have replicated it.
Man invents first motor vehicle--soon after many men are building motor vehicles
Man invents first plane--a couple of years later,many men are building planes.
Stan Meyer builds a water fuel car--20 years later,still no replication.

[Allcanadian]

@FarrahDay

Now that's off my chest, on to the science... or rather, lack of.

The main problem with the whole insulating oxide, dielectric layer idea, is that it is flawed - and those that stand by it are clearly lacking not only in aptitude, but also in an understanding of basic science.

I see it a little different as my primary area of research is Electrodynamics, to be more precise electrostatics. For instance the common conception of "conductors, insulators and dielectrics" is flawed. I have seen low voltage phenomena with a high rate of change simply crawl over the surface of "any" insulator as a skin effect. I have seen HV low frequency phenomena induce a high potential (1" discharges) across any and all metal objects over 3 feet away from the source. i understand how and why it works which would lead me to believe that you have not fully considered the science which may be involved here,

If as MJN states, one electrode has to be completely insulated, then this insulation layer becomes the dielectric, the voltage sits across this layer and has no effect on the water which simply becomes a conducting extension of the uninsulated electrode.  Water is a very poor dielectric - of course it is, it is a far better conductor than it is an insulator!

I understand what your getting at however this is little more than the popular opinion of things and fails miserably in many cases, cases  which are my area of expertise.
First the construct of a fully insulated electrode is false because it is completely dependent on the related phenomena occurring. I could simply switch a low voltage in the very low ns range and the water surface/container in itself can have one potential (faradays pail) and the electrode another potential through conduction. As well the concept of a simple potential difference sitting across a simple dielectric is false, I could simply switch a medium voltage producing an excessive rate of change in potential and the dielectric is simply bypassed charging the nearest conductor not unlike the phenomena of reluctance in magnetic field gradients.

No offence but you would seem to be completely out of your depth in this respect and citing simple phenomena found in any textbook is misleading at best. To my knowledge no information has been given as to the source driving the electrolysis and the properties of the driving source determine the extent of the phenomena involved. To be more precise, singular discharges can easily produce wide spectrum RF under the proper conditions in which case all that you have mentioned becomes a mute point because it does not apply. We should remember that a potential in itself means very little and it is Energy/Energy density which dictates where and why things happen.

You have taken a leap of faith that this is simple electrolysis in the most basic case when the results claimed should make it perfectly obvious that this cannot be true. you are comparing apples and oranges again.

AC

[Farrah Day]

Farrah fights an old war from behind a tattered Curtain making Hugh assumptions with very little information.
Information changes things ,some seek it for profit ,some for fun,some just want to do the right thing

lol, so now you're calling my curtain 'tatty'? How low can you go? That's just downright offensive.

So what assumptions am I making with very little information, Chet? And think carefully here before you answer, or you will be marked down. Oh, and who is Hugh?

But i have to say Farrah,that i have found Chet to be one of the kindest people i know. His effort on seeking the new for us to look at,has been up there with the best.If he finds something new and exciting,he calls me to let me know about it. This being at his own cost,and you don't get a much longer distance phone call-America to Australia.

That's nice Tinman, but please, I beg of you, do not give Chet my telephone number. 

@FarrahDay
I see it a little different as my primary area of research is Electrodynamics, to be more precise electrostatics. For instance the common conception of "conductors, insulators and dielectrics" is flawed. I have seen low voltage phenomena with a high rate of change simply crawl over the surface of "any" insulator as a skin effect. I have seen HV low frequency phenomena induce a high potential (1" discharges) across any and all metal objects over 3 feet away from the source. i understand how and why it works which would lead me to believe that you have not fully considered the science which may be involved here,

But you haven't seen low voltage phenomena with a high rate of change crawl all over an insulated electrode submerged in tap water... have you?

I understand what your getting at however this is little more than the popular opinion of things and fails miserably in many cases, cases  which are my area of expertise.
First the construct of a fully insulated electrode is false because it is completely dependent on the related phenomena occurring. I could simply switch a low voltage in the very low ns range and the water surface/container in itself can have one potential (faradays pail) and the electrode another potential through conduction. As well the concept of a simple potential difference sitting across a simple dielectric is false, I could simply switch a medium voltage producing an excessive rate of change in potential and the dielectric is simply bypassed charging the nearest conductor not unlike the phenomena of reluctance in magnetic field gradients.

But, no AC, you don't really understand what I'm getting at do you, because these examples you allude to are not strictly relevant in Meyer-type cell set ups.

No offence but you would seem to be completely out of your depth in this respect and citing simple phenomena found in any textbook is misleading at best. To my knowledge no information has been given as to the source driving the electrolysis and the properties of the driving source determine the extent of the phenomena involved. To be more precise, singular discharges can easily produce wide spectrum RF under the proper conditions in which case all that you have mentioned becomes a mute point because it does not apply. We should remember that a potential in itself means very little and it is Energy/Energy density which dictates where and why things happen.

'citing simple phenomena found in any textbook'... to what exactly are you referring here?  I speak from a good deal of hands-on experience here AC - whereas clearly you have not done your homework, as you appear to have gone off half-cocked and at a tangent to the matter at hand.  You have jumped in feet first without understanding either the history behind what we are speaking of or indeed the constraints of the experiments - it's not anything goes!

You have taken a leap of faith that this is simple electrolysis in the most basic case when the results claimed should make it perfectly obvious that this cannot be true. you are comparing apples and oranges again.

AC

'I have taken a leap of faith that this is simple electrolysis'?  What...? You should know, I'm the one that has always claimed that even standard Faraday electrolysis is anything but simple, and in my past posts I have clearly stated that other phenomena, such as plasma electrolysis or cavitation are not governed by Faraday's laws.  What or who's 'results claimed' are you referring to?

Who is really comparing apples to oranges here, AC? As usual you have jumped into a discussion not knowing the full history or the background on the experiments and thrown in some totally irrelevant material that does nothing more than confuse the issue. I'm just a little surprised that you haven't brought up the 'Faster than wind car'!

But, anyway, you are completely missing the point.

This is what it's generally all about: http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm

Ask MJN to show you a fully insulated electrolysis cell producing gas, and see how that goes. And while you're at it ask him where he heard that Meyer sprayed an insulating coating onto his electrodes... cause I don't think he will talk to me.

[Allcanadian]

@FarrahDay
At the end of the day logic and reason must prevail, occams razor applies, and if the result is different than we would expect then the process must be different than we expect. Really no more needs to be said than that, if the result is different then the process must be different .... period.

AC

[Farrah Day]

Agreed, AC.

I'm all for logic and reason. However I'm not sure results are necessarily different to what one would expect, as it depends on who is expecting what! The biggest problem in this area is the lack of accuracy in making measurements as there are so many variables that have to be considered, and hence so many areas to screw up.

Note also, that Lamare is yet to actually get any results, it is all theory and he does not even have a proof of concept model yet. He is relying on this idea that electropolished stainless steel is somehow the magic ingredient. Can't wait to see how that turns out. And of course we have to bear in mind that the whole premise is based on Meyer being genuine in the first place. Something I personally would not bet good money on!

That said, like Naudin, I'm yet to produce any gas at all from pulsing or step-charging an electrode completely insulated in a plastic sheath so any result here would be a break through.

Mike of course will tell you that he has done all this already, but unfortunately he has decided to keep the secret all to himself - the same with his super-efficient over-Faraday 185% SMD electrolysis  

[Farrah Day]

Hi Tinman.

You always strike me as someone that is not only genuinely interested in the subject - willing to experiment and learn, and open to new ideas and theories - but also someone with a healthy level of scepticism so not apt to instantly believe or indeed trust anything anyone says. And good for you, I like to think I'm just the same.

So, with this in mind, let me proffer some information and insights that I have gleaned over my many years of interest and researching the subject.

Much of my research has been based around Meyer's claims, and in trying to understand how an electrolytic cell could work along the lines Meyer suggested. I stand by what I have always claimed, and that is: even if Meyer was not an outright fraud, he was hopelessly out of his depth with the science. Put bluntly, he was clueless, which rather unfortunately, has led to years and years of head scratching, frustration and ultimately failure for anyone trying to replicate this technology. Of course it has been made all the worse by Meyer's insistence on writing pages and pages of nonsensical pseudoscience.

To achieve over-Faraday results from an electrolyser you have to produce an effect that is not governed by Faraday's laws. With Faraday's laws, 2 electrons will produce a hydrogen molecule at the cathode; one electron is not enough, three is one too many. There is no way around this; whatever else is going on, however efficient or inefficient the electrolyser, we always need 2 electrons in order to produce a hydrogen molecule. It really couldn't be any simpler, and that is why I always insist that Faraday electrolysis can be nothing less than 100% efficient. This is not to say that gas output can't be improved upon, because a poorly designed or incorrectly built electrolyser may have side reactions occurring that detract from gas output and also be very power inefficient. But the key thing is, that Faraday's laws are governed by current flowing through the cell and charge exchanges at the electrodes.  

Straight DC will really only provide standard Faraday Electrolysis, irrespective of electrode cross hatching or cell conditioning. Electrode cross hatching or etching is never a bad thing as it can greatly increase the surface area exposed to the electrolyte, it also provides a surface key for the build up of a mineral coating, if required.

Initial cell conditioning is mainly all about the removal of impurities and reactive metal from the electrode surfaces. Until this is achieved, such side reactions may well take precedence over the preferred reactions, so limiting gas output. As any reactive surface metals are removed, more chromium is exposed to the water which immediately reacts with oxygen to become chromium oxide. So basically what happens is that the integrity of the protective chromium oxide layer is improved. Note though: this protective layer is only atoms thick and does not become thicker as such, because it relies on contact with oxygen, so only the chromium atoms exposed to oxygen reacts to form the protective oxide layer.

This is why I struggle to understand the logic behind the electropolishing that Lamare is suggesting. It does not increase the chromium oxide layer as such, but rather, on a microscopic scale, it simply reduces surface irregularities. Therefore, in my opinion all he is achieving is vastly reducing the electrode surface area. I watched Lamare's youtube video all the way through and I really do think he is barking up the wrong tree, and about to undertake a pretty pointless and ultimately unfulfilling journey. But time will no doubt tell its own story on this.

DC pulsing electrolysis, is however a completely different story. Unlike with standard DC electrolysis, the cell can act far more like a capacitor, and this in itself can change things immensely.

High voltage pulses can charge up the electrodes simply because usual Faraday  charge reactions at the electrodes cannot take place fast enough, this effectively creates an Electric Double Layer Capacitor. But note that the dielectric is not the chromium oxide layer, not a mineral layer, nor is it the water or electrolyte itself: it is actually just the interface between the charged electrode and the water or electrolyte.  This interface acts as a dielectric, and being only tenths of nanometres thick, can result in a very high capacitance.

So when Mike Nunnerley talks about completely (physically) insulating an electrode, he could not be more wrong. If you do this, this insulating material simply becomes a barrier between the electrode and the electrolyte. Charges will build up between this insulation and the electrode, and indeed on the far side of the insulating material that is in contact with the electrolyte, but nothing will - or can - happen unless this barrier suffers catastrophic dielectric breakdown, whereby it is then rendered useless.  However, this insulating material is unlikely to suffer catastrophic failure, as the OFF period of the voltage pulse allows electrode surface charges to disperse back into the electrode.

Anyway, moving on. If a single high voltage pulse is applied to the electrodes, this electric double layer phenomenon is induced, but then quickly discharges when the pulse elapses as the reaction of Faraday charge exchanges continue until neutralised. The time it takes the electrodes/electrolyte to discharge is heavily dependent upon the amount of ions within the electrolyte, so obviously discharge will take place far more quickly through a solution of KOH than it would deionised water.

I should just add that voltage pulses do not necessarily have to be that high in order to create an electric double layer capacitor phenomenon, as it only requires that the charge exchange rate between the electrode and the electrolyte is exceeded. Obviously for this to happen, a higher voltage pulse would be required, by, for example an ion rich KOH solution than would be required by deionised water.  

Things become a little more interesting when we apply continuous fast, high voltage pulses. Now, the relaxation time between pulses may not allow the electrodes to fully discharge and so we can see the possibility of a step-charging process taking place. Now, we can get an extremely high voltage building up across the electric double layer capacitor, and this is where Faraday's laws begin to fail, because the gas evolving is no longer dependent on the current flowing through the cell.

So, what happens is that there inevitably comes a point at which the density of charges and hence the potential across the electric double layer capacitor reaches critical mass, at which time, electrons (when considering the cathode) solvate into the electrolyte and react with neutral water molecules to produce OH- and H.  So now, all of a sudden we have an ion rich area at the cathode, and hydrogen atoms that will readily react to become hydrogen molecules and hence evolve as gas. And so, as can be seen this is a very different process of gas production; a very different process to that of standard Faraday electrolysis. However, Faraday electrolysis will still also be occurring.

And here's something really interesting, and something that has baffled people forever and a day, (mainly I should add because of Meyer's continual reference to resonance): The infamous Blocking Diode.

Well, this is why it's there and what it does: The Blocking Diode serves to stop the electrons that build up on the cathode from discharging backwards into the circuit. Without this semiconductor in place, the step-charging effect can not be produced and charges on the electrodes can not reach a point at which they will effectively discharge through the electrolyte (as described above), to interact with water molecules.

Though I do now have a much better grasp on the science involved, and hence I'm much happier, I still struggle to accept the various claims made by the likes of Meyer and Boyce regarding the volumes of gas they are/were able to achieve. In fact I tend to think such claims are every bit as fanciful and colourful as their writings.

There has been a lot of nonsense posted on the subject for many years now. Numerous charlatans and conmen plying their trade and indeed a multitude of misinformation merchants adding their bit to the mix, so caution has always been the order of the day. Sorting the wheat from the chafe can ultimately be rather demanding so, at the very least, I hope I've armed you with a little more info and straightened a few things out here.

Anyway, if nothing else, this should give you pause for thought - something to ponder.

[TinMan]

Hi Farrah Day

Thank you for all that info.
I did once dive into high voltage electrolisis,but was limited by lack of equipment. But now i have all that fancy stuff,like a new 2 channel Atten scope,Atten power supply and a 100MHz Atten two channel SG.The only thing left for me to get now,is a variac of decent power-i may just build my own yet.

I still have my tube cells,aswell as my large 13 plate dry cell,and intend on getting back into it as soon as we get shifted into our new home,and i have finished my ute(pickup) rebuild.
So when the time is right,maybe we could start a new thread,and experiment together,and share our finding's. There needs to be a freesh look into electrolisis,as there is just way to much garbage out there now on it. The money took over the thinking,and now it's just a profit organization,insted of reserch.

We had something going here once,that was a little different,but once again,the allmighty dollar rang out,and everything came to a standstill. I !amoung others! were non to happy about this,as it seems we just got dumped for the buck's. What realy ticks me off,is that the instigator is still here,shooting his mouth off about how much he know's,but never shows anything to back up his claim's.
After time,you get to know who you can trust,and who need not know what your doing.
Anyway,enough of my bitch fest,and i will let you know when im ready to go.

Brad

[Farrah Day]

Yeah, keep me posted, Tinman.

I don't tend to post much nowadays as electrolysis is clearly not everyone's cup of tea, and so I often find I'm in a minority of one. Few people seem to listen or care and fewer still seem to understand what I'm talking about, hence intelligent responses can be as rare as rocking horse poop.  

As you may have noticed though, I'm often angered into posting when I see utter claptrap and/or blatant disinformation being posted.

Incidentally, you don't necessarily need a high voltage power source as you can use the reverse voltage spike from an inductor. And like I said above, you can create the electric double layer capacitor effect from simply providing more charge than standard Faraday electrolysis charge exchanging can cope with, ie, exceeding the maximum charge density for any given cell. More important will be an adequate pulsing cct or function generator.

Anyway, happy to get together on a new thread at some point in the future for experimenting and comparing notes - would help me a focus.

[Farrah Day]

Oh, I did forget to say that I find the title of this thread quite absurd.

'New discovery explains Stan Meyer's Energy Harvesting Method'... What... ? Is this some kind of bad-taste joke? New discovery??  Energy harvesting...? A classic Sterling Allen headline if ever I've seen one.

What is this 'new discovery' and where exactly is 'energy being harvested'?  And don't be shy answering.

Yet another exercise in total ignorance and utter stupidity. 

How we got past the stone age, I'll never understand!

[Chet K]

SSoooo
A bit to Hollywood For you?
Perhaps you should take that up With Lamare? {allthough I added A word for you ]

Whatsamatter nothing good On TV tonight? Couldn't you just go Pull the legs off a Spider ?
Beat The Cat?