Water Molecule Capacitance (far out thinking...)

[Login to see usernames]

I believe that Stanley Meyer referred to the water molecule itself as a capacitor?  Has anyone considered the resonant effect of the water molecule "capacitor" inline with the coils?  The circuit in effect becomes some freekish equation of LC((1/x*(1/C))/x*C)L (or something like that, I haven't spent enough time trying to figure out the implication of it this way) if you consider it this way.  What is the capacitance of these micro capacitors in parallel and series and what would be the resonant frequency of a LC (where C is the "micro capacitor" water molecule) if the chokes were directly in line with them?

When you think about it, now you have millions (billions?) of micro capacitors in series and parallel at the same time.  Ideally, the goal would be to charge a large number of them simultaneously in resonance.  The question is what is the most effective way to do this.

Anyone ever looked at it this way??  Or am I just way out in left field?

TS

[Login to see usernames]

we've discussed this extensively thru the threads...
you are not thinking wrong only the wrong proportion
Actually the sum of all this billions of picometer order size capacitors that determine the dielectric proprieties of water.

Br

[Login to see usernames]

Actually the sum of all this billions of picometer order size capacitors that determine the dielectric proprieties of water.

Br

Agreed.  I had considered that.  What I am considering is what if you could put a single molecule in this LCL circuit. We should be able to calculate a frequency for this.  Then we could, for example, put in a matrix of these micro capacitors in a simulator and observe how they resonate.  Which should in turn give a better understanding visually of what's going on in the water.

Anyone know what the capacitance of a single molecule would be?  How would you notate this for 2 electrons?


TS

[Login to see usernames]

Building a little more on this "idea", I accidentally discovered a circuit modification using the iCircuit simulator on the iPad which gave a phenomenal result.  I don't know if it's a valid simulation (seeing as there is no component that can perfectly simulate a water cell) but I thought I would share this.

The attached image shows a 0.001 resistor directly inline with both sides of the "Excitor Array".  I built the "Excitor Array" to have a positive side capacitor, a negative side capacitor and a capacitor to represent a water molecule with the smallest capacitance I could make work (0.01pF).

The result is, within a second the voltage charge on the "water molecule" goes up to 30kV!!  Before 2.5 seconds it's in the GV range.  Before 3.5 seconds it's in the TV range!  This effect will NOT happen if the resistors are removed or if the resistance value is much higher or if the resistors leads are not in direct contact with the capacitor leads.

What I perceive is happening, is that the very small resistance is allowing the voltage to get into the "ER", but, once it's in, the "ER" doesn't want to let it out, again because of that small resistance.

I have not been able to replicate the result with the Falstad simulator (which iCircuit is based on).  The components seem to work a little differently there.  If anyone else has other circuit simulators, please try this configuration and let us know the result.

UPDATE:  I think I have managed to sort of duplicate the effect of climbing voltage in Falstad using 0.0001 resistors instead of 0.001.  Over 150kV in less than 4 seconds.  I have attached the configs for both the Falstad and iCircuit.

TS

[Login to see usernames]

I have updated my original post above with the actual configs of the circuits.  I've noticed that if the resistors are not right (if they are too high or too low value) depending on the specific circuit that the voltage is pretty much lost across the "water molecule".  I suspect this may be part of the reason for the variable inductor used by Meyers, but only part.  So far it seems that the resistor value on the side with the diode may be more important than the other one.

TS

[Login to see usernames]

Hi Timeshell,
I am curious about grades of stainless steel used in cells. in googling " Stan Meyer Stainless Steel" , Ive seen 304 mentioned, and that apparrently SM said that stainless steel ( 410 not 403 ) was the only metal that could be used as oxides formed with all others.
Other people use 316 and 316L

So in considering water molecule capacitance which would be measured between 2 plates......Does the grade of S/S have an effect?

So has anyone conclusively worked out if, for example, 410 is better to use than 316L?

[Login to see usernames]

Here's my perspective.

Using a type of SS that oxidizes appropriately is important as the oxidization creates a secondary dielectric layer in the cell.  This in turn creates more resistance in the circuit.  316L does NOT oxidize very well at all.  This isn't to say that we want the cell to rust.  However, the oxidizing element (can't remember if it was the nickel or the chromium) will create a very thin white film on the outside of the cell.  I am pretty sure 304 will create this effect also, but SM may have discovered that 410 does it better.

Essentially, what this does is turn the water cell into an electrolytic capacitor.

I believe the answer to your first question is both yes and no, depending on the quality of the water and level of oxidization.
I believe the answer to your second question is 410 may be better to use but I have not actually tested this to be true.

TS

[Login to see usernames]

I have seen most of everything Stan had,and in his documents,when he said do this or use this,that is what he did or used.
He said to use 304 and thats what you use.It's more cost effective than 316.All of the different cells I seen of Stans,none of them had any signs of oxidation.This tells me that he was doing something different,other than regular electrolysis.
Don