### Author Topic: EEC theory  (Read 5178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

• Hero member
• Posts: 4567
##### EEC theory
« on: April 18, 2010, 19:41:36 pm »
Hi,

A major part of the Stan Meyer theory is based on extracting electrons.
We agree on the fact that current in water is carried NOT by electrons.
One of the open questions is if electrons are freed in the electrolysis proces.
Lets assume that electrons are freed during this proces and that there are free electrons as well in the water.

Electrons are conducted by metal, like SS.

The electrons from the wires and tranformer flow till the SS electrodes and there
they stop......passing the current over to the ions/atoms.
Looks like the electrodes behave like a "current door" function.
If there are electrons freed in the water, then it should be at the electrodes, it think, because there is where the hydrogen and oxygen are produced. With a pulsing dc it should be possible to extract electrons from the waterbath in the downtime of the circuit. The door opens back towards another circuit where the charge of the ions/atoms "pushes" the electrons from the water back into the electrodes and EEC circuit. The question is if it is possible to do such thing.

Question:
What would happens if we take out electrons from the waterbath with the water?
Is less re-combining the result? Less particles in the water, so less friction=heat?
Better efficiency?

Steve

• Hero member
• Posts: 980
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2010, 22:22:18 pm »
First thing you need is an insulated cell such that the water can not come in contact with any ground, only the pos and neg connections can touch the water.

Second thing you need it a resistive load, like a light bulb, and a *positive* voltage source

Third, you need an alternating pulse circuit that will pulse the cell with a 50% duty cycle, and your *positive* voltage source with the other 50%

Fourth, the Positive tube in your cell is connected to the load and the load to the positive voltage source, this means that your positive tube, in connection with the water, becomes "ground" or an "electron source" to power your light bulb on every alternating pulse

Fifth, you need free electrons in your water bath to be pulled out, or the light bulb wont light up

• Hero member
• Posts: 4567
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2010, 23:28:09 pm »
First thing you need is an insulated cell such that the water can not come in contact with any ground, only the pos and neg connections can touch the water.

Second thing you need it a resistive load, like a light bulb, and a *positive* voltage source

Third, you need an alternating pulse circuit that will pulse the cell with a 50% duty cycle, and your *positive* voltage source with the other 50%

Fourth, the Positive tube in your cell is connected to the load and the load to the positive voltage source, this means that your positive tube, in connection with the water, becomes "ground" or an "electron source" to power your light bulb on every alternating pulse

Fifth, you need free electrons in your water bath to be pulled out, or the light bulb wont light up

You sound very convincing. Have you tried such a setup?

• Hero member
• Posts: 980
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2010, 00:03:50 am »
not yet, maybe after i get my next project settled

• Member
• Posts: 136
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2010, 00:14:43 am »
I think the EEC circuit is not so much removing electrons from the water but removing electrons from the produced gases.  I see a similarity between the concept of an EEC and the kelvin generator although I don't know if they both work on the same concept.

Andy

• Hero member
• Posts: 4567
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2010, 14:22:32 pm »
Donald and Andy,

I do not suggest that electrons travel through a liquid, however, there is a part of the liquid who in in contact with the electrodes.

Accoording to the Helmholtz double layer theory there is no electron exchange at all.

Article:
The electrical double layer
The model which gave rise to the term 'electrical double layer' was first put forward in the 1850's by Helmholtz. In this model he assumed that no electron transfer reactions occur at the electrode and the solution is composed only of electrolyte. The interactions between the ions in solution and the electrode surface were asssumed to be electrostatic in nature and resulted from the fact that the electrode holds a charge density (qm)which arises from either an excess or deficiency of electrons at the electrode surface. In order for the interface to remain neutral the charge held on the electrode is balanced by the redistribution of ions close to the electrode surface.

The attracted ions are assumed to approach the electrode surface and form a layer balancing the electrode charge, the distance of approach is assumed to be limited to the radius of the ion and a single sphere of solvation round each ion. The overall result is two layers of charge (the double layer) and a potential drop which is confined to only this region (termed the outer Helmholtz Plane, OHP) in solution. The result is absolutely analogous to an electrical capacitor which has two plates of charge separated by some distance (d)

with the potential drop occurring in a linear manner between the two plates. It is perhaps no surprise that when impedance analysis is performed on electrochemical systems the response due to the electrolyte redistribution is modelled in terms of capacitative elements.
The model of Helmholtz while providing a basis for rationalising the behaviour of this region does not account for many factors such as, diffusion/mixing in solution, the possibility of absorption on to the surface and the interaction between solvent dipole moments and the electrode. A later model put forward by Stern begins to address some of these limitations

now the ions are assumed to be able to move in solution and so the electrostatic interactions are in competition with Brownian motion. The result is still a region close to the electrode surface (100x10-10 m) containing an excess of one type of ion but now the potential drop occurs over the region called the diffuse layer.
Many modifications and improvements have been made to these early models with the latest approaches using numerical modelling to follow the redistribution effects as the electrode potential is varied.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Chemistry/Electrochemis/Electrochemical/ElectricalDouble/ElectricalDouble.htm

The issue is that if you read about Helmholtz layers and the fact that Puharich also refers to Helmholtz, that Stan Meyer theory on the EEC at least is not applicable towards the "electrolysis" proces.
Maybe EEC is only possible with gasses.

Steve

• Member
• Posts: 136
##### Re: EEC theory
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2010, 15:03:20 pm »
Hi Steve,

I think I said that EEC has to do with gases.  The patents and TB differ in describing the EEC but they talk about a grid above the water in contact with the gases and methods of discharging the charge built up on the grid.  How the electrostatic filter is hooked up isn't very clear but it may be part of the EEC.  Kelvin generator doesn't need an external pulsing circuit to light a neon bulb or produce a spark.  Parts of the patents describe the hydrogen ion being part of the EEC taking a negative charge from the positive oxygen ions.  H2- is found in outer space so it's not an imaginary thing.  The question in my mind is how stable are all these ions until they're ignited.  If some electrons are discharged into the water then that would shift the auto-ionization of the water and its pH without adding chemical electrolyte.  Anyway that's my take on it.

Andy