.
.
It has been suggested by Radiant_1 in another thread that Meyer's System can be broken down into 3 stages and I basically agree with this.
These stages are 1. Gas Production 2. Ionization 3. Triggering.
However, I take issue that Stage 1 (as it was described) is a part of what could be called a Meyer system.
Stage 1 of the Meyer System was described as follows.
"...first Gas production for example, efficient resonant pulsed electrolysis, various Hydrides (salts/metal salts that when heated release hydrogen), or straight DC electrolysis.." (Radiant_1)
Meyer clearly called this stage of his system a non-electrolysis process that relies upon natural water and voltage potential rather than current to disassociate the water into a primarily hydrogen/oxygen gas mixture. A true Meyer system would use Meyer's non-electrolysis method of gas production.
Stage 1 as described in the above quote cannot properly be called a Stage 1 of a Meyer system because it uses electrolysis.
It should be obvious that HHO gas can be produced practically via different forms of electrolysis and that these processes can be more efficient than Faraday theoretical limit.
What is not obvious and what is yet unproven, is that that HHO can be produced at highly efficient levels with the non-electrolysis process described by Meyer, where pulsed DC ( unipolar pulses) is sent through a blocking diode, and 1 or 2 resonant charging chokes in series with a water capacitor forming an LC resonant circuit. And where at resonance of this LC circuit, water is disassociated by voltage potential rather than by current.
While in theory one might be able to convincingly explain how this could work, in application it has not been proven to work at all. In every case that I am aware of where a Meyer VIC is involved in an attempted replication, leakage current through the water prevents any significant high voltage potential from developing across the water capacitor. The water does not "charge up". Methods such as the use of highly resistant SS wire for the chokes, in an attempt to limit current, have only led to a reduction or complete elimination of gas output.
Unless and until this leakage current problem can be solved in the lab with a working device instead of with seemingly correct and convincing theories, the VIC remains an unsolved mystery. Unless I have missed something. the systems that are said to be Meyer replications (Stage 1) still rely upon current and therefore should be considered electrolysis as opposed to Meyer's non-electrolysis method.
This first stage is primarily what differentiates Meyer's System from any other. In other words, if we build a system that uses a heated hydride, and/or Pulsed DC current ... and then proceed to stage 2 we would not have a Meyer system because it is electrolysis based. Likewise, if we use hydrogen from a tank and move to stages 2 and 3 we do not have a Meyer system.
What makes a true Meyers Stage 1 (non electrolysis) so attractive is the claimed huge gains in HHO production vs required input power. Without these huge gains in Stage 1 HHO production efficiency over even the most efficient electrolysis method, proceeding to stages 2 and 3 will probably not get us too far in regard to total system efficiency and/or the development of a device than can be used practically, considering the power requirements of these next stages.
Unless Stage 1 is super efficient, what we will end up with will be little more than a very nifty and very expensive to operate demonstration model of the explosive force of monoatomic hydrogen. A practical system that serves a useful purpose depends upon stage 1 being super efficient.
As for me, I have not quite given up on Meyer yet. I am having one last try at replicating a true Meyer Stage 1 (non-electrolysis). If that fails I will move on to something else that may be more promising.
Anyone want one of these?
http://www.tectra.de/plasma-source.htmI won't even try to guess how much it costs.
Goey
