Stan Meyer effect ?

[Login to see usernames]

Hi,

I just read the following.
Its interesting enough to publish:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-04/msg02346.html

I ran some experiments today using pulsed frequency with a tube electrolyze
similar to the Stan Meyer's. I believe he was a fraud and still do but some
interesting things were observed in a controlled experiment using tap water.

Note that I have current limited the supply with a resistor. The max draw
is 4.3 amps possible.

With the cell connected directly I was pulling 4.3 amps.
Gas production is 60 CC.

I devised a simple mosfet pulsed circuit using a signal generator
The cell produced peak flow
at 40 CC with a draw of 2.85 amps /30 volts at about 16 KHZ. That seems to
be the best range. The scope reads about 45 volts peak to peak.

Now something interesting occurs when I add a large iron core copper choke.
The current draw goes down to 2.51 amps and it produces a steady 68 CC
of gas. The scope climbs to 78 volt's PP. This would suggest that back EFM
is playing some role in the dissociation. Conventional theory suggest that
only current can play a role. This would seem to debunk that. I am very
confedent with my numbers but I have
no clue what they mean. The less current drawn and the more gas output the
more the mosfet heats up and I would expect that.

I think Meyers was on to something but far from running your car on water
of course. This expierment did open my eye's on how stan could have fooled
people. There is a visual increase of gas output that looks like an order of
magnatude. Note that I said Looks like. ;o)

[Login to see usernames]

continue:

The first question to be answered is how are you measuring the current
and voltage and what is the accuracy with the given frequency and
waveform?

Peak to peak voltage is meaningless without other information.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Jim, I am using a Fluke RMS current meter. It is not fooled by high
frequency pulses
However at 16 KHz a typical current shunt will not be effected that much at
all.
As fas as the shunt is concerned it's seing DC. Your right. Voltage is
suppose to be meaningless with electrolysis. It's the current. The supply
is regulated to 30 volts. The point is current went down and gas production
went up and the voltage drop across the resistor confirms I am pulling less
current.. The supply will not put out more the 30 volts so the 80 volt PP
has to be back EMF from the coil. Remember I am current limited. Even with
max current 4.3 amps it's still less gas then with the pulse and choke. So
even if I was really drawing 4.3 with the choke and pulse curcut it can't
pull more then 4.3 amps through the resistor. I should note that the choke
is in series with the cell. It appears there is some interaction with the
cell as part of circut and is indeed acting like capacitor. I am not your
typical youtube idiot. I am 100% confedent in my observations. I don't
however claim to know what it means. All this happens real time.
If I dial the frequency to far one way or other the gas production goes down
and tracks current. Another reason I am confedent with my measurments.

I have a theory that the pulses and back EMF is simply rasing the volatge
potential between the cell plates some how? It takes current to do that but
in this case less current.

[Login to see usernames]

continue:

True-RMS meters can handle non-sin waveforms but the errors can be large,
particularly if the waveform isn't symetrical about the zero axis. Your
circuit has a single FET and single voltage rail so I suspect the waveform
isn't symetrical about zero (more like half the supply voltage).

There are lots of ways to improve the efficiency of the electrolysis process
but no way to exceed 100%. Wikipedia reports 80% and a prediction that 94%
might be achievable.

[Login to see usernames]

Note from another site:

In an electrochemical reaction (electrolysis of water for example), a back emf is produced when the reaction components (like hydrogen and oxygen) try to recombine and produce a voltage which opposes the forward emf which is causing the electrolysis.

[Login to see usernames]

This quote makes me think this is the Meyers effect .

"It is this ringing that also enhances the production of hydroxl gases in cell ."

What ringing ? How do you adjust anything when all is done ?

Pay attention and listen  . DO NOT IGNORE THE PARTS YOU DONT UNDERSTAND .

[Login to see usernames]

Remember I am current limited. Even with
max current 4.3 amps it's still less gas then with the pulse and choke. So
even if I was really drawing 4.3 with the choke and pulse curcut it can't
pull more then 4.3 amps through the resistor. I should note that the choke
is in series with the cell. It appears there is some interaction with the
cell as part of circut and is indeed acting like capacitor. I am not your
typical youtube idiot. I am 100% confedent in my observations.


I have a theory that the pulses and back EMF is simply rasing the volatge
potential between the cell plates some how?

Just like the normal theory, his chokes limit current while inducing a voltage spike, so he has more voltage less current with the same power, current limiting via coils isn't new (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast).
I'd think the back emf is just like in meyers document, when the pulse stops it creates another pulse and doubles the frequency.

[Login to see usernames]

Haithar,

Yes, you are right.
But WHY does the watercell produce more gas with higher voltage and less amps?
Is it because the Bemf shoots in a lot of Joules (read amps) in a short boost?

Steve

[Login to see usernames]

Stevie , I think sometimes you are just running around in circles , did you even make that GEET working ?

There is no magic magic way to connect a randomly made choke and the "BEMF" super spikes do the work . There is a whole tuning aspect here , and these inductive spikes are just a part of it .