To those less inclined, " " is a good indicator of a half-hearted statement.

And isn't it plausable an uneducated man will lack the ability to speak a technical language?

Steve
(not Steven...)

 

You may say what you like, but Meyer's papers are gibberish. They are contrived to impress the credulous, not to describe actual devices. His deliberately false information was to make it seem as if there was something there, and to convince people to donate money.

You might wish to review the list of patents cited. Not quite all of these patents (you can go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm and see what the rest of the numbers turn up) are particularly impressive. I find it interesting that that long list of patents are all listed to inflate Meyer's "genius". It is also interesting that his adherents haven't bothered to look up those patents to see if there is, indeed, anything there. Most of these patents cover a unique way of doing what someone else had already done.

If you want to read all Meyer's long, long list of memos, go here - http://www.theorionproject.org/en/hydroxy.html - and link to them. You will find the VIC (and the Tri Coil) mentioned quite often. You will also note a significant level of contradiction in his stuff. It's theme and variation all the way through. It just never quite rises to the level of coherence. How did you miss these hundreds of pages while conducting research on Meyer?

Frankly, the more you learn about science and electronics, the worse Meyer's stuff looks.

 

nobody is always right.

You have yet to meet Ratch...

Isn't is plausible that Meyers deliberately used layman's terms to describe his setup to make it understandable to fellow uneducates?

Meyer does not use layman's terms. Meyer misuses technical terms. He misuses them very badly.

Isn't is also plausible that he deliberately injected false information to keep his would be opponents off track?

No. If he wanted to keep his alleged magic away from his so-called opponents, he would simply have not published.

Farlander, you really really really really really need to read some textbooks!!! You really need to learn what these words actually mean.

 

Let's try to clarify things a bit, here. Follow this link - http://www.feynmanonline.com/ - and look at some of the things Dr. Feynman explains. He manages to make advanced physics pretty accessible. That is closer to the mark of true genius.

It should also point out to you just how hard Meyer worked to conceal the fact that he had no insights at all. People who understand things can explain them.

Meyer's memos all deal with the same subject matter, but reading through them leads to increasing confusion. His depth of understanding did not increase as he went along. Instead, details keep changing and things grow steadily more obscure, as if he were simply throwing out words to keep the money pump primed. He obviously never proofread or maintained consistent terminology throughout. He just made it up as he went along.

The simple reason we do not get busy building any of his stuff is that it is transparently obvious that the devices are based on falsehoods.

 

That is closer to the mark of true genius.

He would laugh Meyer out of the room, or at least sing him a funny song.

Steve

 

If any of you dweebydorfs can't understand this pdf then I'll happily explain it to you. P.S. search for patents written on typewriters, they are more likely to be accurate and consistent. The new pdfs are propganda in IMO.

This is why I think there is such a chasm between believers and non-believers. It is simply a matter of what evidence has been presented. Here's a good, short video that made an impact on me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLk370BFtPw

 

There is just the slight detail that a patent covers some unique aspect of doing something. A working device is not required. Having a patent does not establish that the device actually can be made to work.

None of Meyer's stuff can be built. The devices are imaginary. They are not based on anything but impressing the ignorant in order to separate them from their money.

Sorry to say it, but a video can show anything. I've seen one where a tv set is run by a single AA battery. Every bit as convincing.

When someone can bring a device than can be hooked up to power anywhere and without special conditions produce more electrolyzed gas than modern physics says is possible, I'll be very interested. That device does not exist because it is impossible to make one.

 

You may have missed my earlier post...

The Water Fuel Cell patent filed and obtained by Stan Meyers was approved under section 101 C of the U.S. Patent office, meaning that a working demonstration model had to be provided...

 

Then, since it is so well and truly described, why doesn't everybody have one or two bubbling away? Or could it be that the details change in every subsequent paper he turned out, so no even the most dedicated believer quite knows what to make of it?

Where did you come up with the 20KV stuff? It is clearly stated in the patent that the transformer winding ratio was 3 to 1, and that he gives the actual operating voltage on the primary as 26. That means that Meyer had results at 78 volts applied to the cell.

Oh, nobody can get it to work, so that must mean his statement was misdirection to throw "them" off. Since 78 volts won't make the cell work, just keep raising the voltage until it does.

Every one of his memos contradicts the patent in some significant way, and nothing is quite the same twice. Someone should get motivated to produce the annotated works of Stanley Meyer.

It toasts me that you hang on unsubstantiated reports of an incomprehensible device having been said to work (nobody has actually seen it), but will not concede that we might know what we are talking about when we say that what we see will not. The lack of understanding is not on our part.

 

The really sad thing about this whole deal is how many have been suckered in to believing that Stanley Meyers was a "genius" during the recent spike in fuel prices.

I've seen pleas for help by "enlightened" persons.

Look, this site is not some kind of religious sect. We don't take well to technobabble.

Unless we're watching Star Trek reruns, of course. Those are always good for laughs.

But many people have been victimized by those promising "free energy". It's attractive, to be certain. But it isn't going to happen, unless you install a huge solar array on your roof. After you pay for that solar array, you might get 15-20 years use from it, and then you'll be installing a new solar array.

Look, there is no free lunch.
I'm more than convinced that Stanley Meyers was a snake-oil salesman.

Some have tried to make parallels between Meyers and Tesla. Tesla was a true genius; with certain eccentric tendencies.

Meyers was a con man.

Both are now deceased.

Beyond that, attempts to compare Meyers to Nikolai Tesla are insults to Tesla.

 

Riddle me this, non-technobabblers...

In an LC circuit is there not an oscillation? If that oscillation is pulsed at the oscillating frequency does not voltage multiply as a consequence of phase coincidence? (phase matching, coupling, resonance, whatever)

And then if a dielectric insulator were used between two submerged electrodes, could not a potentially powerful voltage field develop around the water molecules, causing them to dissociate?

I have to admit you guys have me on the ropes. I paid attention in school, have always tinkered, I was in the gifted and talented program, and I believe in the potential of this theory, but the facts need verification by you the experts. Please try to keep comments to a scientific./physical/electrical/chemical nature. A flame war helps no one

Oh and the reason you need high voltage is because of the inherent necessary distance between the electrodes. My presumption is that one electron volt will liberate one electron from an atom, but must be applied at the atom... Across 1mm, your talking probably millions of atoms, and a significant voltage drop. Also, the electrodes act as a transducer, vibrating at the set frequency, which should be attached to a phase lock loop variable driver circuit with a pickup coil that scans and detects either low amps or high volts and tries to maintain that condition thats what is really missing and you guys can help

 

An LC circuit will oscillate if it contains energy, but the resistive losses and leakages will dampen the oscillation until energy is replentished. Oscillators make use of the LC tank's natural frequency by, typically, introducing a negative resistance to counter the losses.

I am uncertain how voltage can multiply in the LC tank, it can only go down from what you put into it. I don't think the purpose of the resonance-based electrolysis is to create high voltage, it is to 'resonant' the bonds of the water molecules at their natural frequency. Sure, you would need a certain 'voltage' or an electric field sufficient enough to develop significant force according the Lorentz force law. I guess I am just confused how resonance has anything to do with efficiency.. I can see how resonance can be used to transfer energy through some constructive interference. For example, if you want to destroy a large motor, you can drive it at it's natural frequency (first, second, etc.) and watch it destroy itself through vibration. This is because of the constructive interference. In the end, you are merely transferring energy to a process and it is getting absorbed. I don't see how this is going to create more energy. And, we have seen from before, if electrolysis is less than 100% efficient, then we cannot burn it (in the opposite reaction) to create more energy.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense to me. How exactly does an electron-volt equal the amount of energy needed to disassociate an electron from an atom? The electrodes are vibrating?? If this resonance is happening in the kHz region, I do not believe it will resonant mechanically. Especially that it is being damped by the water and masses of the plates.

Steve

 

I feel you are missing the very salient point that Meyer's stuff is internally contradictory. And his patent claim is that his results were obtained with 78 volts across the cell - a figure that appears much more reasonable than hundreds or thousands of volts.

We speak, but you don't listen. The lack of anything beyond the fantastic claim only proves that Meyer was a scam artist. Why should there be a magic frequency that causes dissociation of molecules, and why would it almost fall in the audio range? It's because the electronics he used were only good for that range and his only basis for the claim is fantasy.

There is no place to start from if we are to do research on this. All the information available is mutually- as well as self-contradictory. Look at Meyer's patent 4,936,xxx (I forget the last digits). It almost sounds coherent. But every paper with his name on it not only invalidates his original apparatus, they also become extremely confused as to what the thing is supposed to do (liberate electrons or gas) and how it happens.

I don't care to reprise my line of posts up to this point, but I have found no reason to believe Meyer actually had a working device of any sort at any time. He could have become a multi-millionaire from it, if it had really worked. As it was, he could only run a dune buggy with a device that was considered a fraud. That makes no sense.

His expressed theory, much like Bob Boyce's, are indicative of nearly complete ignorance of science and electronics. Neither is credible, and both contradict each other. What about this attracts you? Why are you convinced that Meyer and not Boyce had it right. People have had precisely the same result in getting their devices to work.

It is interesting that one can never prove the negative case. No matter how many failures, just one more attempt may make it work, goes the refrain. That was Edison's approach - fill a room with people and tell them to produce the device he wanted. Guess he just fired the non-producers.

Want to fire us? It's either that, or start to pay attention. It's been asked before - how is it you can imagine we wouldn't benefit from such a device?

 

What about this attracts you?

IMHO, It is the allure of the garage regular-joe inventor of possibily one-upping an educated scientist or engineer. People that are not educated feel the need to take the educated down a notch, because of feeling inferior to them. I have heard countless stories from technicians who insist the engineers are idiots, who hasn't heard such things?

A degree is not a label for being correct or useful, it is just a step in one's education. It is vital to have this sort of thing because of how we face design problems.

If one were to approach a problem that involved a little bit of chemistry, are they going to read an entire chemistry book cover to cover to solve the problem? No. They will cherry-pick the information needed to solve their problem and be done with it. This is the difference between the self-taught and the force-taught! Not in a million-years would I, willingly, read a text cover to cover to solve a single problem. It would be profoundly inefficient and the design would probably never get done. It is the fact that academic institutions force you to read all of the fundamentals, whether you like it or find it useful or not, it happens.

Steve

 

That's a good point Steve Meyers and I lack a wide background in physics, chemistry, and electricity. My degree is in psychology!

Also thanks for the constructive information...

Now about this resonance thing -- does voltage increase in a resonant condition of an LC circuit?

I think thats what the resonance is really good for. A super high voltage field will pull the dipolar water molecule apart with very little effort, and from a long distance.

The water actually stores the charge, which is why we get a step charging effect. Each consecutive pulse is timed to coincide with the oscillations, and subsequently adds energy to the system, until at which point "catastrophic breakdown of the water molecule" ensues. Meyers is adamant about this point, where the cell, acting as a water capacitor, shorts out, and then is recharged, hundreds of times per second. The result is seamless production of HHO gas, formed not just at the electrodes but BETWEEN the electrodes, unlike conventional electrolysis. A blue aura is also present at times.

I found a great article about the effect of pressure changes and how it bends water molecules, presumably making them easier to fracture.

 

Now about this resonance thing -- does voltage increase in a resonant condition of an LC circuit?

No, not over the voltage that's supplied to a resonant tank LC circuit.

I think thats what the resonance is really good for. A super high voltage field will pull the dipolar water molecule apart with very little effort, and from a long distance.

The water is the dielectric between the plates of opposite polarity.

Water at room temperature has a dielectic constant of around 78 at room temperature. Air, oxygen, hydrogen, all have a dielectric constant very slightly above 1.

A series LC circuit behaves quite differently from a tank LC circuit. Using "theoretically ideal" components (no parasitics), a series LC circuit would have an impedance of zero at resonance, whereas a tank (parallel) LC circuit would have an infinite impedance at resonance; basically presenting an open circuit to the driver. Therefore, maximum voltage would be observed across the tank circuit.

One big problem you would have if you DID manage to start producing oxygen and hydrogen gas using a resonant LC circuit where the C was comprised soley of the plates and water dielectric in the tank, is that as soon as hydrogen and oxygen gasses started to form, the overall value of the dielectric would decrease, which decreases the value of capacitance, resulting in a change (increase) in the resonant frequency of the cell.

Capacitance(uF) = dielectric_constant * 8.854E-6 * plate_area(square_meters) / plate_seperation(meters)

A pair of 1 square meter plates placed 7.62mm from each other, seperated by a dielectric of pure water at room temperature, would have a capacitance value of about 91nF (0.091uF). This would not be practical for a gas generation cell, as the path for gas escape would be a long one.

If there were or is some "magic" disassociation frequency or set of frequencies, then there would have to be a method to automatically decrease the L porportionately to the decrease in C when the gas was being generated, in order to maintain resonance.

 

Thanks for the tips wook, I'll study them and get back to you. Here's a file I grabbed back in Feb. When I first heard about Meyers, I went on a internet searching spree, downloading everything that looked halfway relevant. Can anyone help decode this?

 

Can anyone help decode this?

It's garbage.

Designed to confuse, not to illustrate any sort of meaningful operation.

"A26" is not any IC that I know of. Unless it's a reference designator on a list of parts, it's meaningless.

No values are given for either R nor C; not even reference designators.

 

Sgtwookie,

A26 looks like it may be a one-shot with an adjustment for the pulse width.

hgmjr

 

The same is true for all 11 illos out of his "international" patent application. It is significantly more detailed than his US patent #4,963,961, but every bit as meaningless.

As I recall, someone asserted that the nature of that patent meant that a working device has to have been submitted. That is hardly the case with this document. It could be a fake, although I won't assert that very hard.

The reason I suspect it is phoney is that every illo is without part designators (no resistors numbers, etc) and there is no accompanying list of components. The schematics are, therefore, meaningless.

I may be guilty of basing my evaluation of my own experience and every other legitimate patent I have gone through, but in every case, these details are absolutely required. His US patent dodges by having no schematics - it is simply a statement of principle. I cannot see how a patent can be issued covering a specific device where no detail as to components are included.

Meyer's stuff seems to have been edited pretty heavily - no as to incoherent content, but the schematics have been grossly altered. If we are to take the meaningless schematics included with the international patent as indicitive of Meyer's work, how can we understand the subsequent schematics with dual 555,s or the other one with an LM324? They are a gross variance with Meyer's first schematics, which have the component values omitted to keep up the mystery.

My feeling is that Meyer had absolutely no knowledge of electronics, and that the schematics I refer to are simply a collection of almost random circuits. Notice that most have only a transistor or two. One may include a 555 timer, and another may have a PLL. To see these other devices with component values and mostly IC's is not consistent. In 1992, at the time of the international patent, the 555 and LM324 were already obsolete technology. To have gone from discrete amps to all IC's in two years and to have completely changed drawing style and organization surpasses belief.

It looks to me as if some of the munchkins have been busy behind the scenes, chumming the waters to draw in more of the credulous. Try reading through the memos available on the Orion Project site. None of them even get to the level of schematics. They just throw out grandiose ideas about liberating electrons and such. No electronics at all.

So, I may not be able to prove the negative case, but I can point out that somebody has pretty obviously been fooling around with Meyer's work, and not to actually get something working. If you imagine any of this stuff can be made to work, you simply are being led by the nose.

If anyone want to check out the stuff I refer to, just read back through some of the threads. There are links there that I am too lazy to pull out. I don't think the believers actually read them, and I am also pretty sure they don't care to follow my conclusions.