Dave

One idea is to pulse the electrons, as you have already stated. It might be possible to group electrons together in packets with space in between each packet. This way the electrons don't need to stop at any point and the field will appear nonuniform. Apparently, creating these packets is common in particle accelerator.

Another idea is to actually try to create a potential across a conductor and try to get the free electrons to flow through it. I mean create a potential by pushing a mass of electrons against one end and forcing electrons away from the other end. So just like any normal circuit except powered by free electrons under the force of an electric field.

Ok, I'll give it a shot. and I agree, from the model I created, we only need to capture a small amount of the magnetic field to make up for the applied electric field.

I'll post back after I'm done with class today and have gathered my thoughts.

I like the xray machine idea!!! hahah

I see two different ways to remove energy from the system. But like I said, I'm not finished developing the ideas so I will post after I close the holes in my theories.

Have any ideas?

well you should note however that it would only do no work for a homogeneous electric field, you don't need high powered math since the displacement integral is zero the work is zero very simple... these days I have been working on a system that gets energy out of the E field now the hard stuff is how to get that energy out say you accelerate electrons without energy cost and the total kinetic energy is increased how do you get energy out wihout thermal loses to make overunity?

yes, only from a uniform electric field. No work being performed is the beauty of it because we still are moving something for nothing.

That is the question! how to get the energy out. The electrons are being accelerated with no energy consumption and since they are in motion they create a magnetic field. But the magnetic field created by the electrons is also uniform so we can't induce a current in a coil. If we can just tweak it enough to create something like a non uniform field we could capture the energy. I have a few ideas but I have not developed them far enough yet

also, I was talking to some guys on a physics forum that work with particle accelerators and apparently they can pick up some rf fields from the accelerated particles in a near by coil.

Meyer clearly stated that we can indeed use electric fields to perform work if the amps are restricted but what is the meaning of this.

What if you could use the electric field force to sort ions from the air for example?

I had this idea when i tried to think about a sequential ionizer to get millions of volts applied...

when you consider the electric field lines of force you get that positive ions would go in one direction and negative ones in the other direction, but when they arrive at the electrode nothing impeeds it from discharging...

I mean if you had two metallic electrodes the ions can exchange charges with them and consume power and we don't want that.

For example you get plastic tube in form of T, and there air is forced to get in from the middle, and you put an electric field at both exits, but with an insulated electrode not a metallic only... with that you set up an electric field across both exit of gas, well it seems to me that at one side positive ions only should exit and on the other side negative ions... well if you than pass this charged ions into a metallic tube you could collect their electricity right?

My post above this one was meant for the first part of your post. I must of mist the rest

Sounds like a great idea! I wonder how many free ions there are in the air. Also, It seems to me that the Ions would stick to the insulated electrodes rather than passing out the end of the tube. So maybe you would have to discharge the field before they would oxidize and reduce with other electrodes to collect their energy?



You have got me thinking about what Stan talks about when he says voltage performing work. It seems to me that no matter how much you restrict amp flow the voltage drop will never be across the cell. If amp flow is restricted, the cell doesn't gain resistance.  So it will never act like a true capacitor. What I'm think is that the electrons that move through the water have a lot of energy at a high voltage so there electric field will be strong and have an effect on the water without having a voltage drop. The net effect would be a high energy wave moving through the water with very little power lost to the cells resistance. So, the electric force of the electrons are performing work on the water  The voltage drop is across the inductors.


Sorry if this is off topic, I guess its still about the electric force performing work.

Exactly!!!! 

In the epg, all we would need is a charged gas or liquid. We can move these with an electric field alone. Since moving charged particles have a magnetic field we could induce a current in a coil.

I've been working on this concept for some time now. Hydrogen might be a good choice to ionize. An electron emitter might do the trick. Really any of the halogens would be some what stable also. One thing I can't figure out is how long the gas would last.

we could argue Well if you could bent a waterfall in such manner as to make the water to take this different path because of the field this mean it won a velocity in the horizontal direction for say, than where this same velocity came from? is the same velocity it has before but just in another direction.... i guess thats why work is zero... to make the water change its path it used the attraction force from the lines of force to reduce the speed in one direction and converting in other direction..

Thank you for that explanation. I'm not entirely convinced that no work is being performed but cosine of 90 is 0.  My own understanding of physics will have to grow before I am satisfied. So maybe in this situation their really isn't any work. I'm wondering if the equation has limitations because its classical physics but I don't know enough to get into that. Anyway, i think the result of no work is specific to the example.

Your explanation did make me wonder if i could find other examples without this limitation I came across this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2005/jul/26/electric-fields-move-water-droplets

It wasn't exactly what I was expecting but still very interesting! They are using parallel uniform fields to propel the water molecule.

Hello Dave

Actually those are not actual photons being emitted, its said that the electric or magnetic forces acts by exchange of virtual photons.

if you bend the ater stream, its not the electric field that is doing ork its only changing its path. Its the same for a moving charge in magnetic field being used this  don't discharge the magnet but the trajectory is bent anyway...

The concept of ork means force applied for a distance... in the case of the stream...

Did you considered this?

Yes the photons are not the same as the one emitted from a bulb or the sun.

But I would not call the force carrying photons virtual. They are bundles of energy or a quanta. So a charged object emits these packets of energy without discharging. This is the part that seems so amazing to me.

In physics, a force is said to do work when it acts on a body so that there is a displacement of the point of application, however small, in the direction of the force. Thus a force does work when it results in movement.

So a change in direction toward the force is still work in my opinion. If an electroscope is charged by the field alone the leaves will repel each other. They both move. Work is done and the object that charged the electroscope still has the same charge.

I see many people with 8xa and 9xa circuits producing gas who don't seem to be taking any measurements. The excuse is always "I need to improve on the circuit and its probably still just electrolysis". In order to move forward, gas measurements should be recorded and compared to a predict gas output by electrolysis.

Measuring the gas:

Some people are using flow meters and others use water displacement with a liter bottle. Flow meters are not designed for hho so using them might not be accurate and the small value of gas might present other limitations. Water displacement is the way to go. Whenever I've measure various gas production from any reaction in lab, we use water displacement but with an appropriate measurement devices such as a graduated cylinder on a ring stand. A picture of my home made measurement device will be attached.

Comparing gas output between a Stan Meyer set up of some kind and general electrolysis does not have to account for general efficiency to show that a different process than just electrolysis is taking place, in fact, general efficiency should be disregarded when the goal is simple to detect a different process then electrolysis. That being said, the calculations bellow will be most helpful in comparing what I have described and not just a brute force electrolysis efficiency test which faraday equations can be easily used.


To compare your setups output to normal electrolysis, record a gas sample over time and the current going into the cell form your Meyer circuit and dc electrolysis. Voltage can be disregard because this is not for general efficiency.

For example,  with your Stan Meyer set up, you have 1 amp into the cell and you take a gas measurements for 30 seconds.

Step #1.
covert amps over time into total electrons that moved through the circuit. 1 amp in one second is one coulomb and a coulomb = 6.24x10^18 electrons.
Since the gas measurements was taken over 30 seconds it will be 6.24x10^18 (e-) * 30s = 1.872x10^20 electrons in total. Since we know for every two electrons that pass through the circuit, we create two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, we know that we created 1.872x10^20 hydrogen atoms and 9.36x10^19 oxygen atoms. Since oxygen and hydrogen both exist as H2 and O2, the amounts of atoms are then divided by two to find the total number of element. This step is necessary for a later equation.
so, H2=9.36x10^19  and O2=4.68x10^19

Step#2)
Covert to moles. One mole is equal to 6.022x10^23 which is Avogadros number. ( 1 mole of H2 = 6.0022x10^23 H2 molecules)
9.36x10^19/ 6.022x10^23 =1.554x10^-4 mol H2
4.68x10^19/6.022x10^23 = 7.772x10^-5 mol O2

Step #3)
Solving for volume. To solve for volume of the gas created, we can use the ideal gas law which is V=nRT/p
V=volume
n=moles
R=gas constant of .0821
C= temp. in kelvin. We will use 273k assuming standard conditions
P=pressure in atm. We will use 1 atm assuming standard conditions

The formula must be adapted to account for both gases. V=RT/p*(nA+nB)
So Volume=.0821*273k/1atm*(1.554x10^-4mol H2 +7.772x10^-5 mol O2)
Predicted Volume = 5.225x10^-3L hho or 5.225ml hho

that is only for one cell, so for example, I have 8 cells in series, so the output will be 5.225ml*8= 49.80ml hho produced in 30 seconds with 1 amp input to the cell. Find the percent error between your calculated value and the experimental gas volume collected from ordinary dc electrolysis to see how accurate your measurements are. Now you will have something to compare your gas measurements using your Meyer circuit with. Remember, your calculated values of gas volume must use the same amperage as your measurement at the cell of your Meyer circuit for the values to be comparable.

If you can manage to produce more gas with your Meyer circuit then what is predicted by electrolysis, you have just collected experimental evidence that something else is taking place and you can then work to improve it/ share your findings

Description of measurement apparatus: On upside down graduated cylinder with a valve can be moved up and down the wood rod. To fill the graduated cylinder, the valve is opened and the cylinder is moved into the water. Then the valve us closed and the cylinder is raised and filled with water and ready to be displaced by hho.

I hope this helps someone, I am also know to make mistakes so if I made a calculation error, please let me know so I can fix it.