The Roy Meyers Absorber

The device is remarkable for its utter simplicity. It was invented by Roy J. Meyers and patented in 1913. He called it an "Absorber". It has an interesting history...

Robert A Nelson writes:

Almost 100 years ago, Meyers served a 3-1/2 year sentence in the Arizona state prison at Florence. Before his incarceration, he had already invented an improved trolley wheel head that prevented it from jumping off the wire. While he was imprisoned, he was inspired to invent a device that would draw electricity from the atmosphere. He conferred with Superintendent Sims and Parole Clerk Sanders, and convinced them to give him the opportunity to develop his idea in a wooden shed on the grounds of the penitentiary. Within a few weeks, using easily available materials (chrome steel magnets and iron wire), he constructed the first crude working model, and used it to spark the gas engines of the prison's pump house. His second model developed 8 volts.

Miss Kate Barnard, who was State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections of Oklahoma, was a guest of Superintendent Sims at the time, and she saw the machine in operation. Miss Barnard was so impressed by it and by Meyers' essential integrity (despite the lapse that had gotten him imprisoned) that she told the story of Roy Meyers when later she appeared before the Arizona legislature to address them concerning prison reform. The legislature and Governor Hunt were convinced to grant Meyers an unsupervised leave of absence for 30 days to travel to Washington DC in order to apply for a patent.

Meyers gave this account of his trip:

"When I arrived in Washington and laid my plans before the patent office experts, they merely smiled and told me that I would have to build a model and demonstrate my claims --- that it seemed strange that I, unknown as I am in the electrical world, should have accomplished the things for which Edison, Tesla and other experts have been striving for years.
"They could not grasp the meaning of my drawings nor the explanation I tried to make to them. There was little time to spare, as I had only 20 days left of my leave, but I set to work in a few days was able to take a crude model around to the patent office to make a demonstration.
"Arriving at the patent office I telephoned to a friend who had been so kind as to introduce me and aid me in reaching the proper officials. The absorber was hoisted on two short poles and made to work. While they were as yet unable to understand the principles involved and hardly willing to believe their eyes, they were forced to admit that I had something new and different, and they told me that there would be no further objection; that I might file my application without further delay.
(Technology
World Magazine, 1912)

I have tracked down the patent and already published it here in the forum in an earlier post. This is my analysis:

     Meyers shows two embodiments in his patent. A basic version that is said to work and a more sophisticated version, somewhat different in design. The drawings in the patent are rather crude and untidy and because of this difficult to understand. I have created new graphics that show more clearly what is involved.

They are attached below.

The diagram is self explanatory. Meyers says nothing about the length of iron wire between the magnets though they do not seem to be critical and can be quite short, say 3 or 4 feet. Alignment with the earth's magnetic field is essential within a few degrees. It does not have to be perfect. The device is said to work better if somewhat elevated but it is a difference in performance, not workability.

In this device we see a departure from the original layout. The left hand side shows the "antenna" in diagrammatic form, the left is the rectifier circuit as schematic.

The "antenna" can be used on its own or as part of an array. The units (as drawn) can be arranged horizontally, vertically or both. The zinc plates should be folded as shown and arranged with "their mouths open" towards North and South. It does not matter which way the magnets face, South to magnetic North or South to magnetic South, the effect is the same. The zinc plate circuit must be electrically insulated from the magnet circuit.

The rectifier circuit is a standard bridge rectifier with a difference. In the patent Meyer uses mercury vapour valves but states that other elements can be used. What makes the circuit different are his "intensifiers?" which consist of bifilar wound coils wound on an insulating coil former or a steel tube. I am not an electronics engineer but I would venture to suggest that the coils, wired as shown, would act as a condenser rather than a coil. If substituting the coils with condensers would give the same effect I cannot say at this stage.

Comments:

The first thing that comes to mind is Meyer's unorthodox use of magnetism. He insists that his wires are magnetic conductors such as iron wire and then connects them to a point on his magnets where there is no magnetism.

Let us have a closer look at his Antenna...

It is well known that if you join two magnets they become one. Similarly if you cut a magnet in half you will not get one south magnet and one north magnet but two magnets with south and north each. By joining the two magnets with an iron bridge they become one as in the diagram above.

Now let us have a look at the magnetic fields of his two designs...

This is where my analysis of Meyer's device becomes speculative. Meyer is evidently connecting the neutral zones between the poles of his magnets with a magnetic conductor. It is as if he is creating some sort of  "neutral channel". He is clearly expecting the flow he is channelling to have at least partly a magnetic nature. This flow would have to be perpendicular to the magnetic flux of the magnets because this is where the channel is.

If Helmholtz is right with his assertion this is exactly the kind of place where the phenomenon he talks about is likely to occur.
We know Helmholtz invented the Helmholtz coil. It is shown below.

There is some odd behaviour associated with this coil arrangement when the coils are moved to a specific distance from each other. Perhaps he discovered something strange there. From a magnetism point of view there is no difference between the coils and Meyer's magnet. The arrangement is the same.

In the Helmholtz device as in the Meyer device something strange occurs at the midpoint.

See: Faraday Disc