Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 486613
  • *Total Topics: 14312
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 178
  • *Total: 183

Facebook

Author Topic: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"  (Read 14703 times)

Offline Cherryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2016, 10:51:31 AM »
Hey Watts

Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates.  Recommended pumping water through earlier.

What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid?

Mags


This reminds me of a ( i think) Japanese professor a few years back.
Not sure he did it to release the bubbles easier, but he had good production.
I searched for the little clip, but can not find it anymore.


His setup was vertical, plates stacked above each other, only connected on one side , so the plates had a little freedom to resonate.








Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2016, 10:51:31 AM »

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2016, 01:23:56 PM »
Brad, because the cell plate spacing is very small, the conductivity of the tap water is high enough to cause a large current at relatively small voltages. Tap water I've tested has a conductivity of around 200 microSiemens.  So you are basically doing normal electrolysis. Low V and high current. You need to start diluting the tap water with distilled water from the supermarket. This will allow you to pass much higher voltages for the same current.  The distilled water is demineralized but it will conduct some current because it is not ultra pure. For that you need 18 meg water which is even more demineralized and degassed as carbon dioxide from the air very quickly dissolves in it and conducts as it becomes carbonic acid. Even then , the 18 meg water conducts a very tiny amount because water molecules disassociate into H+ and OH- in a very small extent naturally and will conduct with a resistivity of 18megaohms cm  , hence the name of the ultra pure water.  I've briefly tested 18M water for insulation by trying to pass about 50KV through a 20cm column and could not get a spark out of the other end, although the small Tesla coil was capable of 1.5 inch sparks. The supermarket water should be plenty good enough for most tests.


Ed, have you been able to produce more moles of gas per mole of electrons as predicted by Faraday using your setup, based on a single cell ? If so do you have some examples of avg current ,time, gas volume at room temp and pressure and number of cell plates?


Cheers Pomo.

Hi Pomo

This is the low voltage/high current test. I am using KOH as an Elite ATM.

These tests are to get a base line efficiency of the cell,in standard HHO production methods.

When we switch to the high voltage setup,i will be using rain water.


Brad


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2016, 01:31:02 PM »
@h2Opower

Please resample your image size before you post, or edit your posts with small resampled images.

@TinMan

One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.

Remember your last data shows lower efficiency with higher amps, because at higher amps the space between the plates that is
supposed to be filled with H2O is over-satured by gas bubbles that lowers the "conductivity" thus at higher amps this problem
grows more then the gas.

Question: Above inter-plate spacing, did you first do test with two plates where you can vary the space in between while you
check gas output at a given feed source. If this is not done, how do you know the spacing is optimal. Again your last data shows
there could be a missed variable - that is the same higher amps at higher plate spacing. Just to say, there are many factors
indeed.

Yes the physical vibrating helps but I bet H2O volume change is even more important. If you can keep the water always moving
you should increase gas production in the topology of your build. If you fill the cell with water, then empty the water into a
measuring cup this will give you the volume. then your water pump can be for 1, 2 or 3 volumes changes per let's say one
minute.

Also, maybe this is too simplistic but the idea of what if you had two transformers, one at 180 degrees off phase, both rectified
then connected to your cells as follows;

Use Variac as AC in too both transformers in parallel.......
1st Transformer after rectified connect negative to center plate and positive to the end plates.
2nd Transformer after rectified connect negative to the end plates and positive to the center plate.

Last thing, I grabbed an image on my Hydrogen 2 video and explain an alternative to how the gas is actually made. This method
would mean there is no electron being cascaded anywhere as @ramset had referred to that article of "how conductivity happens
in water". Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts. This would be major shift from the standard
physics explanations. I could provide more detail that would give guys some fresh angles.

wattsup

I wonder, what if a small the water pump was gas run. hehehe

Hey wattsup.

Thanks for all your input into this experiment.

What i want to do first,is get to the point of the HV HHO production setup,and then you guys can judge for your self,as to what is taking place.

But lets think about your statement -Quote:Basically, it's the minerals that have an affinity for "electrified" plates that dart towards the plate so fast that they go
straight line and cut a micro stream, of fractured H2O into their constituent parts.


Lets say that you are on the money here.
What happens to the speed of these minerals,when a high voltage pulse is sent between each plate?.
What happens to the speed of the electron,when the voltage potential is increased?.


Brad

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2016, 05:48:36 AM »
@TinMan

One possible way to increase production. If you can find a small aquarium pump X in the direction shown then the return line Y
raised to the left red arrow (or an internal baffle), this will increase the volume change and remove bubbles quicker thus
establishing or maintaining a higher saturation of water between the plates.

The cell must be allowed to draw in it's own water.  If you force water through the cell with an external pump then you'll destroy the process.  You can use the basic concepts of a simple "air lift" to allow the cell to naturally draw in it's own water without the use of an external pump. 

Gravock


Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2016, 06:07:55 AM »

Electrolysis of water
US 4726888 A

The combination of high voltage/low amperage plates arranged perpendicularly to low voltage/high amperage electrodes in a box-like formation is deemed to provide a synergistic effect, particularly where the high voltage, but low current is applied to the small but significantly more numerous anode/cathode plates 14 and 16. The arrangement of this relatively small high voltage plates, parallel to each other, provides an extremely large surface area for transfer of ions between anode and cathode and for the carrying out of the electrolytic process.

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2016, 06:07:55 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2016, 07:01:09 AM »
The cell must be allowed to draw in it's own water.  If you move water through the cell with a pump then you'll destroy the process.  You can use a simple "air lift" to allow the cell to draw in it's own water without a pump. 

Gravock


This isn't fully true what you have said here and here is the reason why. We have to learn a new scale and that scale will be the voltage to water breakdown rate. Once we learn this new rate we can start to calculate what voltage we need to be at to breakdown a given amount of water per unit time. You see the game has changed as we are no longer seeking the old Dr. Faraday style electrolysis but the new voltage dissociation of the water molecules. This new rate of water dissociation by voltage level has yet to be learned by any of us, myself included, for we are dealing with a new form of water dissociation that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.


I have ran test that show when a pump is used it seems to mess up the process but as I reached higher and higher voltages I noticed the process restabilzes and things go back to normal. Just think of the new math all that want to understand this technology will have to learn to be able to predict the amount of water per injection cycle voltage breakdown rate? This is the primary reason why anyone that has made the injectors haven't gotten it to work at all as they jump ahead too far and have no idea just what they are dealing with and to be at that level one has to fully understand the technology first so that all the necessary calculations can be made before the thing is built. They have no idea what the spring tension pressure should be set at and the list of what they don't know or understand yet goes on and on.


The way I took to this technology was to learn it through and through and I still have much to learn. This is how I know what you are saying is true for normal electrolysis but untrue for the voltage breakdown of the water molecules as there is a new rate that we need to figure out. The hard part is reaching the necessary voltage levels to ionize the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules while they are in the liquid state of water. Trust me when I tell you thus far it hasn't been easy figuring out just how to go about placing a high voltage potential difference directly to the plates of the resonant cavities while they are submersed in water. Most people have only been able to reach 5-10 volts with Meyer's setup and they quickly give up or start going back to the old ways trying to push a bunch of current. It is the all or nothing nature of this technology which discourages people as many are like Max Miller and just want to see bubbles by any means necessary and thus will start pushing amps again just to make some bubbles come out of the resonant cavities.


When this voltage dissociation of the water molecules takes place it doesn't look like electrolysis at all as the water looks as if it is boiling, EI, large bubbles coming out of the resonant cavities with very few fine bubbles that would be seen and/or associated with normal electrolysis. Professor Paulz who is an eye witness to Meyer's technology in action described what he saw saying, "it practically boils the water." Now someone with that high of an education knows the difference between the way electrolysis looks compared to that of boiling water. I simply used these eye witnesses accounts of what they saw to know if I was doing things the right way or not. Once I got the effect of very little small bubbles I knew I was heading down the right track.


So, know that there is a new rate of reaction we have to learn about as this technology is something that is new thus will have a lot of new things we will have to learn, okay? I am not coming down on you but just letting you know this technology is something different than standard electrolysis.


Ed

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2016, 07:25:59 AM »

This isn't fully true what you have said here and here is the reason why. We have to learn a new scale and that scale will be the voltage to water breakdown rate. Once we learn this new rate we can start to calculate what voltage we need to be at to breakdown a given amount of water per unit time. You see the game has changed as we are no longer seeking the old Dr. Faraday style electrolysis but the new voltage dissociation of the water molecules. This new rate of water dissociation by voltage level has yet to be learned by any of us, myself included, for we are dealing with a new form of water dissociation that is outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.


I have ran test that show when a pump is used it seems to mess up the process but as I reached higher and higher voltages I noticed the process restabilzes and things go back to normal. Just think of the new math all that want to understand this technology will have to learn to be able to predict the amount of water per injection cycle voltage breakdown rate? This is the primary reason why anyone that has made the injectors haven't gotten it to work at all as they jump ahead too far and have no idea just what they are dealing with and to be at that level one has to fully understand the technology first so that all the necessary calculations can be made before the thing is built. They have no idea what the spring tension pressure should be set at and the list of what they don't know or understand yet goes on and on.


The way I took to this technology was to learn it through and through and I still have much to learn. This is how I know what you are saying is true for normal electrolysis but untrue for the voltage breakdown of the water molecules as there is a new rate that we need to figure out. The hard part is reaching the necessary voltage levels to ionize the electrons of the atoms that make up the water molecules while they are in the liquid state of water. Trust me when I tell you thus far it hasn't been easy figuring out just how to go about placing a high voltage potential difference directly to the plates of the resonant cavities while they are submersed in water. Most people have only been able to reach 5-10 volts with Meyer's setup and they quickly give up or start going back to the old ways trying to push a bunch of current. It is the all or nothing nature of this technology which discourages people as many are like Max Miller and just want to see bubbles by any means necessary and thus will start pushing amps again just to make some bubbles come out of the resonant cavities.


When this voltage dissociation of the water molecules takes place it doesn't look like electrolysis at all as the water looks as if it is boiling, EI, large bubbles coming out of the resonant cavities with very few fine bubbles that would be seen and/or associated with normal electrolysis. Professor Paulz who is an eye witness to Meyer's technology in action described what he saw saying, "it practically boils the water." Now someone with that high of an education knows the difference between the way electrolysis looks compared to that of boiling water. I simply used these eye witnesses accounts of what they saw to know if I was doing things the right way or not. Once I got the effect of very little small bubbles I knew I was heading down the right track.


So, know that there is a new rate of reaction we have to learn about as this technology is something that is new thus will have a lot of new things we will have to learn, okay? I am not coming down on you but just letting you know this technology is something different than standard electrolysis.


Ed

It doesn't matter what the rate of reaction is if you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the method I showed.  If the rate of reaction increases, then the flow of water moving through the cell will naturally increase.  If the rate of reaction decreases, then the water flowing through the cell will naturally decrease.  The water flow through the cell is self-regulating according to the rate of the reaction.  More HHO production equals more water flow through the cell.  Less HHO production equals less water flow through the cell.  The "new rate of reaction" you speak of is totally meaningless when you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the amount of HHO production the cell is generating.  The water flow through the cell is naturally linked to the rate of the reaction!  There's no need for additional energy to run an external pump!  IMO, the best way is to let the cell naturally pump it's own water according to the rate of HHO production.

Gravock

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2016, 07:25:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2016, 08:06:16 AM »
Ionization


High voltages stimulate the hydronium/hydroxide cycle.
During which free hydrogen+ ions are released.


Some systems take advantage of this in conjunction with
Specific frequency responses of water. Similar to the way a
Microwave works.
Efficiency curves indicate that an increase in temperature and pressure
allow for ionization to take place at a lower molecular voltage.

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2593
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2016, 03:59:19 PM »
Hey Watts
Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates.  Recommended pumping water through earlier. What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid? Mags

@Magluvin
I just aligned a stand mounted camcorder on the eyepiece of the microscope.
I put some photos here to not junk @TinMan's thread.
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/hydrogen/

@Tinman

So I won't really talk about the electron because for me it no longer exists. Makes life so much easier.

OK, High Voltage is what? Answer that first then ask if it will help in HHO plates. So here is my take.

Let's say you had a primary coil that had 5000 turns. You apply 100 volts across it. The conveyance barely reached the 200th turn and the secondary output is just really bad. You increase the voltage to 200 volts but half the amps. Wow now you are at the 400th turn. So the more you increase your voltage the "deeper"  you will convey or change your effect into this very long primary coil of wire. But too much and you're wasting juice. Put 10000 volts across that same primary and you will get coil bypass, where the impulse just jumps across layers of winding instead of following the given winding path.

Let's say if you send 100 volts at 50 amps into a #10 wire. After the pulse if you took a copper atom survey, let's imagine that 80% of them will say "I felt it". So they felt it even if they reacted by conveying the wrong way and against others that are trying to reach a rhythm. Now send 10000 volts at .001 amp. After the pulse if you again surveyed the atoms, 90% will say "What the hell are you talking about and 10% will say "I felt it off and on". The high voltage can only send a thin thin stream of conveyance across that fat wire.

As you know, at higher voltages Tesla coils send arcs through air so it can go deeper not only in the length of wire but also in air. 750KV in wire will convey electricity from James Bay to Montreal. So in one way Voltage can be equated to distance.

So for a square metal plate to be energized by high voltage will just produce a dancing thin streamer and wherever it dances, you will momentarily attract minerals that will shoot through the water and fracture it into two gasses. Regardless of the method, the minerals are the blades, the water is the fruit and the pulsed plate is the blender. The blades in this case are not attached to a drive motor but are attracted to action while in the water medium where a two gas fracture is the "side effect". Like when you pulse a base that has a beaker of water on it with a small magnet in the beaker that rotates to the impulse of the base.

So I think HV is OK but under one condition. Test the same high voltage with a simple air gap and see how far you can separate the gap before you loose the spark. Then use that distance minus a smidgen in only a two plate system, positive and negative. That would be the starting point. The advantage of HV is distance so why confine it in such short spaces as the spaces between your existing plates. The more distance means more water is exposed to the effect of mineral attraction, more distance those minerals can shoot through the water before colliding with the plate thus should produce more gas.

You can try HV with close up plates but I can imagine it will be overkill. Maybe if you had 100 plates or more in a row (distance), but so close together and you will still oversaturate the chambers with bubbles so you still will need that pump I talked about to move crap out of there elle speedy. Nothing will help the main topology overcome its checkmates more then flow rate. I personally do not like the closed environment of those cells. You can use 1% of 10 square feet or 10% of 1 square foot and do the same thing. I think the effect if understood can be controlled much better then the happenstance occurring inside those cells.

What happens is the gas production needs to be looked at as rising and falling slope over time. When the pulse is on, it should stay on for a given period where the virgin water is ready to split with maximum production but as the process is engendered, the gasses themselves produce areas of reduced resistance to the pull force of the impulse of the plates on the minerals would then be directly colliding with the plates producing heat then if they are shooting through dense water to produce more fractured atoms so gas production goes down. If the situation persists, you will arrive at an rms production level that is less then when first started. This is where we are today.

And yes, a water pump may create a situation where the flow rate is too high, the minerals that are fighting to shoot perpendicular towards the plates are now also carried by the flow so their direction is now more parallel to the plate. The water flow will create plate surface tensions that can keep new minerald from approaching the plate at full speed hence may result in less gas. But then to fix those problems you would need to design new plate surfaces that will increase gas production with water flow that then both work together to produce and remove bubbles from the pack ASAP. But I still think closed plate cells are not the answer. Since water is not compressible, it is immediately reactive to any flow force that will push water though the complete cell at the same flow. So one way to do this is to
turn on the water pump only when the plate impulse is off. Produce-Move Out-Produce-Move out.

But the answer I am trying to show is not in the "electron" you think is responsible for the effect. This is all purely atomic physical cause and effects, all factors confounded, water chemistry, mineral types (blender blade models), static or dynamic flow, plate surfaces and pulse voltage, amps and frequency, straight peak pulsing versus sweeped rise and fall pulsing and we can go on and on. I think the main point to retain is if you can expand your vision of how gas is produced, this will eventually translate into wanting to manipulate more variables in your R&D. If all you think about is "electrons" do it, then you are left with little impetus to use the physical topology to augment the output results.

I think the best results will be designs that cut the gas exit times to its minimum possible, meaning the gas should be produced at or just below the surface water line where bubbles are made and reach the top gas pocket right away. If bubbles need to rise in vertical plate spaces, the effect quickly becomes counter productive and totally lost to any betterment save the possible simple or more creative use of flow rate, internal flow baffles to reduce dead zones but basically all attempts to reduce the bad effects of the given topology which in general should have all been anticipated before a build.

The problem I see with HHO production is you are creating a very isolated source of gasses but then let buoyancy and randomness to output it from that point of creation. So I will work on a even newer design alternative just to show what I am thinking about as a more natural method one can analog to a natural gas/water producing phenomena know as geysers. Geysers shoot out sporadically. They build up gas pressure that can overcome the head of water on top of it then shoot out the gas at the critical level thus reintroducing new water that takes up the space of the released pocket. So something that will overspill its top rim where the gas bubble would be released into an upper pocket while the non-fractured  water falls down from the top rim to be returned to the reaction chamber, etc. Let me work on it.

What interests me the most of this HHO business is that if after all this exercise you guys can open up to only one factor, to stop pushing electron science into very damn thing that goes on in OU research and return to the physical causal effect base of nature, then the world will really open for all of us and discoveries, which are normal observation of natural effects by physical atoms will push us way past this stalemate we are living through right now. Yeh yeh, we are good at making snazzier toys, always more complex, more features, but still chock full of the losses we are used too.

wattsup

Offline Acca

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2016, 08:02:26 PM »
You might be interested in this as you have written such a long and a very nice POST !! thanks ..

Acca...

 http://overunity.com/16579/bike-runs-on-water-100-no-gasoline-microwave-pulse-generator-water-split/msg497183/#new
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2016, 08:02:26 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #85 on: December 14, 2016, 09:13:35 PM »
It doesn't matter what the rate of reaction is if you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the method I showed.  If the rate of reaction increases, then the flow of water moving through the cell will naturally increase.  If the rate of reaction decreases, then the water flowing through the cell will naturally decrease.  The water flow through the cell is self-regulating according to the rate of the reaction.  More HHO production equals more water flow through the cell.  Less HHO production equals less water flow through the cell.  The "new rate of reaction" you speak of is totally meaningless when you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the amount of HHO production the cell is generating.  The water flow through the cell is naturally linked to the rate of the reaction!  There's no need for additional energy to run an external pump!  IMO, the best way is to let the cell naturally pump it's own water according to the rate of HHO production.

Gravock




I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.


Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?


These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.


You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works. These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?


I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.


Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.


Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.


Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.


We can do this,
Ed

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2016, 07:36:13 AM »



I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.


Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?


These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.


You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works. These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?


I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.


Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.


Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.


Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.


We can do this,
Ed

Yes, the voltage to water breakdown rate is totally meaningless in regards to the flow rate of water through the cell!  Please don't take what I previously said out-of-context and throw a broad blanket over it.  In a publication titled, "High Voltage Water Breakdown Studies", by the Defense Special Weapons Agency, says "The flow rate of the water was varied between 126 ml/s and 630 ml/s with no significant effect seen on EBD or teff. He did observe a difference in the breakdown site on the electrode with a difference in flow rate. The breakdown region intended to be more localized when there was no flow as oppose to a more generalized breakdown region with the higher flow rate".  This more generalized breakdown region is the same reason why a pump was suggested to be used in the first place.

I suggest you do some research on gas vapor engines.  This technology isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If we can produce enough Hydrogen on demand efficiently and/or find an efficient and safe storage method, then everything else is simple.

Gravock


Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2593
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2016, 03:30:44 PM »
@gravityblock

So that is exactly as I had predicted without such info in hand since there is no other explanation. If electrons where involved in the exchange/change phenomena then the effect should have been seen everywhere and not the "localized" without flow, and more regional with flow. If electrons where involved they would not care where or how the flow or no flow was. This confirms simply that this is a physical phenomena and has always been so, but science is just selling everyone an electron fairy tale.

OK in your post there is a big piece of info on their tests. They are saying "The resistivity of the water was varied from 14 mho/cm to 37 mho/cm which is very hard to relate to. OK so let's get this into a known perspective by converting those values to simple parts per million or PPM of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

14 mho/cm = 8.96e+6 ppm = 8,960,000 ppm or mg/l
37 mho/cm = 2.37e+7 ppm = 2,370,000 ppm or mg/l

OK, so who on this forum can confirm that these two conversions are correct? I think it is but if not please anyone who can confirm of correct please do so. This is very important.

This will provide the main crux of their tests and why they see what they see since this is a direct indication of how much dissolved minerals (blender blades) are present in the solution.

But, if the above is correct, then what is wrong with those numbers? They say "There is no significant effect on breakdown strength with the change of the resistivity of the water". Why?

If anyone has time and some wire, some water, some salt and a conductivity meter and a frequency generator and a scope try the set-up shown below.

OK, so you make the A line which is a 3" length of 12awg copper wire followed by a 1" length of 18 awg then finish with another 3" length of 12 awg. The B line is the same 3" lengths but that are simply turned 90 degrees downward at one end to dunk into a small plastic water container. Now connect your pulse generator on both + and - of A and B so they are in parallel. Place just the scope probe only at the Ch1 and Ch2. As you pulse and see both waveforms add salt to the water container and see how the CH2 waveform changes. Measure the conductivity of the water at each salt addition.

If you can make a video showing this then you will have lots to talk about to explain the effects shown.

wattsup



Offline h20power

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2016, 06:02:20 PM »
@ Gravityblock,


We are talking about two totally different processes and you are mixing the two up based on someone else's work whom doesn't understand how Meyer did what he did one bit. There is a needed voltage to be at to cause the electrons to leave the atoms they are bound too and that is called ionization. This is the threshold voltage that Meyer is talking about when he told us that the resonant cavities require 1000 volts or more of potential difference per resonant cavity. You see if you never reach these voltages while restricting the flow of amps it simply doesn't work. This is why so many have tried and failed to duplicate Meyer's work as they look to others whom have little to no understanding of just what Meyer did to break the bonds of water molecules in a way that is totally outside of Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method.


You want to know just who's experiments I am listening too? My own as I am like Tinman in that I am actually on the ground doing the work following the scientific method as I am no armchair scientist whom never makes it to the lab. You seem to fail to understand one primary thing about this technology and that one thing is that this technology is new to the world of science so you aren't going to find anything to read about it in our old books of science. You see this time you have to be the one that does the work for there simply is no way around that this time around. I understood this many years ago and started in with real world experiments from which to gather my data from.


This technology isn't all that different than ionizing molecular gases. The primary difference is this water molecule is made up of two different atoms who's ionization energies are just about the same being that hydrogen is 1312.0 and oxygen is 1313.9 kJ/mol. From what I have found out actually performing these experiments is in order to separate the electrons from these two atoms there must be a positive and a negative voltage in order to do so which I showed in the pdf file titled, "The Voltage Dissociation of the Water." I also took the time to post the new theory behind this technology which is complete with supporting evidence. I take it you have read none of these, correct?


There is one thing that truly stands out about the work I am doing in comparison to others and that one thing is I am able to put a really high voltage potential difference directly to plates in contact with the water. As of right now I don't know of any one else that is also doing this for they have not made themselves known to me or anyone else for that matter in a public forum. Trust me when I say it isn't easy to put a high voltage potential difference on some metal plates, or tubes in my case, that are in direct contact with water for it is a direct short condition just as Meyer talks about. So, when I talk about this technology you should pay attention as I am actually performing the experiments. When I say we are going to need to know, "The Voltage to Water Breakdown Rate," trust me we will for I am not pulling my information from someone else whom is doing nothing like what Meyer was doing.


In the past I have shown just how I have the VIC transformer hooked up and guess what it is exactly how Don Gable shows it to be hooked up so no one can say they don't know how to hook it up correctly. The problem is not that they can't learn but rather they refuse to learn how to follow someone else's lead concerning this technology. Just like most people when I first made a VIC transformer and hooked it up to my makeshift exciter array I only got 10 volts to the cell. With a lot of trial and error experimenting I managed to get up to 4.2kv in 2013 which I showed to the whole world at the 2013 Global BEM that was held in Boulder, Colorado. I kept at with many more trial and error type experiments and am now up to 9.4kv of potential difference being applied directly to the water in the exciter array which is to be divided by ten as I have ten resonant cavities in the exciter array I am using. So I am getting close to Meyer's stated requirements of 1000 volts or more of potential difference per resonant cavity now. But as I have stated in the past this is an all or nothing type technology as the atoms aren't going to ionize until the right voltage for them to do so has been reached. For it is no different from boiling water at STP for will the water boil at 94°C? Nope, as this is science and at STP the water will boil when it reaches 100°C not before and the same goes for when the atoms will ionize. This will be the last time I post these pdf files in this thread showing what I have discovered while working at solving Meyer's technology the old fashion way by way of trial and error making use of the scientific method.


Now as far as the water's resistance Meyer had to design the VIC transformer so that it was capable of breaking down all types of natural water sources with the worst case being that of ocean water. I am not there yet but I truly feel I am getting close now to understanding just how to design these VIC transformers and my work does suggest that I am on the right track for I have been increasing the voltage being applied to the exciter array over time.


Ed


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2016, 07:36:25 PM »
H2o nailed it on the head.
You guys are correct to throw away 'electron' based thinking
At high voltages, the electrons all run away.
That is what affects this process. Electrons are what bond the atoms
At the point of ionization the bonds are broken
This happens along the current path.
- which by the way is disturbed by pumps
   Causing the ranges of gas production to occur across
    a larger area. The entire current path moves with the water.


At the same time this current path develops
And begins to discharge the voltage potential
A micro-arc forms inside the current path
These arcs may or may not be visible
Depending on the potential and capacity
of your system.
Temperatures increase inside the arc, lowering impedance.
Which intensifies the arc over a time gradient.
Although not always visible to us, these arcs do still produce radiation
just like any other HV electric arc.
Centered around the UV spectrum where, coincidentally,
water naturally breaks down.
( lightning is responsible for a majority of the natural hydrogen
     in our atmosphere.)




This, combined with a gap distance and resonant cavity tuned to
One of waters natural vibrational/rotational frequencies
Can provide a trifecta of natural separation stages in the Hydrogen Cycle.
Where the energy levels of the water molecule cause it to separate on its' own.


This process is much different from
the brute-force approach with low voltage DC electrolysis.


These processes steer us from electrochemistry into organic chemistry.
Or a sort of 'cyborg' integration of the two.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2016, 07:36:25 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: