FD you wrote:

Why would he alter the ccts in his patent?  The patent is designed to protect the invention 'as is' and as such will only protect the invention as given to the patent office. Why would he want something that does not work protected and thereby leave an opening for someone else to patent there own modified proper working version?  Think. If he thought that the patent office would sell on or disclose his invention, then why would he go there in the first place?

Actually, yes. It is quite common for patents to be purposely altered by omission, or incorrect connections etc, for the very purpose of throwing off those who would copy it, change it by 10%, then re-patent it. Critical parts may be left out, or errors drawn so that it doesn't work as submitted.

This is just one more level of protection for them. If a patent really did what it was supposed to, all this ruse de guerre would not be necessary.

Hi Zippy

Yes, I know about varactors, but Meyer's diode is a simple blocking diode. I think that for Oystla to start thinking along the lines of this diode having a capacitance that somehow plays an important role in the workings of Meyer's wfc would be a non-productive waste of time.  How much capacitance do you expect a little tiny diode to exhibit and thereby influence the cct?

I think you will find that all electrolytes offer a non-linear resistance.  Unlike metals conducting electrons, ions are massive and take a lot more 'shifting' - physical movement through the liquid is restricted as they collide into each other and other molecules.  By all means don't take my word for it (a little doubt and scepticism is a healthy and necessary thing - particularly on these forums), but I think you will find that doubling the voltage across a cell containing an electrolyte, does not double the current through it.  Hence the most efficient standard electrolysis in terms of power dissipated comes from cells operating at high current low voltage. 

Of course this is not to be confused with Meyer-type pulsed systems, which must - I hope - be operating on a completely different principle.

In terms of electronic components, I would see our wfc's as a capacitor in series with a non-linear resistor, not in parallel.

Oystla, 6 Farad (if that's what it is) as in your little equation is a massive capacitance and not realistic.  It's all very well talking about equations for tuned LC circuits. But what I want to know is what actually do you hope to achieve in a wfc by hitting the resonant frequency?  In a radio, a parallel LC resonant cct will amplify the required signal when tuned by the capacitor to a specific frequency, so it's purpose is clear, but we don't have a radio.  And besides in a series LC resonant cct (a la Meyer), at resonance the current is theoretically infinite, while the voltage drops to near zero. I'll say again 'resonance' in this context is a 'Meyer' misnomer.

Like I said before, it would make a great deal of sense to know what you are trying to achieve in the first place.  If you tune the wfc and inductor to their resonant frequency, what do you expect to happen... and why??  Frequency is only a big question if you don't know what you are trying to achieve.

It seems to me that there is a common misconception here that by hitting the ccts resonant frequency that something magical will happen in our wfc... it won't - there's more to it than that! 

What you need to ask yourself is, 'What do I want to happen in my wfc?' 'What scientific process am I trying to create or enhance?' and then, 'How do I go about applying the electronics to achieve this?'  Are you looking to get a high voltage - low voltage, high frequency - low frequency? If so why?  You must have some idea of your specific goal and what you want or expect to happen. Simply connecting a few components together in blind faith that the combination will produce lots of gas in your wfc is unrealistic to say the least. 

In terms of electronic components, I would see our wfc's as a capacitor in series with a non-linear resistor, not in parallel.

This can not be so.

I have measured the resistance of tap water (I used to make colloidal silver) and found that the water in my area at least is quite conductive....about 1k Ohm in one cup of water with two silver electrodes 1.5 inches apart, and about 1 inch submersion. I have had to always use store-bought distilled water for higher resistance and consistency.

As a minimum, the model has to have a resistor (or inductor) from plate to plate if a significant DC current can flow, and we know it can.

I would suggest that a setup be created (I assume you already have one) and several parameters be tested empirically.

- Frequency sweep
- DC voltage sweep
- Observe Pulse inputs
- etc.

If one truly wants to understand and analyse the WFC, the plate-to-plate element must be modeled and quantified, otherwise there is no hope of getting to the bottom of it all.

Is there any reliable info regarding the construction/value of the chokes?

Farahday:
  I've been avidly following your posts in all these forums and must say that I have learned a lot and agree with you 95% of the time. Keep up the good work.
   I was around when wet electrolytics were still being used in old tube(valve) radios. Like you said .when  shorted out they were self healing. Their only fault was that they had a tendency leak and then dry out.
   These things were always in an aluminum can with  a small vent hole on top. If you shook it you could
hear the electrolyte sloshing around.
    I am no electronics engineer, but being a technician for many years and being an active "Ham" operator you can say that I am no stranger to resonant circuits.
   Yes, the point that I must disagree with you on is the working of a series resonant circuit.
As you already know, the impedance of these circuits are very low and you will measure zero volts across them. They will also pass maximum current at resonance.
     But if you dig a little deeper you will discover a very startling fact which you are overlooking.
As the voltage across the coil leads the current by 90deg. and the voltage across the capacitor
lags the current by 90deg. you have a phase shift of 180 deg. So that the voltage across one cancels
the voltage across the other giving you zero volts. Notice in this statement that I am implying that
there are two different voltages in this circuit! If you were to take a scope and check out these 2 voltages individually you would find that not only are they equal in strength and opposite in polarity
but they are many times larger than the source voltage!  This is not MY theory but an established fact. These voltages would be infinite if it were'nt for the resistance of the coil. Of course with this increase in voltage you will also get a proportional increase increase in current.
But not to worry.   As the circuit will be drawing this high current ONLY during the time periods of these very narrow pulses then the over-all average current would be quite low (my theory).
There would also be zero current flow during the gating period.
  So if you are trying to get a large break-down voltage across this water capacitor then you must try and get circuit restance, (which is mainly in the coil) to as low a value as possible.
You can do this in several ways:
1:Use heavy gauge wire for the coil.
2:Wind the coil on a high permeabilty core. (A toroid I think would work best)
3: Use a higher resonant frequency so that you will have LESS COIL for the same amount of fixed cell capacitance.
    I was reading someones post last night regarding the TESLA coil. They were wondering why the coil was made with such heavy wire. Now you know.
 I also came across an article in an old electronics magazine on "How to Build a Tesla Coil" that can
create a 3 foot arc.  The coil itself was a piece of  3/16 in. copper tubing.
    So now you know why the various builders experience different results for different sizes and spacings of  ss tubing.  The circuit has to be tuned.
   So there you have my 2 cents worth.

Garfield

Locked-in

Thanks for that pdf document. It's something I will have to read over a few times to get my pea brain
working on some of these theories LOL.
  But seems to be very interesting stuff.
I think the only benefit acoustic resonance would have is that it would release the bubbles from the electrode surface thereby producing more gas. It would be worthwhile trying.
  The only problem being. What kind of mechanism would you use to get these tubes to vibrate at their
resonant frequency? You would need some kind of electro-magnetic device attached to the tubes and then driven by an oscillator tuned to that resonant frequency.  But I'm sure acoustic resonance outside the water would be totally different from in the water (if there is such a thing).
 I know some people are working on it..

Locked-in, personally, I'm not even going to consider acoustic resonance at this point in my research and experimentation as it is 'possibly' just an unnecessary complication to an already complex subject.

Zippy, we all I think can agree that tap water conducts too readily to be anything close to an acceptable dielectric, and indeed this was initially what caused me to ridicule Meyer's 'water capacitor' technical briefs.  But, on now seeing the conditioning of electrodes and indeed the insulating compound that forms on the cathode, it is clear that we are not relying on the tap water to act as a dielectric, we're actually producing our own.  The water then simply effectively becomes an extension of the anode.  When I considered the protective oxide layer present on ss I had assumed it to be the anode whose oxide layer was enhancing during conditioning, but this seems not to be the case.

Anyway, with a true dielectric layer on our cathode we do indeed now have a genuine 'wet electrolytic capacitor'.

So now it's just really about figuring out what we want to happen from here on and then designing a cct to achieve our goal. It really does kind of makes sense to create a cct to do what you require of it, rather than create a cct first hoping it will do something interesting.

Garfield, I'm sure your aware then that what Meyer actually depicts is a 'dc series resonant charging cct', exactly what they use to fire Tesla coils.  Now, irrespective of what Meyer states, I don't believe this cct can charge up a capacitor to more than twice the supply voltage. So if we want high voltage pulses across our wfc, then we have to use some form of transformer, or start with a very high supply voltage in the first place. Would you agree?

So, I guess we must ask ourselves, if Meyer's wfc worked, but he lacked the knowledge to explain it, how exactly did it work? What reactions are taking place, and why?

It's a shame that the folks that have already experimented with conditioned electrodes no longer frequent this forum as it would possibly provide us all with a jump start.  My first question would be, with conditioned electrodes, will normal dc electrolysis still work?  Of course, if that insulating dielectric layer is present on the cathode, by rights the cell should no longer pass dc. The other thing is, I know from my experiments that ss electrodes hold a charge for at least 12 hours (that cannot be shorted out), but what charge will a conditioned cell hold?

Now, if we apply a pulsed voltage at a frequency in which the inductor's inductive reactance cancels our wfc's capacitive reactance, where exactly does that take us? High current, low voltage. Not I think where we need to be going. The point I might be missing about the individual voltages being near infinite at resonance, is interesting. I will research this further.

Now I'm only playing with ideas at present, hopefully I'll be able to apply some of this in practice soon. But for now, what then if we take advantage of the fact that capacitors exhibit high reactance to low frequencies and also the fact that the voltage across the inductor in a series resonant LC cct will lead the current by 90 degrees.

Therefore, not only will our wfc provide a high impedance to current flow but the voltage will cause ions to migrate to the electrodes within the water in our wfc, well before the cct charge carriers (electrons and holes) get there.  Hence, by the time the electrons and holes arrive at the electrodes, the voltage potential to push and pull them has gone.  Now I might well be missing something, and hence totally wrong in my theorising, but if this is the case, then with every pulse, the leading voltage would be attracting ions to the wfc electrodes, followed by a surge of charge carriers lacking the potential to do any real work.  Eventually there comes a point whereby the electrostatic charges on the plates are are so great that the dielectric compound on the cathode will break down on the next voltage pulse.  Now, with such a surplus of charges already on the plates and an equal amount of ions waiting in the water, when the dielectric does breakdown the water will very, very rapidly ionise.  However, as there is such a surplus of charges already waiting on the electrodes, no extra charges (ie no current surge) will be experienced by the supply.

On the other hand, if we applied high frequency pulses to the set up, this would mean that 'if and when' the electrode dielectric breaks down, the inductor would provide a high impedance and hence by it's very nature inhibit current flow through the cct.

In either case, if I'm anywhere in the right vicinity with this, it would mean that the last thing we want to achieve is the resonant frequency.

All this guesswork would be unnecessary if the wfc element (including the oxide layer) was empirically determined, and modeled.