Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: Farrah Day on November 05, 2007, 12:50:03 PM
-
Meyer's Resonant Charging Circuit
I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread to investigate Meyer's resonant charging circuit, in order to keep this discussion separate from the 'water capacitor' discussion.
What Meyer has is a series resonant LC (inductor/capacitor) charging circuit, which uses dc pulses to charge the water capacitor. This circuit is often used in Tesla coil designs to produce very high voltages in which current is made to arc across a spark gap.
Initially looking at the circuit I had assumed that the charge on the capacitor would build and build until catastrophic breakdown of dielectric oxide layer would allow a current surge (effectively the spark gap). However, the blocking diode Meyer employs now limits the voltage across the capacitor to only double the supply voltage. So if, and I say 'if' we are relying on dielectric breakdown for the cell to work then the supply transformer would need to initially multiply the voltage by at least half the potential that would exceed the breakdown voltage of the oxide dielectric.
Although the dielectric could recover between high voltage pulses, this would mean frequent very high current flow between the electrodes which would surely, quickly heat up the water. As Meyers cell apparently stayed cool, I'm not 100% convinced that dielectric breakdown is the key.
I know many people are using low voltage dc pulses and it would appear that at maximum cell efficiency are exceeding Faraday gas output by 3x. If figures are correct, this is a step forward, but still not enough to power an ICE. And, at low voltage levels would surely not be creating an intense enough electrical field to stress the water molecule.
If the wfc is indeed a capacitor in series with and inductor (a series LC circuit), what are the circuit properties?
Well the inductor would provide great opposition (reactance) to current flow at very high frequencies and low reactance at low frequencies. The water capacitor conversely, would do exactly the opposite.
Now, Meyer's circuit can't resonate, because the diode only allows current to flow in one direction. If this had not been the case, then at a specific frequency (the resonant frequency of this circuit), where both capacitor and inductor reactances were equal (due to the 180 degree phase differences in voltages and currents between the two components), then these reactances would effectively cancel each other out. And, in theory, infinite current could then flow as the voltage across the circuit drops to zero. In practice, however, the resistance of the wire making up the inductor does limit this current from infinity. This exceptionally high current flow would surely dissipate terriffic power and fry the circuit - very undesirable.
Anyway, Meyers cct can not resonate.
So could the answer be a combination of all the aspects of this circuit?
If we are relying sole on a specific frequency of voltage pulses to 'shake' the water molecule apart, then it would make sense that the higher the amplitude of these pulses, the better. If we want as little current to flow as possible, then we really want the reactance of the inductor to be working for us by providing the maximum oppostion to current flow. This would indicate that the higher the frequency, the better, unless of course there is indeed a frequency at which the water molecules are caused to resonate and then this becomes our target.
Now the problem becomes something different. If the wfc is a capacitor, the dc pulses will charge the capacitor to twice the supply voltage. Once this has happened, unless the capacitor discharges or is caused to discharge, then the pulsing effectively stops. There is just a standing potential difference across the capacitor - pulsing becomes irrelevant.
What then, if the capacitor is a very leaky capacitor. While it can temporarily hold a charge, current will leak continiously from the plates until the capacitor completely discharges over a given time specific to the individual water capacitor. However, as we would be continually topping it up with dc pulses, the capacitor would never completely discharge. Get the specific values right and the capacitor would always be allowing a small dc current to flow through its electrolyte (the leakage current), while the continual pulsing would create a voltage ripple at the supplied frequency.
It seems there are a lot of possibilities and I don't think anyone quite knows what is occuring yet. If we did know exactly what was going on it would be much easier to design a circuit to enhance the effect. There is simply a lot of guess work and blind experimenting going on that, it would appear can be very 'hit and miss'.
More food for thought
Farrah Day
-
hi
i am doing a l talk tonight on this very same thing and I do not believe in the so called 'oxide dielectric coating' I have been on electrolyisis for over 15yrs
........................................
quoted by faraday
What then, if the capacitor is a very leaky capacitor. While it can temporarily hold a charge, current will leak continiously from the plates until the capacitor completely discharges over a given time specific to the individual water capacitor. However, as we would be continually topping it up with dc pulses, the capacitor would never completely discharge. Get the specific values right and the capacitor would always be allowing a small dc current to flow through its electrolyte (the leakage current), while the continual pulsing would create a voltage ripple at the supplied frequency.
.................................................
I am doing a l talk tonight on this very same thing and I do not believe in the so called 'oxide dielectric coating' I have been on electrolysis for over 15yrs
It is just a big very leaky capacitor with a DC resistance and AC impedance.
So it could try and act like an AC non-polarised capacitor but depending how strong you make your electrolyte, it could see it as an 'AC short circuit' and as for the DC side well it is just a resistor. Yes it may be possible to do as you suggest that is with the fast DC pulses. Remember a square wave pulse is only half the power if it is on 50% duty cycle.
After talking to my friend Ravvi, I have had a look at what he was saying, I do have a possible solution but I have to find out how to put a diagram on this web forum??
Ravvi so to concentrate on the BEMF not the resonance.
There was a diode put in one circuit and this is wrong not the one you are talking about it goes from the S on the Buz 350 to the positive supply, this is wrong.
I have found out a lot and there is a lot wrong with the first 'original circuit known as Fig 1 with the transformer style and this I believe was NOT a Toroidal as some are suggesting , I stand to be corrected if some one can cut and paste it from the original.
It I think was a standard 'o' core TX. Also on this many of the coil winding and the voltages do not make sense, to see it you must redraw it.
Well that should be enough for now I have to go
aussepom
-
Hi aussepom
Read through your post a couple of times and I'm still not sure what you're talking about with reference to a diode and transformers. In fact I couldn't follow most of your post. Are you talking about Meyer's resonant charging circuit or Lawtons pulse generator?
You do not 'believe' in the dielectric oxide layer?! Fair enough, you can believe what you like, but it's the only thing that makes any sense if you want a capacitor. Why does everyone assume you have a capacitor if you stick two plates in conductive tap water?? It's just a non-linear resistor. It's like saying that a component is a resistor if it has a low resistance and a capacitor if it has a high resistance! Come on think, there's no dielectric!
Let me ask you this then. What do you think is happening when people are 'conditioning' the electrodes?
Forget about coil windings that do not make sense, not much about Meyer's diagrams do. Just use a transformer or make a coil to do what you want it to do.
You (or your friend, Ravvi) say concentrate on BEMF not resonance. What do you mean by this? Sure, Meyer's resonant charging cct can't resonate because of the blocking, but what relevance has BEMF on things?
Surely if you've been playing with electrolysis for over 15 years (and giving talks) you would know exactly what these circuits actually do and what they can't do. No offence intended, but I can't help getting the impression that you're a little out of your depth as far as electronic theory goes.
Farrah Day
-
I've just seen a version of Meyer's, so-called voltage intensifier cct (his VIC), that I have not seen before, which shows a bifilar seconday winding designating the resonant charging chokes.
Can anyone explain to me the purpose and action of this bifilar winding?
Please don't just guess at it.
Thanks, Farrah Day
-
I too was wondering about the Meyer's circuit. I was surfing YouTube and found videos on WFCs. Lots of talk about OverUnity. A little Googling and found Meyer's patents The circuit in figure 2 of US patent 5,149,407 show a circuit of a fixed frequency of varying amplitude and some duty cycle. The capacitor uses stainless steel tubes, one inside the other of 3/4" and 1/2" with 1/16" for the water dielectric. The patent says to use pure water. Water has a dielectric constant of about 80 with a dielectric strength of 80 Volts per mil. This means the capacitor in the patent will have a breakdown strength of about 5,000 Volts. Since the patent didn't give the length of the tubes or how many are in parallel, I can't compute the capacitance.
As I read the patent, Meyers doesn't seem to be talking about an electrical resonant (Xl = Xc). He seems to be talking about the breaking the covalent bond of the dielectric through a series of steps as shown in Figure 1 of the patent. Since the water molecules are polar with a directional character, the oxygen end being negative and hydrogen positive, Meyers seems to be using the capacitor to create an electric field to align the dielectric. The first pulse of his circuit polar aligns the dielectric, the next pulse applies a larger electric field to attract each oxygen to the positive tube and hydrogen to the negative tube. Since water has two bonding properties, covalent and electrostatic, subsequent higher amplitude pulses break the bond. He doesn't say much about the duty cycle in the patent, but it might be to give time for hydrogen and oxygen gas to form bubbles before the next pulse train begins again. The frequency of the pulse trains for resonance was found to be 10kHz in the patent. This is the frequency applied as pulse train envelope to the capacitor to match the time to polar align the dielectric to the time to break the bonds.
The charging chokes only seem to be used to increase the applied voltage to several thousand volts to the capacitor. It would seem they could be eliminated by just designing a transformer to apply a higher voltage. It seems Meyers may have disassociation water by breaking the hydrogen electrostatic bond since he says the circuit doesn't use much current. This would imply the charging chokes do little since little current is flowing. At any rate, the circuit sees to work by applying a large electrostatic field accross the plates of the water capacitor in a series of increasing amplitude steps to give time for the water to align a disassociate. The duty cycle creates the dwell to allow bubbles for form. The rest of the patent has to do with a grid to capture excess electrons and a laser to ionize the gases prior to being combusted.
-
Can anyone explain to me the purpose and action of this bifilar winding?
Yes, usually two lengths of wire are wound in parallel on the transformer core. Since the current flowing in a one wire creates a magnetic field, it is multiplied by the second wire next to the first. Tesla patented a bifilar coil to increase the capacitace of his circuits and eliminate the need for capacitors.
-
Hi AS
This area is covered on the other thread, 'Meyer's WFC concept analysed'. However, firstly Meyer on numerous occasions states that the water used in his WFC is tap, rain or river water... not pure water. So forget about the dielectric properties of water. Pure water, yes, does have a very high dielectric constant, but pure water does not stay pure for very long. Gases in the air - particularly oxygen - amongst other things disolve readily in water. Not only that, if this was the case you would have to go to the expense of producing this pure water and somehow trying to keep it pure until you needed it. No doubt you would be using fossil fuels to produce the pure water. No, it simply would not be cost-effective and in reality defeats the whole object of the exercise. On more than one Meyer's videos he states that he is just using tap water! See Dune Buggy video.
In Meyers circuit with the blocking diode, voltage pulses across the capacitor can only be double that of the supply voltage so this would mean the transformer coupling the pulse circuit to the WFC would have to initially step up the voltage significantly.
Re: bifilar winding. I need to look into this as I'm unsure as to what purpose it serves in Meyers circuit and don't really understand your explanation. What role are you saying that this bifilar coil actually plays in the circuit... or don't you know??
That aside, the most obvious use for a bifilar winding would be to produce a wire wound resistor that had no inductive reactance to ac. When connected correctly the magnetic fluxes created by the BEMFs would cancel each other out producing no reactance and leaving just the resistance of the wire to oppose current.
Farrah Day
-
Seems to me that the term "capacitor" is erroneous. I mean, clearly it resembles one in form, but in theory, it simply can't be. In order to split the molecule an electron must be added, liberating one Hydro atom, then en electron must be removed, liberating the other Hydro atom. Just like in every electrolysis process, the "capacitor" therefore must necessarily leak. Actually that is the only requirement! And since, as you say, a stored charge would negate the pulsed input, it should therefore work only as efficiently as running straight DC- which clearly, it does not. The pulsed electron bombardment clearly improves the effect.
Just goes to show, sometimes brute force isn't the only way.
-
Wow didn't see that there was more discussion to this! I'm a tad new to this forum type :p
As to the actual disassociation process, I like to describe it as "bouncing" the molecule. Granted, it is a simplistic view, but it seems to follow. If you consider the covalent bond to be elastic, then when it is flexed (or strained), it will "bounce" back past it stable point, and oscillate about that point with a given frequency (albeit, an incredibly tiny frequency). By pulsing the current as some multiple of this frequency (resonance), you increase the magnitude of the "bounce" exponentially until it breaks. Conventional electrolysis, by applying constant unidirectional current would dampen the bounce, but move the center of oscillation, until the repulsive force between the hydrogen atoms are sufficient to "pop" the oxygen off.
I dunno- maybe it's beating a dead horse, but it makes sense to me and I haven't seen it described before
-
Pure water, yes, does have a very high dielectric constant, but pure water does not stay pure for very long. Gases in the air - particularly oxygen - amongst other things disolve in readily in water. Not only that, if this was the case you would have to go to the expense of producing this pure water and somehow trying to keep it pure until you needed it.
Reverse osmosis can get pure water. In the patent, Meyers stated the dissolved gasses are released as the water is disassociated. The patent talks about small current flow, so the water needs to be deionized, otherwise the water will be a conductor a not a dielectric and he would have an electrolysis system (passing a current through an ionic substance dissolved in the water.)
In Meyers circuit with the blocking diode, voltage pulses across the capacitor can only be double that of the supply voltage so this would mean the transformer coupling the pulse circuit to the WFC would have to initially step up the voltage significantly.
The patent said the seconday was at 1,000 volts. The circuit would step it to 2,000 volts.
Re: bifilar winding. I need to look into this as I'm unsure as to what purpose it serves in Meyers circuit and don't really understand your explanation. What role are you saying that this bifilar coil actually plays in the circuit... or don't you know??
That aside, the most obvious use for a bifilar winding would be to produce a wire wound resistor that had no inductive reactance to ac. When connected correctly the magnetic fluxes created by the BEMFs would cancel each other out producing no reactance and leaving just the resistance of the wire to oppose current.
Bifilar winding are comonly used in toriod transformers. This might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar
-
As to the actual disassociation process, I like to describe it as "bouncing" the molecule. Granted, it is a simplistic view, but it seems to follow. If you consider the covalent bond to be elastic, then when it is flexed (or strained), it will "bounce" back past it stable point, and oscillate about that point with a given frequency (albeit, an incredibly tiny frequency). By pulsing the current as some multiple of this frequency (resonance), you increase the magnitude of the "bounce" exponentially until it breaks. Conventional electrolysis, by applying constant unidirectional current would dampen the bounce, but move the center of oscillation, until the repulsive force between the hydrogen atoms are sufficient to "pop" the oxygen off.
Meyers in his patent show an electrostatic field across the plates of his capacitor where he discribes the polar charge alignment of water molecules followed by stretching the bond to disassociation (no bouncing or oscillating). The pulses in Meyers circuit seem to help prevent hydrogen rebonding and bifurcated hydrogen bonds. The resonance frequency Meyers talks about seems to be the number of pulse envelopes containing some number of 100us (based on 10kHz in the patent) varying amplitude pulses applied to the capacitor per second.
-
Seems to me that the term "capacitor" is erroneous. I mean, clearly it resembles one in form, but in theory, it simply can't be. In order to split the molecule an electron must be added, liberating one Hydro atom, then en electron must be removed, liberating the other Hydro atom. Just like in every electrolysis process, the "capacitor" therefore must necessarily leak. Actually that is the only requirement! And since, as you say, a stored charge would negate the pulsed input, it should therefore work only as efficiently as running straight DC- which clearly, it does not. The pulsed electron bombardment clearly improves the effect.
You can "split water" without adding an electron. Here is a link to salt water being disassociated and re-associated by burning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo
Water is Meyers capacitor must not leak as stated in his patent. He is running pulsed DC to his capacitor where he states again in his patent to prevent breakdown and shorting out in non-pure water.
-
Well ok, sure you can split water with high powered microwave radiation. You can also induce a fusion reaction in a bubble with super high powered lasers. For that matter, dumping high amounts of energy at most anything will cause its molecular bonds to weaken. And while that has its place in research, it has little application in any viable energy alternative...
The "Leak" referred to is voltage leak across the dielectric. As I understand it, that's referred to as capacitor leak. Water dripping onto a circuit board is "bad craftsmanship."
And the fact that Stan wrote it in his patent application does not make something true. He had no access to any electron microscopes or comparable imaging equipment, nor is there any record of testing to confirm what was happening inside his WFC. His descriptions, while detailed, are still conjecture. All I'm saying is I'm not convinced he fully understood what was happening (nor do I)- we're just trying to analyze it for ourselves...
-
Blimey, you guys all just seem to be going around in circles here. How long have these debates and squables been going on while producing no results?
The first thing you must do is decide what water Meyer's was using! AS, why do you insist it was de-ionised when Meyer, in his videos, clearly states its just tap water, rain or river water???
If it is just tap water, as Meyer says, the dielectric must be the oxide layer that gets deposited on the anode during conditioning or current would flow freely through the cell. Why is this so hard to accept... or at least consider? If you don't agree with my oxide dielectric then you must assume to use de-ionised water - it costs the same as petrol per litre here in the UK, so unless you're making your own cheaply.... Good luck.
Eso, its 'current leak' across the dielectric - voltage doesn't leak!
Moving on....
There are different ways to wire a bifilar coil depending on what you want to achieve with it. According to Tesla, if constructed carefully and wired correctly, it can be made to act as a tuned LC cct by utilising the capacitance between each coil of wire. Once we apply a frequency at which the capacitive reactance between the coils is equal to the inductive reactance produced by the coils, we have exactly equal current flowing through both. However, at this resonant frequency the current through the inductor will be 180 degrees out of phase with the current through the capacitor. Hence, the net current drawn by the cct is '0'. The resistance then of the cct is in theory infinite as would be the voltage. So, Tesla's bifilar coil in this configuration is effectively a parallel tuned LC circuit employing the capacitance between the coils rather than another physical component. Very clever.
Also according to Tesla, in this configuration the coils can hold thousands of time more charge than a standard inductor can. So we can produce massive voltages from this bifilar coil. We now potentially have... great potential!
Farrah Day
-
AS, why do you insist it was de-ionised when Meyer, in his videos, clearly states its just tap water, rain or river water???
I'm not insisting on anything, I'm just stating what the patents say. To prevent current to flow in the Meyer WFC, patent 4,936.961 used an insulator between the plates so you could use tap water. In another patent (5,149,407), no insulator was used so you would need deionized water to prevent current flow between the plates fo the capacitor.
-
AS, I haven't seen those patents, but I'm quite familiar with the incoherent babble that goes with all of his patents. How practical in reality is it to use de-ionised water in a wfc? Not very, as this immediately eliminates all the other everyday sources of water which would really make a water fuelled car super-practical. Not to mention the fact that the government would immediately impose heavy fuel taxes on de-ionised water.
Irrelevant of what the patents say, in the video when he is actually demonstrating his Buggy, he states its using tap water. Now whether he means tap water that he has de-ionised, I don't know, but he doesn't say anything about processing the water first.
Here's something to make you laugh. In Meyer's Hydrogen Fracturing Process, technical brief on page 7-8 Meyers states, quote: 'The dielectric property of water (being 78.54 ohms at 25 C) permits storage of the 'electrical charge' when a potential difference exists between the electrical voltage-plates'
He also writes on page 3-16, quote: 'The established resonant frequency is most generally in the audio range from 1KHz up to and beyond 10KHz and is dependent upon the amount of CONTAMINANTS in natural water'
It's no wonder really why scientists could not take him seriously with blatant errors like this. The dielectric property of water is a constant, it is not measured in ohms. And if it was, did he not realise just how low a value 78.54 ohms is in terms of resistance. As for the water, well there you have it in black and white. It really is laughable.
Incidentally on page 7-1 he states that the VIC assembly... well here's the quote, make of it what you will:
'The "mode-of-operability" of VIC Coil Assembly allows Voltage Potential of opposite voltage polarity to increase and be attenuated up to and beyond 20 Kilovolts while inhibiting and restricting amp leakage in the milliamperes range... establishing operational parameter of utilizing "Opposite Electrical Attraction Force" of "high voltage intensity" to "instantly" releases thermal explosive energy (gtnt) from natural water.'
That is exactly as it is written, including the bad grammar. Complete and utter jibberish employing jargon designed to sound very technical and impressive to the layman.
On a more positive note, Dave Lawton really seems to be onto something with that bifilar coil that he has introduced into his cct design. The more load, the smaller the current flow?? Definitely has a ring of a possible radiant energy source being tapped. This is where we all should be focussing our attention if we want to progress.
Farrah Day
-
Some of you might be interested in this modification to the Lawton cct.
Open attached file.
Instead of using the Buz350 and associated components on the output of the 2nd 555 timer chip, you can use this variation to power a high voltage car coil. The 'output' is pin 3 off the timer, while the 'con' is pin 5. The rest of the circuit remains the same, although that said, the car ignition coil probably won't work well with very high frequencies and so some additional component changing to reduce the pulsing frequencies might be called for.
Be careful though, 20Kv does rather make you jump!
Farrah Day
-
Hi All,
I do not wish to cross-post, but I wonder if I should have posted this
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3549.msg59098.html#msg59098
in this thread instead?
Anyway, I think it may be pertinent (if there's anything to it, of course). Any insightful responses would be most welcome.
thanks,
TwoHawks
-
Thought some of you might be interested to know that I will shortly be doing some wfc tests which will hopefully allow a little more insight into the workings of the resonant charging cct in respect to our wfc arrangement.
I'm trying to acquire a EHT power supply that will provide up to 5KV.
I also have a function generator which I can use to accurately pulse a mosfet switch with various waveforms.
As the EHT power supply will provide extremely high voltages at very low currents, basically I will be replacing the various components of the resonant charging circuit, as known, with electronic equipment that will do the same. Now I can achieve very high voltages at various frequencies (and waveforms), using the mosfet to pulse the eht power supply across the cell.
This may or may not work as expected, but it will no doubt at least offer a little more insight into what's happening.
Will keep everyone posted.
-
Hello all, I'm new to this site, and too chasing free energy. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the idea of the resonant circuit is to resonant the "water", not the cell.. what ever the value is... (in fact if you know it, please post it)..
A capacitor is just 2 conductors separated by a dielectric. Water has resistance and you can easily use it as the dielectric in a water capacitor. Test it, put your ohm meter leads in water.. there is resistance, and therefor put water between two steel plates and you have a capacitor.
The cell itself does not resonate, you are trying to resonate the water by pulsing the plates. From what I've seen it looks like you want to not only pulse, but ramp up the voltage as you pulse. This peaking,and drop off of the voltage will limit energy loss. At the same time, the high voltage spikes will put extra energy into the water molecues that you already have a resonance.. literally pulling them apart.
I think the problem is that the capacitor value is constantly changing as you produce more gas. I'd think the gas/water mix would have even less resistance and change the value of the capacitor. Either way as more gas is mixed with water the capacitance is going to change.
Anyone have an idea on how to monitor the changing capacitance and then change the inductance to keep at waters resonant frequency? I think if you could, you would see alot of extra production. (Maybe some type of motorized ferrite core). If you know the frequency of water, and can measure the capacitance, a simple controller should be able to change the inductance. The more you stay as resonance the more hydrogen you make.
Anyway thats my story and I'm stick-en with it...
RobbRyder
-
Hi Rob
The problem here is that you are covering the same ground that most people have already done many times over.
The thing about a capacitor is that it should possess capacitance and does not conduct dc. This is true if you use pure water, which has an extremely high dielectric constant. Unfortunately, tap water conducts very well, makes for a very poor dielectric and hence what we really have is a non-linear resistor. If we put an ac signal across it it would no doubt possess some capacitance due to close spacing of the plates, but the main component would be resistive.
The other thing about 'literally pulling the molecules apart', is that it is not enough to simply say or assume this. Any reaction in the water needs to obey the laws of physics and hence form a balanced equation. A statement like that needs to be backed up by a scientific explanation.
If you haven't already, take a look at the other thread: 'Meyer's wfc concept analysed'
Farrah Day
-
At this stage I'm not going to worry about the actual design of Meyer's resonant charging cct itself, but rather try understand its action, or what exactly it is supposed to do. In that way I can replicate it in my own fashion.
Its all very well going at it bull-headed, and just trying to replicate Meyer?s WFC, without worrying yourself with the complicated science behind it. But, unless you do some real in-depth initial research you will never understand exactly what you are doing.
It's all very well people simply reciting Meyer's technical briefs and patents, but this is not good enough as it does not in itself imply understanding of the process. Furthermore, Meyer's science is appalling, as indeed are some of his statements. I know I've said this all before, but let me just give you a prime example of the problem Meyer can cause if you take his word as gospel.
Over on the OUPower forum, I've had a very heated debate with someone convinced that water is made up from 31% Oxygen, 62% Hydrogen and 17% Nitrogen, and that the same percentages are given off during electrolysis... and yes, I know it adds up to 110%. Now, no amount of discussion with this guy will make him see reason, no explanation is good enough to open his eyes. He is absolutely convinced that I'm a 'dimwit' and that he has it right, and, that I should take note of his 'knowledge' if I want to learn anything.
When I asked where he got these strange ideas from, he provided a link to ... yes, you guessed it, a Meyer technical brief. It's a shame really as this guy has built a D14 cct and an impressive looking tube wfc, but thanks to Meyer's bumbling scientific errors, this guy is now unable and/or unwilling to be put straight on the incorrect technical points. Furthermore I don't think he is alone, there are far too many 'Meyer fanatics' out there that see old Stan as a saviour that could do no wrong. This is a shame, as it will severely hinder, if not halt further progress.
Farrah Day
-
Hello Farrah Day. Thanks for the input. Its always good to hear others thought and ideas.. but we are going to have to agree to disagree on somethings..lol.
Two steel plates insulate from each other and submersed in water, is a capacitor... waters resistance is much higher than the steel, and is then by definition a dielectric. 2 conductors separated by a dielectric makes a capacitor... Now I read this out of a Boylstadt electroinc text book... so I'm go with that for now..
Since we now have a capacitor, if we add the correct size inductor we can tune into any frequency we desire. Boylstadt again.. I'll agree that depending on the condition of the water the value of the capacitance will be different, but it will be a capacitor..
If we can tune the circuit at waters resonant frequency, and match it with a voltage spike (at the same frequency) just short of breakover for the capacitor, the maximum amount of the energy available to the water is going to break it up, tear it apart.. what ever you want to call it.. all I know is it looks like alot more energy is available then is used.. and really for me thats all that matters...
Someday soon, someone is going to claim to have figured out the science.. probably post it on this site, and when they do I'll gladly read about it because I am curious... but for now.. I just want the Power...lol
But what Myers did "is" the science..
If Myers didn't have it exact before his "demise" he was awful close... and I don't believe he put on paper all he knew.. but apparently what he had on paper was worth a lot of money.. and ultimately his life..
RobbRyder..
-
Rob
A lot of speculation there with reference to 'Meyer'. For all we know he could have been killed by one of his many personal creditors. He had afterall encouraged many people to part with thousands of dollars to fund his project, ensuring them it was a very good investment, and of course he was eventually (rightly or wrongly), declared to have committed fraud by the government.
People seem to have their own set ideas on this, which doesn't change the fact that either Meyer's was the genuine article or he was a fraud. If his dune buggy worked as he demonstrated, then he was not 'nearly there', but he had succeeded. Either way, I'm not too bothered by this as that's all in the past now, and I get the feeling the real truth will always be obscured by uncorroborated science and speculation.
Anyway, back to the water capacitor. You wrote:Two steel plates insulate from each other and submersed in water, is a capacitor... waters resistance is much higher than the steel, and is then by definition a dielectric. 2 conductors separated by a dielectric makes a capacitor... Now I read this out of a Boylstadt electroinc text book... so I'm go with that for now..
I agree, two steel plates in close proximity do form a capacitor. However, what you are failing to see is that tap water is not a very good dielectric. Pure water is great dielectric... tap water is a conductor. In essence, putting tap water between two steel plates is a capacitor of sorts, but tap water conducts so readily that the capacitance would be negligible ie, the dielectric effect of tap water would break down with only a few volts applied.
Think about it, you would not call one metal a dielectric just because it is not as an efficient a conductor as another... would you?
Put pure water between the plates you have a great capacitor, put tap water between the plates you have a poor capacitor, a good non-linear resistor.
If we can tune the circuit at waters resonant frequency, and match it with a voltage spike (at the same frequency) just short of breakover for the capacitor, the maximum amount of the energy available to the water is going to break it up, tear it apart.. what ever you want to call it.. all I know is it looks like alot more energy is available then is used.. and really for me thats all that matters...
How is this energy breaking the water apart? Is it ionising? How are the charges moving? There has to be a balanced equation for this reaction.
If we were tuning the water to it's resonant frequency (I believe this is somewhere in the microwave range), what effect does this have?
If you search through various posts on various forums you'll see that there now seems to be a direct link to wfc efficiency and the conditioning of the electrodes, which strongly indicates that we are enhancing the dielectric chromium oxide layer on the anode.
If this is so, then the pulsing takes on a different task to what most people think. If we completely dismiss (for the moment at least), resonating water, and concentrate on the dielectric oxide layer, we have a good capacitor that can hold a charge. What then is required of the pulsing. Well, ideally we need to step charge the capacitor until the dielectric oxide layer breaksdown. During the step charging, the water will align and no doubt there will be polarised water molecules at the cathode and at the dielectric. Once the dielectric breaks down, the water molecules ionise in great numbers as charges are exchanged until the dielectric reforms.
However, we need the dielectric to keep reforming and breaking down in order to maintain a high electrical charge on the electrodes, so there needs to be a frequency of pulses that allows this to happen at its optimum (the sweet spot). Ie. if pulses are too slow then it takes a long time to reach dielectric breakdown, too fast and the dielectric has no time to reform, the charges on the electrodes quickly and continually leak away effectively producing inefficient high current normal electrolysis. In this scenario, pulsing the voltage has nothing at all to do with the resonant frequency of water or altering the angle of the OH bonds, but perhaps there is a frequency at which this effect can be capitalised on for further efficiency. Meyer did claim to have been getting around 1700% over Faraday.
You'll note that most pulsing ccts have two frequency timers, one high frequency pulse being modulated by another lower frequency pulse. Perhaps, a combination of the pulse frequency and it's modulation frequency is a key to further efficiency.
For anyone looking in, I must emphasise that this is my current thinking on the subject and by no means conclusive or correct. It just seems to tick a lot more boxes than many ideas, theories and assumptions out here in cyberspace.
-
Assuming our Meyer type wfc is a 'wet electrolytic capacitor, and we require the dielectric oxide layer to at some point breakdown in order to cause ionisation of the water, then how do we ascertain what voltage is required to do this?
Well, ideally, as Meyer stated, some form of step charging would work well, in that once this voltage is reached, the dielectric would give, allowing rapid ionisation of the water. This way, the correct voltage is at some point automatically reached. This I would assume to be much better than simply pulsing a voltage well above the dielectric breakdown point, for two reasons. Firstly, there is a time for the water capacitor to step charge up (energise) before breakdown, and secondly I would expect it to be more energy efficient in just exceeding the dielectric breakdown threshold, rather than exceeding it, by possibly, many thousands of volts.
This I think is where old Tesla can be helpful. I don't think Meyer ever mentioned Tesla, but I think his VIC assembly was probably based on a Tesla coil. Specifically the Tesla Magnifier. Employing this design and given the correct design and construction, I think we should be able to achieve a steady build up of potential across or water capacitor.
Again only my thoughts at present, though I'm now actively looking into the design of such a coil to give the desired result.
-
@FD ...I find your musings quite stimulating. I have been very interested in the idea of possible relationship(s) of this water tech to/with Tesla Coil tech, so I am excited to see you questioning that.
Please forgive that I am so bogged down in my own work-a-day life that I have little time for catching up on the documentation (which I am endeavoring to do, albeit slowly), and on upgrading my understandings in the fields of electronics and some water - chem.... reviewing your post it makes me wonder if there may be easily created some sort of feedback sensor for tuning the voltage you are musing over. For instance, maybe taking a current (or some other) reading(s) in the water for feeding back into the pwm somewhere in order to allow it to self adjust the voltage you are speaking to.
I know that's very general (and looking at your writings I bet you have already thought some about this), does this relate and if so how would one envision that to be structured?
Cheers,
HTH
-
Hi TH
If I'm correct in my theorising, then there will not be any need for a feedback loop. Once the voltage builds up to the dielectric breakdown threshold, it will simply start doing so again once the dielectric reforms. The critical frequency will be the one that allows the voltage to build up quickly, but also allows the dielectric time to reform.
This of course would explain also why everyones wfc would be most efficient at different and specific frequencies, and why there is not one common frequency... everyones cell would have different capacities and dielectric layers.
If, as many people seem to think, we were pulsing the water itself at waters resonant frequency, then anyone using the same water should be using the same frequency irrespective of their design of wfc - I don't believe this is the case.
The other key thing for my is the wfc's running cold. With normal electrolysis, ion charge carriers travel through the electrolyte physically knocking into other ions and molecules, and being much bigger than the electrons that carry the charge in metals, they create much more resistance and hence heat in the solution. By contrast with Meyers wfc, we don't exploit ions in the water to carry a charge, we develop a large electric field that polarises the water molecule, but then rapidly ionises the water molecule itself when the dielectric breaksdown. It can't be a coincidence that the cell remains cold when ionisation is an 'endothermic' reaction.
-
I've got another theory.
This is, that for maximum efficiency of a Meyer like wfc, the pulse frequency needs to tie in with the effective LC relationship of the cell and inductor/telsa coil. And, the sole reason that this frequency is modulated by another much lower frequency, and hence providing an 'off' time, is precisely to allow the dielectric to reform.
To my mind, a lot of things are now making sense for the first time, and I feel the true science behind the wfc is now within grasping distance.
-
I know it doesn't mean much, and especially coming from my limited understanding of the greater body of details [as yet], but I was reading up a little more today and then saw your post tonite... I have to say I continue to find your thinking on the subject quite compelling.
So the question that strikes me is how would qualifying/quantifying the Cells' Capacitance part of that equation be approached and figured? (Is this a good question or is it obvious?)
As an aside, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the water not being a/the dielectric yet being present inbetween the cathode and the anode, said anode having its thin chromium oxide dielectric... it makes good sense in light of so many things, but then what of the space inbetween the anode/cathode that is filled with... what term would fit for the water (since its not a dialectric)? I mean, that's not the idea of a wet capacitor actually, now is it? {I am so parochial... 8YP}
And does the size of that space/gap necessarily benefit from being as small as possible (as Meyers has indicated in his work)?
Anyway, with regard to the LC tuning, I came across something today ...I wonder if this may be helpful...
http://www.frontiernet.net/~tesla/html/tuneacoil.htm
Cheers,
HTH
-
The capacitance of the cells are a problem in terms of giving it a value. This is not only just because everyones cells will offer a different surface area to everyone elses, but also that the state of the dielectric layer will be different. I.e. how 'conditioned' the electrodes are in terms of the dielectric layer thickness.
Purely out of interest, I recently did a rough calculation of the capacitance of Bob Boyces 100 cell (6" x 6"), assuming 10 microns of dielectric and came up with a figure of 258nF.
The thing about the water is, that although it conducts (it is a non-linear resistor), it is far less an efficient conductor than metal. In water, large ions are travelling through the electrolyte, carrying their charges from one side to the other. You can actually see the disturbance in the water that this causes. On the other hand, electrons are tiny (you can't see the metal moving) and effectively only have to travel between one atom and the next. A bit like a line of ballbearings in a tube, if you fill the tube and then push an extra one in one end, another will immediately pop out the other end. Hence electron flow is near instantaneous, where as ion current through an electrolyte is very slow.
This leads me to think that even 'unconditioned' electrodes will show some capacitance, as the ions are physically so much slower than the electrons that they will not be able to keep up with the charge exchange in order to balance the circuit when faced with a near instantaneous squarewave pulse. Electrons then will tend to pile up on the cathode with every pulse, while the same can be said about the +ve 'holes' on the anode.
Initially I thought that the size of the gap between the metal electrodes might become irrelevant if the dielectric was the oxide layer, but on thinking about this further, the closer the two metal electrodes the more intense the electrostatic field across the water before the oxide layer breaks down.
All good stuff!
-
The capacitance of the cells are a problem in terms of giving it a value. This is not only just because everyones cells will offer a different surface area to everyone elses, but also that the state of the dielectric layer will be different. I.e. how 'conditioned' the electrodes are in terms of the dielectric layer thickness.
Purely out of interest, I recently did a rough calculation of the capacitance of Bob Boyces 100 cell (6" x 6"), assuming 10 microns of dielectric and came up with a figure of 258nF.
The thing about the water is, that although it conducts (it is a non-linear resistor), it is far less an efficient conductor than metal. In water, large ions are travelling through the electrolyte, carrying their charges from one side to the other. You can actually see the disturbance in the water that this causes. On the other hand, electrons are tiny (you can't see the metal moving) and effectively only have to travel between one atom and the next. A bit like a line of ballbearings in a tube, if you fill the tube and then push an extra one in one end, another will immediately pop out the other end. Hence electron flow is near instantaneous, where as ion current through an electrolyte is very slow.
This leads me to think that even 'unconditioned' electrodes will show some capacitance, as the ions are physically so much slower than the electrons that they will not be able to keep up with the charge exchange in order to balance the circuit when faced with a near instantaneous squarewave pulse. Electrons then will tend to pile up on the cathode with every pulse, while the same can be said about the +ve 'holes' on the anode.
Initially I thought that the size of the gap between the metal electrodes might become irrelevant if the dielectric was the oxide layer, but on thinking about this further, the closer the two metal electrodes the more intense the electrostatic field across the water before the oxide layer breaks down.
All good stuff!
Considering the ions and their role here... It would make sense to want to restrict their movements by not allowing them to journey from one electrode to the next. So, like you said, 'a near instantaneous pulse' should be used.
I would also like to bring to your attention a find I had, which might actually be true and play a key part or not. It involves pulsing the 'tube' electrodes of the WFC at their approximate or actual ACOUSTIC resonant frequency. I made this find by chance, but who really knows if it is merely a coincidence.
IF this process is involved, it could be somehow holding the ions from successfully moving from one cylindrical electrode to the other, or at least deterring them from doing so.
Anyway, just thought I would bring it up.
Here is my prior post about this:
Ravi,
Do you know the approximate frequency at which you are applying the square wave pulses to your WFC?
The reason why is related to some research I did with a well known 'water as a fuel' research group.....
Here was the crux of my interesting finding:
The findings are based on this youtube video from Dave Lawton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwbvsya3Ek , WATCH IT!
[4/1/2007 3:40:25 PM] Tao says:
Just doing a simple calculation a tube in plain fresh water, the equation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance shows f=(n*v)/(2*L) where n corresponds to the harmonic, v is the speed of sound in the water, and L is the length of the tube....
So, lets simplify this equation, n can be always 1, v is 1435 m/s in fresh water according to Wikipedia.
So, f = (1*1435)/(2*L) = 717.5 / L = f , Just for fun, lets take the frequency Dave was producing Hydroxy at in his latest video on Youtube: 3425.781Hz
So, 3425.781 = 717.5 / L , L = 717.5 / 3425.781 = 0.21 meters , So that would be 8.27 inches long.... So, how long in inches are Dave's tubes? Just curious........
[4/2/2007 11:26:20 PM] Tao says:
So, I asked how long Dave's tubes were, well, I looked up how long they were from an old post Dave did on the original forum back in 2004...
[4/2/2007 11:26:44 PM] Tao says:
Dave said that his tubes were about 12.5-13cm (which is about 5 inches long)
[4/2/2007 11:27:39 PM] Tao says:
so, calculating that into the equation: 717.5 / L = f , we have 717.5 / 0.1275 = f , so f = about 5650Hz
[4/2/2007 11:28:21 PM] Tao says:
So, based on what it says at the END of that video on youtube, it says that the hydroxy was being produced at 3425.78Hz
[4/2/2007 11:29:00 PM] Tao says:
BUT, they acoustic frequency came out to be 5650Hz, so I said, 'oh, too bad' seems there isn't much of a connection, I guess I need to
do more research'
[4/2/2007 11:29:10 PM] Tao says:
UNTIL, I just watched that video again..........
[4/2/2007 11:29:50 PM] Tao says:
Look at what Dave was pulsing his DC at in the video: 5714Hz!!!!
At 1:11 in the video you can see what he was pulsing at.......
[4/2/2007 11:30:58 PM] Tao says:
Based on the equation for acoustic resonance, Dave was pulsing his tubes at the EXACT frequency at which those tubes will resonate ACOUSTICALLY in FRESH WATER...
So, my finding was basically this:
Dave found the BEST gas production at the VERY SAME frequency that just so happens to be where his tubes resonate ACOUSTICALLY IN WATER... HMMM...
Maybe it is nothing at all but a coincidence, but maybe there is just something to it........................
? Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 09:02:47 PM by tao ?
-
Hi Tao
Yes, I've seen your post before and read it with interest. It does make you wonder if there is any correlation between pulses and acoustic resonance. However, if this is so, then how the tubes are mounted (fixed), would surely be of crucial importance and surely affect the theoretical frequency, as would the water medium.
I find a problem with so many ideas floating about, is that unless you specifically research one area, you can easily end up with a mish-mash of theories that obscure each other and culminate in nothing. Focusing on one direction at a time I think is good. Then, if and when that avenue is exhausted, turn your attention to others.
So, I'll be leaving you to your acoustic resonance for the time being, Tao. Will be very interested to know how your research in this area progresses.
I'm not seeing the ions in tap water to be a real problem at the moment, as with fast rise voltage pulses they simply shouldn't be able to move fast enough to do much work. My analogy: I think of them as soldiers arriving late for the battle. Electrons will be amassing at the cathode before the ions have had time to register it!
Hence, I would expect there to be a bottle-neck of electrons on the cathode, even without any substantial dielectric oxide layer. The question then is, can this bottle-neck build to such a potential that water molecules themselves are encouraged to ionise?
This is where I feel a little unsteady at present. However, I have a theory:
I know that water molecules are continuously ionising and then reverting back to water molecules, it is a continuous and continuously reversible process. I also know that water tends to convert back to molecules faster than it ionises, hence there will always be more water molecules than ions (note that, I'm talking about water itself and it's ions, not the ions of impurities within the water).
What then if the high electrostatic field on the plates allows the water to ionise as usual, but then discourages it from reforming as water. Think about it, a water molecule ionises, but before the reaction can reverse it is now influenced by the high electrostatic forces on the electrodes. Does it reform with another lowly charged ion or head for the 'bright light' of highly charged electrode 'city'. A bag of crisps or an 'all you can eat' gourmet meal at a top notch restaurant.
Apologies for my very unscientific analogies.
-
Hi Tao
Yes, I've seen your post before and read it with interest. It does make you wonder if there is any correlation between pulses and acoustic resonance. However, if this is so, then how the tubes are mounted (fixed), would surely be of crucial importance and surely affect the theoretical frequency, as would the water medium.
I find a problem with so many ideas floating about, is that unless you specifically research one area, you can easily end up with a mish-mash of theories that obscure each other and culminate in nothing. Focusing on one direction at a time I think is good. Then, if and when that avenue is exhausted, turn your attention to others.
So, I'll be leaving you to your acoustic resonance for the time being, Tao. Will be very interested to know how your research in this area progresses.
It was all merely a passing thought, as I know the process is more inline with what you outline below...
I'm not seeing the ions in tap water to be a real problem at the moment, as with fast rise voltage pulses they simply shouldn't be able to move fast enough to do much work. My analogy: I think of them as soldiers arriving late for the battle. Electrons will be amassing at the cathode before the ions have had time to register it!
Hence, I would expect there to be a bottle-neck of electrons on the cathode, even without any substantial dielectric oxide layer. The question then is, can this bottle-neck build to such a potential that water molecules themselves are encouraged to ionise?
Agreed.
This is where I feel a little unsteady at present. However, I have a theory:
I know that water molecules are continuously ionising and then reverting back to water molecules, it is a continuous and continuously reversible process. I also know that water tends to convert back to molecules faster than it ionises, hence there will always be more water molecules than ions (note that, I'm talking about water itself and it's ions, not the ions of impurities within the water).
What then if the high electrostatic field on the plates allows the water to ionise as usual, but then discourages it from reforming as water. Think about it, a water molecule ionises, but before the reaction can reverse it is now influenced by the high electrostatic forces on the electrodes. Does it reform with another lowly charged ion or head for the 'bright light' of highly charged electrode 'city'. A bag of crisps or an 'all you can eat' gourmet meal at a top notch restaurant.
Apologies for my very unscientific analogies.
Interesting idea, I hadn't know about the continual ionization/reformation of the water. So the idea of catching the water at these key moments via our pulses could very well work. Need to think about it some more.
-
@tao Thank you (very much) for your post. You know, I had read your positings on this somewhere else, but I didn't quite understand it all at the time (probably didn't have the full context as you placed here). Now I get you, and I am very grateful for your following progress and thoughts here and posting your comments. I find this very helpful, even if I feel FDay's feelings to be staying the course on certain considerations are very valid.
1 thought stands out in my mind with regard to your post... as I have run into a lot of info regarding votices while chasing this dragon, I have seen it suggested that possibly Meyers went with tubes due to the potential vorticular influence and how that may affect certain stresses and movement both in the mass of the medium and with the idividual molecules themselves. Its a bit too complex for me to take on here, and I need to study way more, but based on what I loosely gather so far ...the considerations for acoustic resonance you describe would/could strongly relate in this regard. There seem to be some folks out there really looking into this, but it seems that it is not very well studied as yet - but certainly very compelling.
-----------------------------------------------
So just to mention for anyone here (even preppies like myself)... please do not hesitate to air your considerations to the conversation - we never know where it may serve to help any of us to be getting a better leg up on the situation as things unfold.
@FD: Wouldn't it be fair to say that Tao's consideration doesn't fall outside the scope of your intended focus considering its still an aspect of cell resonance, and that's under consideration here (even if its a little adroit in some characteristics)?
------------------------------------------------
@FD Considering the high frequency required for pulsing the cell plates/tubes in the current scenario, and with regard to the question of electrode spacing that previously I posed, 4 things come to mind:
Either...
1) the spacing of the plates would not matter because the ion movement caused by the shifting charging states cannot travel that far anyway, or
2) the spacing of the plates as close as possible might be important with regard to affecting a certain "water tension state" (more on this in a moment), or
3) the spacing may be important to affecting how potential (for) arcing might be imposed, or
4) the deal with how spacing is managed is to do with something else.
???
Per # 2 and possibly #3 as well..., the reason that comes to mind is that in watching various videos having to do with related experiments I have noticed commonn situations where either points placed extremely close together underwater, or a point placed right at the surface of water (usually just touching, but neither held 'above' nor 'in' the water) creates a great deal of 'response' (usually arcing / sparking). This response-propensity has been related by some to the qualities of water when laying thinly upon a surface, or at a body of water's own surface, i.e, how the molecules tend to line up in formation in these circumstances and how that also effects the potential [charge] state.
So it flashed in my mind Meyers' idea of maintaining water space at/as the thinnest possible sheet between two electrodes ...might be related to these observed phenomenon.
*I would be interested in comments on this.
-----------------------------------
Regarding:
water tends to convert back to molecules faster than it ionises, hence there will always be more water molecules than ions
Is the following the more accurate statement? ...reformation of water constituents (ions and electrons) back into water molecules takes less energy than does ionizing water molecules.
If so, then I question the last part "hence there will always be more water molecules than ions"... because I question... does "faster" necessarily mean "more"?
And I think that may depend largely on the 'state' water is in...
-------------------------------------
So then your next statement would make more sense to me...
What then if the high electrostatic field on the plates allows the water to ionise as usual, but then discourages it from reforming as water
...and the bright light and all that... really seems to be what is observed because a reaction does remain present, i.e., ions are displaced and, as gasses, they rise up.
---
Now this makes me think, so.... Are excess electrons liberated in the water during the ionization process, and what might that mean? I am uncertain if I have seen this discussed(?).
I have to spend time to ponder that, but right off the top, if so then "in the moment of truth" wouldn't any excess electrons in the wash be (madly) rushing toward and amassing at the anode against the dielectric [chrominum oxide layer in the case of SS], creating a kind of "electrical vacumm" in the water... "choking" the water of its [excess] electrons so that, well I would think in an ideal(ly balanced) environment, there would only be ionized gasses left [with their 'attached' electrons only], O2's against and moving toward the cathode side, rising up as they move, and H2's against and moving toward the Anode side, also rising up.
I am just walking through it in my mind and wondering if I am envisioning this logically (or maybe even in the neighborhood of correctly - gods forbid!), and if it presents anything useful or not? I would be interested in your thoughts and expounding on that description (taking it further).
-------------------------------
Cheers,
HTH
edited at 12:06pm pt
-
Hi TH
There are no excess electrons in the water, liquid doesn't work like solids. Any electrons are either part of an atom or ion.
I think that if we build up too high a charge on closely spaced electrodes, or space the electrodes too closely, that there may be a real danger of plasma arcing. This would be undesirable as this action would certainly deplete the charges on the plates and create a massive current surge through the circuit. Therefore, we would actually want the dielectric to breakdown well before the electrostatic charge became high enough to cause arcing between the electrodes. A happy medium needs to be found.
I was not surmising about the water molecules reforming as water more readily than they ionise - the term 'faster' was probably misleading. However, this is a fact. Also a fact, is that water ionising is an endothermic reaction. As water molecules bump into each other, this can create the energy required to ionise, but that energy quickly dissipates and the ions reform as water. Ionising therefore requires additional outside energy to take place in any great numbers, as a result energy in the form of heat can be taken from the environment and hence the cell tends to run cold. So TH, yes, ions reverting back to molecules takes less energy than ionisation.
My problem with the resonant frequency of the tubes, is that this frequency may be totally unrelated to the optimum frequency for the rest of the circuit.
Also, I now tend to think that Meyer's 'resonance' is a bit of a misnomer. His, so-called 'VIC' is actually a dc series resonant charging cct, like the ones used to drive Tesla coils. The circuit can't resonate because of the blocking diode, but it can double the supply voltage across our wfc. We certainly would not want to drive this circuit at it's resonant frequency as we would get the inductor reactance cancelling the capacitive reactance of our cell and the only thing left to restrain current flow through the cct, would be the resistance of the wire making up the coil.
No, the last thing we would want to do is find the resonant frequency of this circuit. What would suit us much better would be to have quite a high frequency, as the inductor would then pose a very high reactance to the flow of electrons, while our water capacitor (in theory) would provide very little opposition. I say there, 'in theory' as in practice our water capacitor will not react like a normal capacitor at high frequency, because the ions in the water cannot react fast enough. Hence we still get out bottle-neck of charges on our electrodes.
My thoughts at present are along the lines of a highish pulse frequency in order to let the inductor work for us in inhibiting current flow through the cct, whilst still allowing a steady build up of charges on the electrodes.
One problem I am finding, is trying to relate our wfc as a capacitor to the functions of other capacitors. There seems to be no real, factual, information anywhere on this is, mainly expect because what we want our capacitor to do is not like anything you would normally want a capacitor to do. We are in essence using a capacitor in a novel and not fully understood way.
-
Some more thoughts for you guys to mull over.
When pulsing a square wave, unlike a sinewave where the voltage rises gradually, the square wave voltage is almost instantly at maximum. Now, across the resonant charging cct inductor, the voltage is 90 degrees out of phase with the current through it - the voltage leads, the current follows. Now, if the tiny little fast moving electrons can't keep up with the voltage, the relatively massive bulky ion impurities in the tap water certainly will not be able to do so.
Therefore we have a voltage across our wfc before the electrons get there, and well before the ions get there. As this goes on, charges are accumulating on the electrodes, waiting to exchange charges with the ions in the water, but... the electons at the cathode (and +ve holes at the anode) will be gathering far more quickly than the ions. A bottle neck forms and the charges on the electrodes continue to accumulate until massive dielectric breakdown occurs. At this stage, rapid ionisation of the water occurs and we get lots of gas, but as there is such an excess of charges on the electrodes, that no great surge of current through the electrical cct will occur. We are simply using up these charges, while the rest of the electrical cct carrys on the charging process. It will be important that the charges on the electrodes are not totally depleted, or else this would cause heavy current to be drawn through the electrical cct.
Hence, unlike normal dc electrolysis, the electrodes have an excess of stored charges, which can effectively be used before current is required to flow through the electrical cct. That is why a pulsed cct only draws a low current through the cct.
Here's an analogy:
Think of dc electrolysis as your house mains cold water supply running through to your kitchen tap. If you turn on the tap, that water mains pressure forces the water out. If however, you turn off the mains water supply at the stopcock, then no water flows when you turn on the tap.
Now think of pulsed electrolysis as your house hot water supply, where you have a storage (header) tank in the loft. Mains cold water is used to fill up the loft storage tank - like charging up a capacitor. Now again, you turn off your mains water at the stopcock, so no water can flow from in the cold water circuit. However, when you turn on your hot water tap and it will flow, and continue to flow until the storage tank empties, and during this time it requires no cold water supply, i.e, thanks to the storage tank, the hot water can flow for a time without drawing on the cold water.
Think of the voltage as the mains cold water pressure, the hot water storage tank as our 'water capacitor' and the hot water running with the mains cold water turned off as the exchange of charges between the ions and the electrodes.
Now, here is my thinking behind the signal pulses and components of the resonant charging cct.
Firstly, the main frequency pulse. We will want this to be quite high, as high frequency through an inductor will create a high resistance to current flow - hence the inductor acts as our natural current limiter. Note: I'm dismissing all ideas of resistive wire to restrict current, as this would simply waste power, whereas an inductor will store energy and release it back into the cct with only a very small loss of power.
The modulation of the high frequency pulses. Now I've heard mention that this is used to control the gas output in order to accelerate/decelerate a vehicle. However, I don't think we have that to worry about yet. So I believe that more likely the modulation of the high frequency by a lower frequency is what provides the 'off' time that allows the dielectric to reform.
I emphasise that this is only my personal theory of operation, but to date, as far as I can tell it's the only one that has been put forward that offers any kind of scientific explanation to go along with it.
Feel free to respond with your thoughts.
-
Hey FD,
Just letting you (all here) know I am reading, need time to assimilate, ...and very grateful for these posts.
Breifly, I initially find this analogy provocative. If the logic holds, I wonder what that might indicate regarding cell tuning.
I expect I will not be able to participate for a spell... major business deadlines to attend to. But be assured I will be following.
I hope some electronics and chemical geniuses show up to theorize and comment ;^)
Cheers,
HTH
-
Hi Tao
I am looking at this thread, with interest, with the thoughts back a few posts,
You were going into the acoustic effects it so happens I have been looking at this for some time, since you can not have electrical resonance in a DC circuit, but acoustic resonance of the tube could play a big part.
Now sound travel in water is called 'wave' and this is1600m per sec NOT 1435.
When you were working on the tube resonant frequency there was a few things not taken in to the calculations.
You need the thickness, and the length, and the free resonant frequency of the material.
Now if there are any fixture points or any thing else other than fresh water this will change.
In my opinion the only way to fine the F under water with any connection of any type made, is to do the test in its own environment.
Using a transducer such as an echo sounder, should be easily obtained if you go fishing, 'borrow it' from the boat.
You will need some thing a little more technical for the next bit.
You need two 'strain gauge' transmitters; these are special resistance strips, one for the vertical and one for the horizontal.
Fixed to the pipe in the centre, as described, a small voltage is applied and the voltage across each of the strain gauges is monitored on the Scope.
Using a sine wave generator connected to the transducer, sweep the frequency ranges close to you 'rough' calculation.
You will see the effects of any increased vibration changes on the strain gauges.
I am hoping to check this out later on my self.
Even when you find this frequency all the tubes need to be tuned to the same frequency.
Now you will then need to use a transducer at that frequency in the cell, you will not be able to do this through the electrical circuit connected to the cell circuit.
aussepom
-
I think reactance in the cell is the word everyone is looking for. Do you think water will act as a dielectric? only if the water is scientifically pure, pure water doesn't conduct. A dielectric is an insulation.
-
That was short and sweet Rab.
No, 'reactance' is not particularly the word I'm looking for.
If you read through my various posts you'd see that I don't think that water is the dielectric, I think it is the chromuim rich oxide layer on the ss. That said, tap water, not being the greatest of conductors, will likely allow a build up of charges on the plates as the large slow moving ions can't move through the water fast enough to deplete them all in one go during pulsing.
-
Hi all,
The circuit is a sham if only because meyer himself is talking about some quite opposing things. Such as dielectric water, resonant frequency of water molecule and impulses. Without going into to much details, please read his patents for these, the resonant frequency of water is in Giga Hertz range. Hence none of you out there has a chance in your lifetime to make a frequency generator that will produce desired frequency and safely break the water molecule with it.
Meyer in his last patent employs a laser in order to "enhance" water production and do what? Achieve "overunity"? Read his nonsense for yourselves:
www.waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/section3.pdf
Employing a laser means LARGE power is needed but, oh call me a sceptic, I can't see that happening in your car.
Between an american punk and a Russian scientist, I will trust more the Russian. Kanarev has proved scientifically that H2 overunity is achievable. And he gives enough information for a knowledgeable person to experiment further. Not me, I am not a scientist, unfortunately...So those of you who do have some knowledge, pull yourselves together and stop wasting your and our time. And when you do, do not forget to write your manuals and how-to's so that we non-techos can read and replicate your success.
-
Hi Doc
I totally agree with you that Kanarev looks to be a very reliable source of info, and is in a completely different league to that of Meyer. Kanarev backs all his work up with science and relevant scientific equations - my kind of guy.
Yes, I've been over the Meyer Technical briefs and various patents many times and found them to be full of blatant errors. Errors of course, that are totally overlooked by the layman and those without sufficient grounding in science and electronics to know better. For me, Meyers lack of credibility is self-created as he clearly attempts to explain things that he does not understand. To anyone with a scientific background it is very transparent - Meyer created his own pseudo-science to fit his personal requirements and conveniently fill the gaps in his own knowledge.
At present, I firmly believe that there is nothing resonating in Meyers wfc cct. And, think that the term' resonance' is a Meyer misnomer that evolved due to the fact that he utilises a 'series dc resonant charging cct'.
All that said, if you cherry pick Meyers work and those people with similar wfcs and then cross-reference it to the likes of Kanarev, it is possible to find very interesting and useful info. The key is knowing what to dismiss as 'utter bullshit' and what to keep for further research and experimentation.
Personally, I like the Meyer tube cell setup and the high voltage pulsing, but would not trust a single word in any of his technical briefs or patents.
-
Hi Farrah,
True, there are interesting moments when reading Meyer, but as you say, one must sift through the gibberish. And Meyer produced a lot of it. I think he was putting together pieces from left and right, whatever he thought made sense in his scheme. And then tried to fish out a couple of gullible cash cows to fund his retirement plan.
I paid a real electronic engineer a couple of years ago to replicate Meyer's cell. It didn't work. My engineer explained it simply. Distilled water Meyer suggested in his first patents is not conductive enough to help sparks jump across, the frequency is to low to break the bond between the H2 and O2 atoms, current too is to low to break the water. The cell has to high resistance to be useful. It doesn't work as the capacitor, because the water cannot hold the charge well. Nothing works. It was disappointing and since then I am highly sceptic about everything that comes from a garage lab. Unless a claimant is highly trained professional in something, in my eyes he or she is just a liar or an idiot.
What formal training had Meyer in plasma, or physics, or chemistry? Given the rubbish he was dribbling about, none. Sadly, many a gullible person falls for the religiously (as in dogma - do not question. Just believe and open your wallet) constructed BS such evil people feed them with.
-
Couldn't have put it better myself Doc - we appear to be on exactly the same wavelength!
On other forums when I've spoke up like this I've had to endure heavy onslaught from the intellectually challenged Meyer worshippers and blind fanatics, but apart from the odd 'nutball' things do seem a little more sensible over here.
I'm researching from the ground up, as you've probably seen on my other 'Research and Development' thread.
From very basic test and measurements, the most interesting thing so far, is that my ss test cells hold a charge for hours after power is switched off and is nigh-on impossible to discharge quickly.
I've just constructed a square wave oscillator cct that fires a car ignition coil. Hope to pop this across my test cell in the next day or so and record the results.
Also, I've just about finished my D14 variable modulation squarewave oscillator, which will be getting its first outing over Christmas time.
-
Hi
Is your square wave positive pulse only, if so drive a trannie or a mosfet with at least 400 volt working, 600 is better, run it at about 140 Hz preferably with three 75v , at least 5w, zeners across it. Take a good 12 volt supply that will give you up to 10 amps, let the trannie or the mosfet switch it.
You should end up with a spark that will jump a 1-1/12 inches, close the gap and it gets fatter. I know I have two, the best car coil to use is the ones with dropping resistor, don't use that. Don' go any lower than 100hz or you will blow the coil.
Be careful mine gets up to 70 to 80,000 volts.
aussepom
-
Farrah Day,
is it worth wasting the time on a concept that is obviously flawed and most likely just a scam? I mean, Meyer talks about the resonant/capacitance cell, and then says that ordinary, even muddy, water can be used...Even I know that impurities will make the current flow between the plates, and in a capacitor-like cell that is not what you want. Even if you make some gasses, as some have done, the efficiency will be very likely well below overunity.
I am tempted to talk my friend electronic engineer in to try and test Kanarev cell, if we can work out the shape of the cell, and whether the shape is actually crucial to efficiency. Conical shape, as drawn in his papers, would be a bit of a challenge to make properly, unless done by professional. Which also may turn into a challenge given that it would be a very small job for a professional to do.
-
Blimey Ausse, 80,KV is one hell of a kick from a car coil. Most standard coils provide between 15 - 25KV. Even high energy coils over here only provide 40KV!
Doc, Meyer might have talked garbage, but a dc resonant charging cct is a genuine cct and does work, as they are used to fire Tesla coils. Whether or not it works as Meyer described for a wfc, is however extremely debatable. For one thing, you can't keep upping the voltage across a wfc like Meyer states. A dc resonant charging cct will only double the supply voltage, so it is futile for folks to try to get thousands of volts across their cells from a 12 volt supply unless they are using a transformer, a car coil, tv flyback transformer or something similar.
Meyers statements about water are all utter nonsense, he talks about the relative permitivity of pure water (gives the dielectric constant as 78ish) then says he uses tap water! But I'm working on the theory that the water is not the dielectric as Meyer stated, so it does not matter what water you use. I think that the dielectric which forms the capacitor is an insulating layer that builds up on the cathode. Initially I assumed it would be an enhancement of the protective chromium oxide layer on the anode, but this appears not to be the case, as the cathode is where we get a build up of some compound. Puzzled by what, as it shouldn't be an oxide as it is a reduction reaction. Whatever it is, those who have conditioned their electrodes find that it is an insulator. The cathodes in my test cell have also begun to form this white compound.
As far as it being worth the effort, well, my curiosity has gotten the better of me now, so I'm enjoying the learning process. I tend to do things my own way using tried and tested electronics rather than trying to replicate Meyer's scribblings, so at least I know what I have to start with.
The problem is that those who genuinely seem to have made progress don't tend to visit the forum anymore, so comparing notes and results is not an option, which seems odd to me.
-
What quantity of HHO will your motor need to run on:
100% HHO
50% HHO
25% HHO
10% HHO
- Schpankme
-
Hi Faraday and doc
Yes it makes a lot of noise; at least you both agree with me and my friend that Myer's stuff was basically all bull.
I do not go into that Myer stuff any more a waste of time, her we have done testing and found that you will need 180 lts a min to run a 2,000cc 4cly engine and that?s at a fixed speed.
You can not have resonance in a DC circuit.
And yes the use of extreme high voltage as in above 1,000 volt will not be of any benefit.
aussepom
-
Ausse
I'm on a steep learning curve just trying to get to grips with the science involved at present. Be awhile before I'm attempting to run an ICE with my wfc! No doubt you'll see me in the news when I'm motoring around town in a large 4WD powered by my wfc... don't hold your breath tho! ;)
Noticed Spankmes brief post which reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask. Why does everyone use the abbreviation HHO when talking about the gas output from a wfc or electrolyser? Bit of a misnomer this. Surely it should be H2, O2 or more correctly balanced, 2H2, O2.
One thing I'm sure we won't be getting is monatomic hydrogen and oxygen! Not really important, but it's just been bugging me :)
Ausse, your 180 litres per min for a 2000cc engine, was that using a 4% hydrogen mix calculation in the normal air intake?
-
There are different ways to wire a bifilar coil depending on what you want to achieve with it. According to Tesla, if constructed carefully and wired correctly, it can be made to act as a tuned LC cct by utilising the capacitance between each coil of wire. Once we apply a frequency at which the capacitive reactance between the coils is equal to the inductive reactance produced by the coils, we have exactly equal current flowing through both. However, at this resonant frequency the current through the inductor will be 180 degrees out of phase with the current through the capacitor. Hence, the net current drawn by the cct is '0'. The resistance then of the cct is in theory infinite as would be the voltage. So, Tesla's bifilar coil in this configuration is effectively a parallel tuned LC circuit employing the capacitance between the coils rather than another physical component. Very clever.
Also according to Tesla, in this configuration the coils can hold thousands of time more charge than a standard inductor can. So we can produce massive voltages from this bifilar coil. We now potentially have... great potential!
Farrah Day
This show is not over yet. I have had this thought burning in my head for a long time. How do I make a Tesla pancake coil for which XL=XC?
AM
-
Hi faraday we here is a reply I tried to post it the other day but my connection went down
Re: Meyer's Resonant Charging Circuit Analysed
? Reply #49 on: December 19, 2007, 09:02:31 PM ?
I'm on a steep learning curve just trying to get to grips with the science involved at present.
So you may be a young unit student?? Hard to judge any ones age or ability on these forums.
Be awhile before I'm attempting to run an ICE with my wfc! No doubt you'll see me in the news when I'm motoring around town in a large 4WD powered by my wfc... don't hold your breath tho!
No I will not, I do have the power figures to go with that 120lts a min requires, 20 of Cameron's new 30 plate units at a flow rate of 6 lts per min, this is at calculated 85% efficiency.
They draw 10 amps each at 60V 200X60 = 12,000watts 12kW.
So that?s why we are looking into of trying to improve it some how???
Noticed Spankmes brief post which reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask. Why does everyone use the abbreviation HHO when talking about the gas output from a wfc or electrolyser? Bit of a misnomer this. Surely it should be H2, O2 or more correctly balanced, 2H2, O2.
I do not know others have even given it there own name, Peter Lowery for one and there are others, I just use Hydroxcy. Because it is not fully separated it is still loosely bound, that?s why it will not mix the air in your manifold as recombine, it can and it will 'flash, bang, implode' given the right conditions, as many have found out. Well that?s in my opinion.
One thing I'm sure we won't be getting is monatomic hydrogen and oxygen! Not really important, but it's just been bugging me
No you won't monatomic can be obtained under special conditions, it has life span of a very small fraction of a second, if it is in the close proximity to oxygen it will recombine giving off the same amount of energy that it took to break it apart.
Ausse, your 180 litres per min for a 2000cc engine, was that using a 4% hydrogen mix calculation in the normal air intake?
The test was done by an engineer and some helpers, I was given most of the important info to put on my special spreadsheet programme to obtain other info such as the Btu and calculate the energy LHV value etc. it can also calculate different mixes of other fuels for the energy content.
Info that I obtained the other day after talking to the engineer, it was a calculated mix of air and Hydroxcy, on a 198cc gen set running at about 2,000 RPM with a flow rate of 2lts per min of Hydroxcy. I do not have the air value he is keeping that to himself for the present time.
Ok will that help
aussepom
-
Hi, just noticed the thread.
A few comments;
1. A diode has also a capacitance value in reverse. This means that this is a CLC circuit, and YES it resonates between the "capacitors", where the diode in reverse is the first capacitor and the water cell is the second, with the coil inbetween.
Farrah, you are right that the water will have a leakage current. This only means that the water capacitor will loose some of the charge, and that the resonance will dissipate faster the less recistanse the water has.
The water capacitor equals in electrical terms a capacitor with a resistor in bypass.
So the pulse frequency that should be used to feed the circuit can easily be calculated if the capacitance of diode and water cell is known + the inductance of the coil.
2. Meyer stated a diode type in his patent with a maximum allowable revers voltage of 1200 Volts. This means that the water capacitor must have plates or tubes with close enough proximity to reduce the breakdown voltage to below 1200 volts, or else the diode will be destroyed.
3. What is achieved in my opinion is avalanche breakdown of the water. The avalanche breakdown will break the water melocules into H2/O2 gas. To close the "ionic" channel in the water created by the avalanche breakdown, a second coil was introduced in the curcuit. This coil build up a revers voltage during the breakdown, which closes the ionic channel and prevents all charge to be lost from the water capacitor and thereby keep a minimum, voltage over the cell as Meyer stated.
-
Oystla
I think I should point out that in no way is a diode a capacitor. A diode will not charge up or hold a charge, it is simply a device that with allow current flow in one direction and block it in the other. All ther diode does in Meyer's cct is stop the wfc discharging back through the inductor to the supply.
Very hard to calculate the pulse frequency required unless you know what you want it to do exactly, and I'm not sure anyone does as water won't resonate until its hit by microwaves.
Resonance, I believe, as I've said before, is just a Meyer, misnomer. The cct can't resonate as a tuned cct in a radio would, the electronics are wrong.
-
I think Meyer used the tubes for a specific reason and not just to look cool.
Also I believe the circuit has been altered in the patent not to reveal his secret.
-
Farrah,
Do a search on google on diode and capacitance, and read about it.
YES diodes have a capacitance value in reverse and therefore they acts as capacitors in revers.
You need to update your knowledge.
On Youtube you will find people allready copying the "meyer" effect, i.e. high voltage avalanche breakdown of water, and verifying the results using the Lawton circuitry.
By the way, Meyer never referred to water resonance, Its the electrical circuit resonance he talked about, using water cell as capacitor as part of the circuit.
-
Farrah,
Do a search on google on diode and capacitance, and read about it.
YES diodes have a capacitance value in reverse and therefore they acts as capacitors in revers.
You need to update your knowledge.
On Youtube you will find people allready copying the "meyer" effect, i.e. high voltage avalanche breakdown of water, and verifying the results using the Lawton circuitry.
By the way, Meyer never referred to water resonance, Its the electrical circuit resonance he talked about, using water cell as capacitor as part of the circuit.
-
I did not mean to belittle you in anyway Oystla, I was simply attempting to put you straight. It's just that you are on the wrong track with the diode-capacitor thing.
I do not need to update my knowledge on this, you simply need to understand a few basics and realise where your going wrong. Most components will exhibit a small capacitance, even two parallel tracks on a cct board will, but a diode in reverse does not a capacitor make. A diode works and acts nothing like a capacitor, even tho it will exhibit a tiny amount of capacitance. A capacitor will pass AC, a diode will not. I think it's a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, but don't let me put you off using diodes as capacitors. In fact why not simply ditch the diode altogether and use a proper capacitor instead?
Meyer's version of resonance in his technical briefs is flawed throughout, he talks about a series resonant tuned cct providing maximum voltage and minimum current at the resonant frequency, when in fact this applies only to a parallel resonant tuned cct. It is completely the opposite for a series cct. Meyer never fully explains how hydrogen and oxygen are liberated by using a resonant frequency, he just assumed that it was somehow, as he puts it, 'pulling the water apart'. Not good enough I'm afraid. No comprehendable scientific explanation and no reaction equations to
emphasise what is actually occuring. Basically a lot of invented bullshit that should be taken with a pinch of salt!
I'm well versed in the Meyer technical briefs and his misguided babblings on electronics theory - read the patents, laughed at the technical briefs and got the t-shirt!
AM, I think Meyer used tubes because they are more efficient and easier to assemble than plates.
Construct a bifilar coil as in Teslas patents and inductive reactance will equal capacitive reactance and cancel each other out a certain specific frequency. At that frequency the coil would not show any capacitance or inductance. This method is used to make low value wire wound resistors that exhibit hardly any reactance.
There is a lot of hearsay and nonsense about Meyer patents. Don't be drawn in or swayed by this, stand back, be objective and give it a little thought.
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?
No, Meyer patented what he thought he needed to before he had a working model, hoping he would get there in the near future, and possibly of course to create investor interest. He was trying to patent his 'idea', hoping to put his idea into reality before too long. By doing this he hoped to stop anyone else jumping on the band wagon and 'pipping him to the post!' I think he 'over-cooked it' somewhere along the line though and began to find himself in trouble when things were'nt progressing as planned.
But hey, that's only my opinion. Plenty of Meyer fanatics and 'blind faith' followers hang onto every word of his technical briefs like their life depended on it. Such is life!
-
FD,
First, good job on your work and analysis. I wish there were more folks like you investigating the TPU.
Second, I don't want to harp or dwell on this, but diodes do exhibit capacitance while in reverse bias. The capacitance is proportional to the amount of reverse bias. There is even a device produced specifically to capitalize on this effect, and they're called "varactor diodes". They are used to "pull" the frequency of crystal oscillators, and act as one of the capacitor legs in the circuit around the xtal. Was Meyers using the diode in his WFC as a capacitor?...probably not. Just a FYI.
One thing I would suggest, although it has been touched on a couple of times, is to analyse the WFC itself. Specifically, how the water acts in the cell. You mentioned that it exhibits a non-linear resistance. Is there info on this? References? I am not doubting you, but some technical data would be helpful. The water and cell needs to be modeled imho. As oystla said, part of that model would be a capacitor/resistor pair in parallel across the plates. The resistor models the dielectric (water) resistance. All capacitors can be modeled this way, but the resistor in the WFC capacitor model is much lower in value than "real" capacitors, AND as you say, it may be non-linear in nature. I would like to know in what way is it non-linear? Is it due to ion lag and inertia perhaps?
The dielectric layer on the electrodes is another important factor I believe, as do you. So now there are two very different dielectrics in series, one very thin and highly dielectric, and one very thick with poor dielectric properties.
Just a couple thoughts for now...
-
OK,
1. I know Meyer had no formal scientific training, and was "self taught" on many fields. His claims and explanations is therefore difficult to grasp, and seems to be a lot of BS. He uses words for things that are not used in science, so one have to try to "convert" his phrases and try to interpret what he actually meant.
But I agree He was far out on many claims.
2. However his patents on water "electrolysis" are interesting. His first patent on the issue we are discussing here was filed in the early eighties (1982 i believe..)
3. If you connect a diode, inductor and capacitor in series, feed it with a pulse signal and connect an oscilloscope, you will see a decaying pulse between the diode and the capacitor. The timing will be the resonating frequency of the circuit, which is depended on electrical properties of the components, just as Meyer stated....
-
Interesting oystla,
However, I would think that this frequency in the case of the Meyer cell will be much much higher than 10 kHz.
-
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.
-
Yes, the frequency is the big question....
But the formula for this I believe is;
f (Herz) = ( square ( (1/C1 + 1/C2) / L ) ) / 2pi)
So what values will a diode and a water capapcitor have? Depends on diode make and size of water cell.....
Assume some values;
C1 = C2 = 1E-6 Farad
L= 0,001 Henry
Results in resonant frequency of 5 KHZ.....
-
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.
-
OK,
My valaue was not 6 farad but 6E-6= 6*10^-6 farad, i.e. 6 mikroFarad...
Anyhow, the diode is probably pretty small value. But notice the formula, it may well be the water capacitor that decides the total frequency.
OK, what is my point ?
The point is that we want to hit the resonance frequency to be able to pulse the CLC circuit and increase the voltage to a higher and higher value, until the water capacitor breaks down and you get an avalanche breakdown of the capacitor, resulting in H2/O2 generation.
The inductor is here the voltage multiplier that will at the end increase the voltage to above the water capacitor maximum value.
-
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?
-
Perhaps this is a start...?
RL = Insulation (dielectric (water) resistance)
C = Capacitance
ESR = Equivalent Series Resistance
ESL = Equivalent Series Inductance
DA = Dielectric Absorption
-
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
-
I am following these threads with interest as well. Nice to see a bit elevated interest and that fresh thoughts are been brought up.I don't have much to add to this discussion but I like to add this paper on the subject of nonlinearities of water with- and without electrolytes. Also I am noticing the discussion seems to focus entirely on electrical resonance, what about acoustical resonance ?
-
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..
-
I have not had time to really study the cct, but I am wondering if electronics-knowledgable folks here can investigate and comment...
My questions are... is there some viability to a notion that the diode in question, presumed by most to have been purposefully drawn into Meyer's circuit backwards, may have been intended to be a varactor diode? (Maybe that's what he was hiding, if in fact it is not apparent, or maybe its practically a ridiculous question?) What would one project the affects to be if this function were to be theorized in a cct such as this?
Would some of you electronics wizards look at the circuit with this notion in mind, scratch your heads over it, and comment on this, please.
In relation to this question, I found the following posting very interesting.
http://hamslife.blogspot.com/2007/04/diode-designed-to-act-as-capacitor.html
and also here: http://www.wannatinker.com/DIODES.htm (near the end)
Boy I wish I had time to actually study this and participate in real scientific fashion (and I hope to in the coming year). I hope this question (no matter how potentially irrelevant, I simply do not know) lends something useful to the effort.
Cheers,
TwoHawks
-
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.
-
Farrah,
Your statement
"Now, irrespective of what Meyer states, I don't believe this cct can charge up a capacitor to more than twice the supply voltage."
is again fundamentally wrong.
An LC series circuit can produce dangerously high voltage.
An example can be found at;
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
which states:
"
A word of caution is in order with series LC resonant circuits: because of the high currents which may be present in a series LC circuit at resonance, it is possible to produce dangerously high voltage drops across the capacitor and the inductor, as each component possesses significant impedance. We can edit the SPICE netlist in the above example to include a plot of voltage across the capacitor and inductor to demonstrate what happens: (Figure below)
Plot of Vc=V(2,3) 70 V peak, VL=v(3) 70 V peak, I=I(V1#branch) 0.532 A peak
According to SPICE, voltage across the capacitor and inductor reach a peak somewhere around 70 volts! This is quite impressive for a power supply that only generates 1 volt. Needless to say, caution is in order when experimenting with circuits such as this
"
The poing here is energy transfer between the components
For a capacitor Energy stored = 0,5 *C * V^2
C= capacitance
V= voltage
For an inductor: Energy stored= 0,5*L*I^2
L= inductance
I= current flow, amperage
Then knowing that the inductor will transfer all of its energy to the capacitor at circuit resonant frequency, the voltage can easily rise to high values dependent on the values of C, L and inductor amperage.
-
All this guesswork would be unnecessary if the wfc element (including the oxide layer) was empirically determined, and modeled.
-
Farahday:
"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"
There is no such animal as a 'dc series resonant circuit' because resonant circuits do not respond to dc. However you can have an ac signal super-imposed onto a dc component. The resonant circuit still ignores the dc and goes about it's normal business.
With regards to the diode. Without a filtering network, they only lop off the negative or positive portion of the signal but will still remain an ac signal with a dc component. If you lop off the negative going portion it is still alternating between zero volts & the peak volt level. Again, the resonant circuit could care less.
In Meyers circuit, looks like he's using that diode so as not to lose the positive charge on the anode when the voltage returns to zero. I don't think it's necessary and he only put it in as a precaution. Help or confusion?
Garfield
-
Hi guys, it has probably occurred to some of you that we're not all 'reading from the same page', which won't help our cause.
This is mainly due, no doubt, to our different individual levels of knowledge and understanding, particularly with reference to electronics, but also partly due to those with no obvious electronics background simply plucking ideas and formulae out of cyberspace. It would be good for at least some of us to agree on some issues.
Oystla stated:
Your statement
"Now, irrespective of what Meyer states, I don't believe this cct can charge up a capacitor to more than twice the supply voltage."
is again fundamentally wrong.
An LC series circuit can produce dangerously high voltage.
An example can be found at;
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
This is an example of what I mean. Oystla claims I'm fundamentally wrong... but I'm not. Oystla, you've overlooked something in your haste to prove me wrong. Look again and you will find that the cct shown via your link does not contain the crucial 'diode' that you fussed about being a capacitor in an earlier post... remember?
With the diode in place, this cct can only double the supply voltage... I'm not wrong about this, whether you accept it or not. Google some more!
I make no bones about the fact that I'm uncertain as to what exactly is happening at the wfc electrodes, but I'm quite certain that my electronics theory is far superior to yours.
Garfield, I beg to differ about the 'dc resonant series charging cct', but I really don't want to get into a 'heated' debate about this - hey, it's Christmas!
Just check out Tesla coils and you will find this cct used to fire them. It is simply a 'series resonant charging cct' with a blocking diode added.
Without the diode, as Oystla, so keenly pointed out, the voltage across the capacitor can reach very high values, but this is with an ac signal. With an ac signal this cct does properly resonate. Incorporating the diode stops the cct resonating, because the current can't reverse, so again is a bit of a misnomer. But nevertheless, the cct does really exist.
Apart from not resonating, the cct with the diode will also not allow the capacitor to discharge through the inductor as the pulses are always only now +ve. It is often used to fire Tesla coils in preference to a the series resonant charging cct without the diode, because the capacitor does not fully dischage during each firing. This means that the firing point is not so critical as the capacitor is always charged to some level.
Another thing that we have to consider when trying to apply reactance and frequency formulae to our cct, is that you will find that various waveforms depicted are usually assuming a sinewave signal. We are using a square wave pulses. Quite a bit of difference in how this affects the charging cycles. Unlike a sinewave that has a relatively slowly rising voltage, a square wave is 'near' instant. All these things need to be taken into consideration - you can't simply apply standard ac resonant LC cct theory to pulsed dc.
Garfield, the other important point of course is that if our wfc becomes a good capacitor through conditioning, then it is an electrolytic capacitor, which of course would be destroyed by ac. So then the diode becomes important in maintaining the correct polarity across our wfc.
I think this subject is really fascinating and I'm keen to do further experiments.
-
OK, then we can agree that we disagree.
Can anyone connect an oscilloscope and check this out.
Have a merry Christmas & happy new year. I'm logged off until new year...
-
Yes I think Oystla is right in that we need more empirical evidence to substantiate our claims.
I'll check some of this out on the scope Oystla.
Yes, this is very fascinating stuff.
Merry Christmas to all and will get back to you in the new year.
Garfield
-
Yes, time-out guys. Have a lovely Christmas time.
-
From the web page:
http://my.opera.com/H2earth/blog/show.dml/779891
FD, I have no doubt you've seen it.
Seems there was/is a missing choke in DL's SS version.
Anyway, here is Fig. 7-8 from the brief. He is showing two chokes (makes sense, and is what Puharich does also I believe). What he is showing is the model of an inductor. I hope folks don't think they need all these components in addition to the inductor itself.
Notice he is showing the cell modeled with a cap and resistor in parallel. This is correct as I see it and mentioned earlier. However, I am certain that this model is quite simplified, and one of the first tasks should be to quantify and completely model the cell element. Once done, it would be rather simple to analyse and "play" with things in order to see their effects.
I can't stress this enough.....model the cell!
-
Hi Guys, Merry Christmas.
Firstly I'd like to agree with you Zippy about the wfc being effectively a resistor in 'parallel' with a capacitor - can't think now why I'd thought it to be a series set-up... but, I was of course wrong.
That Meyer cct equivalent looks fairly good, though I'm not sure what the additional resistors RP1 and RP2 are meant to represent. Any ideas?
Here's something interesting. I've managed to get a few goes on an Electronic Lab Circuit Simulator.
Firstly, I made a few assumptions for my control cct. The wfc was a 50nF capacitor in parallel with a resistor of 1 Mohm. I had a 10mH inductor with a 5 ohm resistor in series. I then applyied a square wave of 10 volts amplitude.
Now with the blocking diode in place, the results were very discouraging. The scope showed a 20volt ish flat dc after the capacitor initially charged up. This was over a frequency range of 100Hz - 50KHz. All this was to be expected really.
Taking out the diode out does indeed make things more interesting. At around 7KHz, the voltage jumped off the scale, and I had to alter the scope to a 1Kv per division in order to see the full waveform. I reckon I was seeing about 5Kv pp. As I reduced the value of the R-C (wfc) resistance, the waveform voltage reduced, but was still well into the kilovolts at much lower resistances. At 10Kohm I was still getting a 1kv pp waveform.
Altering the capacitor value to just 5nF gave pretty well the same results, albeit at a higher frequency (21.7KHz). So even with 5nF capacitance and 10Kohm resistance I still had a 1Kv pp waveform across the R-C component.
With 5nF and just 1Kohm resistor, I only had about 40 volt pp.
I never altered the inductor from its 10mH value or the 5 ohm resistor, as these are things that we can be in control of ourselves.
From this it would appear that things show far more promise without the blocking diode. But of course this now brings new problems, in that we do not have a bipolar signal, hence the ploarity across our wfc is continually changing. But, just how important is this? It doesn't matter to us that hydrogen and oxygen will be evolved from both electrodes as we don't want then kept separate, but will this be detrimental to the formation of the dielectric layer during conditioning, or can we condition both electrodes this way?
Two things are for sure, if it is neccessary for the pulses to be bipolar, hence if we need the blocking diode, then we need to use some form of transformer to up the voltage pulses.
Secondly, the greater resistance of the electrolyte and/or the better the capacitance of our wfc, the greater the voltages provided across the cell.
We do however have to bear in mind that these electronic simulators use ideal components and of course do not take into account the non-linear resistive properties of the electrolyte, nor indeed the somewhat mysterious properties of water and the effect of ioniation. So, though they can be useful in getting you on the right track and perhaps throwing up ideas, only practical tests will be ultimately conclusive.
-
That Meyer cct equivalent looks fairly good, though I'm not sure what the additional resistors RP1 and RP2 are meant to represent. Any ideas?
Yes, it is my understanding that the parallel Rp in an inductor model represents the core losses. You will notice Stan hints in Fig. 7-8 that there are "Rp" core losses in the transformer as well.
I had a 10mH inductor with a 5 ohm resistor in series.
I had asked the question in a previous post, is there reliable information as to the construction/value of these chokes? Where did you get the 10mH and 5 Ohm values from?
This simple LR model is a good start, but in reality it will yield very poor results. I have fairly extensive experience modeling inductors, and I can say with confidence that unless all the parasitic elements are included, the simulation results will be far from reality. All the intrinsic components shown in the above Fig. 7-8 choke must be determined, AND the core type known and implemented in the model to get realistic outputs.
Inductors are one of the most difficult devices to model, and unfortunately, ou research always seems to involve their use. The values of Rp and Cp must be determined on the bench. Failing the availability of reliable construction notes, one can estimate these values, but as a minimum, the inductance should be known.
Taking out the diode out does indeed make things more interesting.
From this it would appear that things show far more promise without the blocking diode.
IMHO, the diode must be there. I do not feel this was a ruse on Stan's part. As you found, there is quite a difference in the resulting voltage and wave form across the cell. He also goes into the specifics of why it is there. Albeit it is still confusing, by its presence alone, how can resonance as we know it occur?
Two things are for sure, if it is necessary for the pulses to be bipolar (you mean unipolar?), hence if we need the blocking diode, then we need to use some form of transformer to up the voltage pulses.
It would appear from the patents and brief, that indeed a step-up transformer is/was always used. The primary is being pulsed through a transistor switch and a variable DC supply, anywhere from 0V to 12VDC. If Stan grabbed an OTS 12V transformer, then we can expect the secondary voltage to be about 100 to 120 Volts, before the chokes. I would want to simulate all this to be 100% certain.
Regarding the two chokes, in the earlier patents, they were not only drawn separate from the step-up transformer, but one was variable. In the later drawings, these two chokes were shown formed on the same core as the step-up transformer, and both chokes were of a fixed value. This would appear to be a refinement, but evidently the "older" way of doing it also worked.
So the step-up transformer we can readily obtain, the chokes however, we need to find out what their value is.
We do however have to bear in mind that these electronic simulators use ideal components and of course do not take into account the non-linear resistive properties of the electrolyte, nor indeed the somewhat mysterious properties of water and the effect of ioniation. So, though they can be useful in getting you on the right track and perhaps throwing up ideas, only practical tests will be ultimately conclusive.
Indeed. However, as I mentioned, if the time is taken to bench test the chokes (to find all the model values) and the (conditioned) WFC, it would be rather easy to see what is really going on in this device.
My understanding so far regarding the water-resistor is that its V-I characteristic is somewhat similar to that of a silicone diode. The V-I curve is non-linear up to a certain value, at which point it is fairly linear from there upward.
-
Hi Darren, Farrah day,
I have been playing with the thought of introducing a transformer into the D14 circuit for a while now. The idea is to make the voltage powering the mosfet adjustable (as suggested earlier in this thread). Just an ordinary adjustable PSU would suffice I guess. I rem,ber reading somewhere that Stan used a transformer that upped the voltage about five times. As I do not know what input voltage he was using this is pretty useless. My plan is then to take an ordinary 230V/12V tranformer and stick in there in reverse. This would make my pulsetrain adjustable from virually zero up to about 230 volts. Can I just do this or are there things i should take in consideration before doing this?
I have my controller cct ready, tubes ready, just searching for proper casing to be able to adjust things easily. I have a acrylic tube but it makes disassembly quite a task, so looking for a larger container. If anyone has any suggestion.... The tubes are 20 cm high and there are six of them.
Also what I would like to mention is the presentation of Moray King. He states that using a around 40 khz square wave and a gap space of 1mm or less is enough to get over Faraday levels of Browns gas production. He stressed that a gap of 1mm or less is important to see the effect. This matches with Ravi's gap of less than 1mm.....
regards,
Robert
-
Hi Zippy
Yes in my haste I wrote 'bipolar' when as you correctly pointed out I meant 'unipolar.
The electronic simulators are good in some ways, in that you can adjust variables at will in seconds and see instant results, but one thing that no simulator I know of will do is simulate the results of ionisation taking place.
I simply pulled the 10mH inductor 'out of the hat', as the one thing that we can make ourselves that won't vary is the inductor. It doesn't matter what it's value is precisely as you simply need to alter the frequency to compensate for a different resonant frequency. That said nothing resonates once we include the diode.
I don't think it is - or will be - possible to get accurate bench readings on the capacitance of our wfc's as I would imagine them to be constantly changing, with voltage, dielectric breakdown and resulting ionisation. I think, knowing the inductor value and frequency is enough to allow use to calculated the mean capacitance. I think that is as close as we will get with that.
The diode is a real problem though as without being able to simulate ionisation, the cct with the diode just produces twice the supply voltage as a straight dc on the scope. But is this the case if ionisation takes place??
OK, I see now, Rp1 & 2, are loses due to eddy currents within the transformer and inductor cores.
Bit of a pain that Meyer's diagrams varied so much. I've not yet experimented with more than just the one inductor in the simulator as of yet. Neither is there the option of bifilar winding, so simulation experiments are of limited use.
Purarich never used a blocking diode in his ac electrolysis, and Meyer's Resonant charging cct is a copy of this, so I would not totally discount the diode as being there to lead us on a wild goose chase!
It's crazy insn't it. The more you delve, the more complicated and mysterious this ridiculously simple little circuit becomes when you add the 'water' into the equation. Practical experiments with a few 'knowns' will, I think be the only reliable way forward.
Robert, I don't see any problem with reversing the transformer, but bear in mind that the primary winding will have a much lower current capability than the secondary, so you will easily burn out the windings if you are not careful.
-
FarahDay:
When you were referring to kilo-volts I thought I was reading it wrong. Did it really go from a 10 volt square wave to 5 kilovolts? Thats amazing.
Here is what I found:
Using a 2.5Mh coil and a .01 mfd (10 nano) cap.
Fed 12.5 v p-p sq.wave to this circuit and measured 45v p-p across the cap. Not nearly as impressive as your circuit. But my coil had a resistance of 42 ohms. Resonance was at 33kc.
The other thing is that once resonance was achieved the resonant circuit changed the square wave to a sine wave. This, I was expecting. What I did NOT expect was. When inserting the series diode, I got zero output. (this is what you were expecting). I tried reversing the diode, using a silicon diode, a germanium diode but to no avail. So much for that theory.
Notice that in Meyer's circuit, he uses 2 resonant chokes inductively coupled through the common core. Lawton's 2 chokes being wound in bifilar style are both inductively coupled and capacitively coupled. Being one on each side of the wfc, are they trying to achieve some type of balance?
I'm really puzzled on how that blocking diode is supposed to work.
Oh well, will just have to put the old brain into a higher gear.
Garfield
-
Hi Garfield
Yes, the simulation went off the scale once I hit the resonant frequency, 5 Kilovolts pp!
Did a quick simulation on the figures you provided: That is a 10nF capacitor and an inductor with (I assume that is 2.5 milli, not Mega Henries) and a resistance of 42 ohms.
The simulation gives me around 600 volts pp at 30KHz.
But as mentioned previously, simulators tend to use ideal components and do not always take into consideration all the loses in a practical cct.
-
I think we have all lost sight of the forest for the trees. It appears to me that the resonance is occurring in the tubes not is the cct! Stan Meyers worked on this experiment for several years and you can be sure he researched all of the previous patents. Resonating the tubes is probably why he settled on this type of design instead of flat plates.
It was reported that the tubular type cells ring when the best production is achieved. Now where it is Acoustic or RF resonance or both, I think the tubes and the proper design of the cell are the key. Research some of John Keely's work in this area to understand my thinking.
DAB
-
This subject has been very informative and interesting.
I have done some experiments along this line.
Please check out the latest link at this index: http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=66
I am trying to get HHO production using HV and low amperage.
Preferably below .5 amps with 1 cell.
I'm not super fluent with electronics. And I appreciate any suggestions and comments.
-Dogs.
-
Hi Dogs
Checked out your work on the other forum. Some good stuff. Hopefully I'll be comparing notes soon.
It's just a shame that muppet, 'Hydrocars' has decided to contaminate your thread with his utter garbage - he hasn't got the foggiest idea of what he's talking about! Hope you don't take anything he says to heart. I think his sole purpose is to disrupt and undermine the credibility of anyone that posts anything useful.
Look forward to following your progress.
-
Dogs:
Keep up the excellent work. I noticed you trying to make a hv diode using several in series.
You should try connecting a 100k resistor across each diode as this will equalize the voltage drops across each one to improve it's performance. This worked quite well in the regular ac circuits, but this is an entirely different ball game.
Also regarding the bottom portion of your wave form, I noticed from your schematic that you didn't make the ground connection at the junction of one of the secondary coils & charging chokes.
Right now I'm in the slow process of conditioning my cell which is only a single one consisting of a 2" inside a 2.25" with 1-1.5 mm spacing.
Got Lawton's pwm all built and working but haven't connected it to the cell yet.
I'd really like to replicate that step charging wave you got.
Garfield
-
Farrah Day,
Thanks for the kind words.
I think that in the end, Hydrocars realized that we are on the same page.
- Input Max 12V 1amp.
- Get HV via Electro-Mechanical Resonance of the LC circuit.
- Use blocking diode to get step charging effect on the positive side of the cell.
- Hit the cell with a and HV DC pulse.
Best,
-Dogs
-
Hi All,
I am uncertain if the question I had asked earlier (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3566.msg65760.html#msg65760) is a bit parochial or irrelevant(?) so that it did not illicit consideration, or if anyone may be scratching their head on it at all, or..?? Any direction in that regard would be appreciated.
In the meantime, while doing some followup research in consideration of the conversation (re inductor values and 'the diode'), I found something I thought others may find helpful (if they had not seen it already)....
DC resonant charging topology (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html)
(If you search the forum you will find richie's site referred to here and there - so I assume some of you have been there already.)
I hope you are all having a very enjoyable holiday time ;^)
Cheers,
TwoHawks
-
Farrah,
it was dissapointing that your simulation with the diode in showed no resonance at a wide range of frequencies....and the diode had a (small) reverse capacitance value specified?
As I see it: Patents are expensive to achieve and keep, so I don't believe Stan intentionally aimed to be inaccurate in his Patent descripitons, i.e. I believe Stan believed himself to be right in the patent descripitons. That's the whole point of patents....
That does not mean I think he was right i all aspects, since there are several things that does'nt add up, and in his video "lectures" on youtube he says a lot of BS...
But the main purpose of this CCT as Stan describes it was to gradually increase the DC voltage over the WFC to a point where the water "capacitor" can no longer hold the charge and you get an avalanche breakdown with H2/O2 generation.
So are we saying that the cct of Stan's description with the diode in can not build up high voltages with an pulsed input ?
And if so, what would be a simple cct where a pulsed input could result in a gradual increase of voltage to high values?
-
Dear All
Thank you all for all of you wounder full input.
I know it is late to reply for this, but i think i have to .
if you all please allow me to share my thoughts on this Water Capacitor (WC).
We all know that Capacitors are short cct for AC .
And they are open cct for DC .
and that our WC acts like both a capacitor and a non linear resistance.
there are two pieces of info that we all have read but i think have missed putting them together.
The First piece of info or fact that some one here mentioned when he called the WF a dynamic capacitor , it is , in some ways.
BUT to be more precise . it is only a capacitor for a nano to micro second (regardless of water type) then it collapses , the Ions start conducting current from one tube/Plates to the other. converting our Electrical Field back into Voltage and Current.
and no i don't think that the Catastrophic Dielectric Failure is the true way to have the WFC to work.
because this theory ( Lindmans theory ) is .....basically wrong ......... why Current into EF then back to Current ??!?!?!
So this Fact that the WF lasts momentarily, to me makes it very clear that we have to use those nano to micro second of capacitor integrity to do our work before its collapses.
I hope this idea is clear .
Second piece of info Idea , that some know or remember or have not heard of . that Andrija Puharich mentioned in his article http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm) and i quot his words :"" By carrying out new calculations I was able to show that the water was being vibrated with a displacement of the order of 1 Angstrom ( = 10-10 meters). This displacement is of the order of the diameter of the hydrogen atom."" end of quotation.
when i first read this phrase i read that the Hydrogen atom is being moved away from the Oxygen atom , since the measured distance is it the thickness of the hydrogen atom, i don't know why i read it like that, but later re-reading it I find that Puharich is talking about the entire molecule, now Puharich is more educated than me , but I think he is wrong and the movement is only for the Hydrogen Atoms .
Why ? because if the entire molecule of water is shaking , then it is hearing up , we all know that that is heat .... according the the Generic Gas theory correct ??? isn't that how Micro waves heat stuff ?
and and if we all remember Puharich and according to his words , His cell would draw the extra energy yield from ambient atmosphere and his words are :...
"(When) H2 (gas) and O2 (gas) are generated by electrolysis, the electrolysis cell must absorb heat from the surroundings, in order to remain at constant temperature. It is this ability to produce gaseous electrolysis products with heat absorption from the surroundings that is ultimately responsible for energy-conversion efficiencies during electrolysis greater than unity."
end of quotation.
So can you all see the error there ? if the entire molecule is shaking then its heating , and both Stans WFC and Puharich WFC are cold and even getting colder as Puharich claims.
Now ........
I believe that the Movements is ONLY of the Hydrogen Atom(s) of a Water molecule .
See The Diode Establishes the Capacitor and the EF , the EF aligns the Water molecule, this enhances the WF and the EF powers,
but most importantly is that the EF pulls the H atoms away from the O atoms.
The next pulse would pull the H even further, by the time another pulse comes in to further pull the H, The H has to react to the previous or initial or pull pulse , being pulled back back by the O Atoms (can provide more details ) .
So now we have momentum and kinetic energy building up ONLY in the Hydrogen Atoms.
So the EF is Building Kinetic Energy (KE) and RESONANCE in the Hydrogen Atoms.
As you can see , the EF thus WC have to be maintained , in order to have this Power to affect the Hydrogen Atoms.
Now the third almost not noticed fact is that we have Multi Deltas of the EF . meaning we don't have one large steep increase in the Electrical voltage charging the capacitor creating one large powerful electrical Field (EF) that would most probably not be able to pull the H atoms from the O , as many have proved using Van-digraph generators and powerful high voltage DC sources.
So the third element of the idea is the EFFECT of REPETITIVE SHARP increases of Electrical Field .
I am not taking about the Burst mode , i am taking about Delta EF after Delta EF after Delta EF.
Each Delta would Store more Kinetic Energy inside the ATOMS of Hydrogen, each time pulling it further from the O .
(( Please don't forget the over all increase of the EF and Voltage)
I have to look deeper into the covalent Bond.
it is not H and O , it is H and and electron and O sharing this electron.
the electron changes speed as it moves from orbit around the H to orbit around the O .
now imagine us changing the distance between H and O so fast that it not only decreases the time share of the electron, but it also deeply affects the speeds that the electron has to achieve to keep this covalent bond, and don't forget that the electron it self is also influenced by the EF and other Ions and Light and heat .
if we add one more element , which is that the H and H atoms would be pulled closer to each other by the covalent bond with the O, thus the KE energy stored in them when they were pulled away from the O, will will now be stored as a repelling force of each electron to Against the other electron when they are closest to the O.
so in fact the angel between the H and H will vary .
So
the H atoms will now resonating closer and further to and from the O .
the H atoms will now resonate closer to each other and further from each other in a hemispherical or circular path .
if we put both those resonances together we should end up with a PATH shaped like an Epsilon Bent around the O . and this Path is being amplified and being driven away from the O.
the mutilated path mutilates the Covalent bond, the electrons are suffering, speeding ,slowing , changing angels , circular paths are more sever until we get what we all want .....
the distance of the H and the O would be so far , and the EF would get strong enough to pull the molecule apart and the electron would Free ,as the affect of the Electron on the Covalent bond no longer strong enough to maintain it.
i.e in less than a nano second both O and H Cannot attract the Electron to their orbits to maintain the bond.
that would explain why Stan needed and electron extraction circuit .
Also please remember the Dublin institute of technology report and the Scientific fact the Pure kinetic energy does create H3O and OH and H naturally in water , and that breaking H2O is not the expensive part as puharich states.
to further verify this read and specifically the Fracturing process's of Hydrocarbons in oil to create our fuels.
going back to WFC
if consider the temporary nature of WC , we would understand that we have to do every thing before the capacitor collapses,
which is repetitive Delta EF affect until we crack the H from the O , reaching the critical EF and Voltage values that would Fracture the Water molecule as we want it abut it also would initiate Catastrophic dielectric failure, at this critical EF and Voltage value we stop charging, losing some EF but not all, here the Insulating layer becomes a treasure.
another advantage of stopping charging is to allow for the WC to recover.
in this context we need the highest possible charging rate i.e the resonance of CL CCT where XL=CL.
I hope this is clear in writing as it is in my head.
Please see attached JPG.
thank you all I appreciate all help and responses.