Author Topic: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production (Read 5077 times)

JulesP · « **on:** November 16, 2020, 12:03:39 PM »

Hi all,

As someone who has been researching OU systems for a few years, I have relatively recently started work on HHO systems and have built a variety of test cells and circuits, including a PLL auto-tuning system which Dave Lawton original designed.

I'm now at the stage of examining the optimum HV signal at the electrodes. To that end, I reckon it makes sense to consider what waveform is best to see at the electrode end of the chain and then work backwards to what kit and circuitry is required to deliver it.

In the attached image I have assembled five suggestions for waveforms based on the work of others.

Option 1 is based around the Bob Boyce approach with a ‘resonant’ selection of frequencies superimposed on a DC bias of 155V.

Options 2 is the Ed Mitchell approach to Meyer’s system. However, using full ac means that the electrodes are changing polarity with each half cycle so I’m wondering if that is an efficient use of energy. Also, the usual inclusion of a ‘blocking diode’ will surely block the negative half of the cycle anyway.

Options 3 and 4 are non-gated and gated versions of a 50Hz half-wave rectified and stepped up voltage waveforms.

Option 5 is a typical output from feeding a square wave into a transformer, and which only responds well to the rising and falling edges of the input, resulting in more of a spike than mirroring the square waveform. Again this can be stepped up in voltage to a higher level.

There will be of course other waveforms that members believe are ideal to deliver optimum HHO, watergas etc, and depending on whether one is using more conventional electrolysis or the ‘capacitive discharge’ type with distilled water, where the dielectric breaks down, requiring much higher voltages than the conventional type. So to summarise my question, what do members think is the optimum waveform to exceed Faradaic limits?

Thanks

Jules

h20power · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2020, 10:34:52 PM »

Hi JulesP,

The blocking diode doesn't allow the current to switch directions as remember the switch is either on or it's off. The waveform shown thus acts as a means to limit the current flow as the negative current plus the positive current cancel each other out when the waveform's positive and negative voltages are equal. Kinda hard to get them to be exactly equal but I have managed to get them within 2 volts of each other resulting in only 0.3 mA flowing through the water bath. This is how voltage is allowed to do work as the current is limited in a resonance condition and the voltage tries to take off to infinity. It is the atoms that are being targeted getting them to release their electrons as no electrons no water molecules trust me it is that simple.

I've given that circuit some thought and see that you can hook up the capacitors to the WFC but only at a single resonant cavity as the voltages are too high for any capacitor to withstand at the transformer's connection to the WFC. This is possible due to the resonant cavities dividing up the voltage as the voltage will then be 1/10th of the voltage in a WFC such as mines with ten resonant cavities. Not sure what type of capacitor will work best but I'll leave that to you to figure out.

Oh, almost forgot to mention this, the waveform is a result of transformer action as the VIC transformer is receiving a square wave signal to the primary coil.

Each resonant cavity must receive a minimum of 500 volts negative and 500 volts positive in order to ionized the atoms that make up the water molecules if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If however they are not built to Meyer's specs then who knows what the voltage requirements will be? ⁺500 plus ^-500 equals 1000 volts of potential difference.

JulesP · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2020, 11:38:34 AM »

I don’t understand this 500+ and 500- voltage you mention and which presumably is reflected in your use of an AC waveform.

Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, if you use AC you are switching the polarity of the electrodes every half cycle and that can’t be helpful for various reasons. Mainly because the H+ and OH- ions take time to migrate towards the Cathode and Anode respectively. If every half cycle of the VIC waveform the polarity is switching then they never get a chance to complete their migration and undergo the optimum Redox reaction on or near the plates (see pics 1&2)

Secondly, Meyer clearly used ‘Unipolar’ pulses as he clearly states in his technical brief, so why change it? (see pics 3&4).

So you can see why I’m confused.

Jules

Sorry for the 'too large' pics :|

h20power · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2020, 01:04:03 PM »

You wanted to know what sets me apart from the rest and this is it. I looked into the relaxation time of water and it's over the pulse time so as far as the water molecules are concerned the two voltages are taking place at the same time. The voltage build up is taking place on both plates as the oscilloscope shows this to be the case. The reason why you don't see anyone else posting this waveform is mainly due to people being cheap and not buying the needed tools for the task at hand like a differential probe.

This scope shot is showing just what I am talking about to be true as I did invest into getting the right tools for the task at hand so that I could be able to see the waveform being placed on the plates of the water capacitor. The rest comes with understanding what it is the oscilloscope is showing me and understanding how the VIC circuit works. Every two pulses shown on the oscilloscope is one that is negative first and positive second if the transformer is wired up correctly and they are generated by one single square wave pulse sent to the primary coil. You have heard Meyer say this is a pulse doubling transformer correct? Well, there it is as I sent five square wave pulses and got ten pulses back five are positive and five are negative. When you add up the energy total or sum the negative cancels out the positive if they are equal, mine are not fully equal, thus what is primarily left over to do work is the voltage just as Meyer talks about in his many lectures. Voltage does in fact do work but like Meyer said no one ever thought to use voltage in this manor before being that to used voltage and not current to break the bonds of the water molecules by way of ionization.

All the science is on my side with this and I went and shared the science behind this technology already complete with examples of this type of water separation taking place in nature be it thunderstorms or plants, and more as any way you can think of to get the atoms to release their electrons will work. Meyer's technology just so happens to mimic the earth's Global Electric Circuit but that is not the only way to get the atoms to release their electrons. It is this act of getting the atoms to release their electrons which breaks the bonds of the water molecules even with standard electrolysis as that is why it works better when the water is made conductive as then the current can carry away the electrons from the atoms and again that act of getting the atoms to release their electrons is what breaks the bonds of the water molecules. But then you have to ask yourself which way is more efficient the way mother nature does it or man's way via electrolysis? The answer to that question should already be clear to you as mother nature always does things in the most efficient manor as all life depends on it doing so to survive as a plant doesn't need any electricity from man being applied to it to break the bonds of the water molecules nor do thunderstorms.

Like I said before I send positive only square waves to the primary coil just as Stanley Meyer did to his and by way of transformer action a modified AC waveform is created that can only be seen/read with a differential probe due to it being an isolated circuit. If you hook up standard probe leads to the cell those leads have reference to ground and thus will ground the isolated VIC circuit out. I know you don't want to pony up the money to get a differential probe but I will then tell you in all truthfulness this technology simply isn't for you as you can't get it to work if you don't have the right tools for the task at hand. It would be like trying to build something to go to the moon with just a mechanic's tool box to put everything together. Understand me now?

JulesP · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2020, 01:38:14 PM »

So you’re saying in effect that you are supplying unipolar pulses to a transformer and getting unipolar pulses out of it to the WFC. The waveform in the second of your attached images is just the + and - voltage across the electrodes which will, of course, be +500 and -500 or whatever, but that is different from the 'AC' waveform in one of your docs and which I used in my original post in this thread. That shows 'energy aimed at hydrogen atoms' and 'energy aimed at Oxygen atoms'. That waveform shows a sequential + and - which is very different (see attached).

Paul-R · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2020, 02:12:01 PM »

I haven't read this thread fully because the huge images makers it so annoying (see the thread: "Resize your image before posting - instructions") but I am pretty sure it is worth reminding people that Bob Boyce's secret of success is to have pulses and as sharp as possible - a very short rise time and descent time and to hit the water with the Keely frequency, 42.8khz + one octave down + another octave down. See Patrick's book - God rest his soul, and eternal thanks).

h20power · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2020, 09:08:48 PM »

Quote from: JulesP on November 18, 2020, 01:38:14 PM

So you’re saying in effect that you are supplying unipolar pulses to a transformer and getting unipolar pulses out of it to the WFC. The waveform in the second of your attached images is just the + and - voltage across the electrodes which will, of course, be +500 and -500 or whatever, but that is different from the 'AC' waveform in one of your docs and which I used in my original post in this thread. That shows 'energy aimed at hydrogen atoms' and 'energy aimed at Oxygen atoms'. That waveform shows a sequential + and - which is very different (see attached).

You are getting bogged down with words which is why I showed you just what the actual waveform looks like on the oscilloscope as figure 10-5 shows an impossible situation. You have to understand patent law as in patents one doesn't have to show the truth in their drawings as his drawing show what is taking place with respect to the water molecules. If you read through what you just posted Meyer states this in words quote from what you posted, "Negative electrical voltage potential (61) of pulse wave (65a xxx 65n) of figure (3-21) is simultaneously applied to the negative voltage zone (67) via resonant charging choke (62) of figure (3-22),..." As you can see the negative voltage is also being applied to the plates of the water capacitor in words but not being shown in drawing form by Stanley Meyer and the screen shot I showed you shows that to be true.

Unipolar definition: Having or relating to a single pole or kind of polarity.

The square wave pulse trains being sent to the primary coil of the transformer are Unipolar as they are only positive pulses, but by transformer action you get a modified AC wave form being applied to the plates of the capacitor charging up the negative and positive plates of the capacitor which is a potential difference at nearly the same time. Each vertical line in the drawing I made represent one positive square wave pulse being sent to the VIC transformer. I sent a total of five unipolar pulses to the primary coil of the transformer and it yields 5 negative pulses and 5 positive pulses as it doubles the frequency as 5 + 5 = 10.

Here is a photo of someone that was doing everything right but the transformer he made couldn't handle the load being placed on it. Note it starts off with a negative voltage spike but can't keep it going as the load being place on the transformer by his resonant cavities is too great. He ends up pushing current through the water bath as a result and as you can see his voltage doesn't try and go towards infinity as he is only getting 118 volts negative and 242 volts positive being applied to the plates of his resonant cavities which is far less than what I am applying to the plates of my resonant cavities where I am applying 3.28 kv negative and 4.24 kv positive. The wire sizes he chose to use were too small as the power factor wasn't enough to charge up the plates of his water capacitor.

This technology isn't all that simple as normal electrolysis is as it's quite the opposite in it's complexity. The last drawing shows voltage performing work graphically. The magenta line represents the ionization threshold for the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The green areas have passed the threshold for ionization of the atoms and the voltage now performs the work of breaking down the bonds of the water molecules by way of ionization. The horizontal lines represent voltage while the vertical lines represent a single square wave pulse being sent to the transformer.

JulesP · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2020, 07:46:42 AM »

Quote from: Paul-R on November 18, 2020, 02:12:01 PM

I haven't read this thread fully because the huge images makers it so annoying (see the thread: "Resize your image before posting - instructions") but I am pretty sure it is worth reminding people that Bob Boyce's secret of success is to have pulses and as sharp as possible - a very short rise time and descent time and to hit the water with the Keely frequency, 42.8khz + one octave down + another octave down. See Patrick's book - God rest his soul, and eternal thanks).

Thanks for the interesting info. I vaguely recall the name Keely and will refresh my understanding.

Once I saw the pic sizes I tried to replace them with smaller versions but could find no way to do that despite the post being editable.

Yes I and many others owe a lot to Patrick Kelly. He’s missed.

JulesP · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2020, 08:33:27 AM »

Quote from: h20power on November 18, 2020, 09:08:48 PM

The square wave pulse trains being sent to the primary coil of the transformer are Unipolar as they are only positive pulses, but by transformer action you get a modified AC wave form being applied to the plates of the capacitor charging up the negative and positive plates of the capacitor which is a potential difference at nearly the same time.

Thanks for trying to explain but this brings me right back to my initial post: why would you want a ‘modified ac waveform’ across the capacitor plates which will effectively reverse the polarity on them each half cycle? Also if you put a unipolar square wave into a transformer you get a sort of spike output, but it’s not ac so your VIC must not function as a ‘regular’ transformer.

h20power · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2020, 09:08:12 AM »

Quote from: JulesP on November 19, 2020, 08:33:27 AM

Thanks for trying to explain but this brings me right back to my initial post: why would you want a ‘modified ac waveform’ across the capacitor plates which will effectively reverse the polarity on them each half cycle? Also if you put a unipolar square wave into a transformer you get a sort of spike output, but it’s not ac so your VIC must not function as a ‘regular’ transformer.

At this point I think I am going to call it quits as I can't function as your teacher for all the missing things in your learning of math, science, and skills of observation. I've done the experiments myself to the point of actually getting at the science behind the technology and I guess that will have to do as I continue to move forwards with this technology now moving towards trying to actually put this technology on the market. Give me one good reason why I should step all the way back with someone that is just starting off on this technology treating it like some sort of hobby? I've put a great deal of my life into figuring this technology out having been working on it since March of 2006. I really don't have anything to prove to you nor do I require your approval on anything that I have done as that is precisely why I made use of the scientific method as a way to prove it to myself by asking and answering questions the old fashion way.

It would be nice if someone besides me also understood the technology as well as I do but most simply aren't willing to pay their way to success and run around thinking this technology is as simple as standard electrolysis. People run around thinking there is some magical frequency that will make it all work correctly instead of searching for answers of why things work this way scientifically. I am the only one that I know of that went looking for this method of water separation taking place in nature. It's a lonely place at the top of understanding all of this but I guess that's the way it has to be.

Take care,
Edward

JulesP · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2020, 10:22:00 AM »

Quote from: h20power on November 19, 2020, 09:08:12 AM

At this point I think I am going to call it quits as I can't function as your teacher for all the missing things in your learning of math, science, and skills of observation. I've done the experiments myself to the point of actually getting at the science behind the technology and I guess that will have to do as I continue to move forwards with this technology now moving towards trying to actually put this technology on the market. Give me one good reason why I should step all the way back with someone that is just starting off on this technology treating it like some sort of hobby? I've put a great deal of my life into figuring this technology out having been working on it since March of 2006. I really don't have anything to prove to you nor do I require your approval on anything that I have done as that is precisely why I made use of the scientific method as a way to prove it to myself by asking and answering questions the old fashion way.

It would be nice if someone besides me also understood the technology as well as I do but most simply aren't willing to pay their way to success and run around thinking this technology is as simple as standard electrolysis. People run around thinking there is some magical frequency that will make it all work correctly instead of searching for answers of why things work this way scientifically. I am the only one that I know of that went looking for this method of water separation taking place in nature. It's a lonely place at the top of understanding all of this but I guess that's the way it has to be.

Take care,
Edward

I admire your tenacity, focus and commitment but I fail to follow the logic in your approach. Call that a failing on my part if you like but given that I consider myself a rational person, if I can’t follow your method at a mental level then I can’t proceed to the next more practical step.

I wish you every success in your approach. Meanwhile I shall explore other but generally related ways to access the boundless energy that surrounds us

h20power · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2020, 03:23:56 AM »

I made this post just for you, but others can also learn from it. As you know I really don't like posting on this site so I went and did so here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/water-as-fuel-and-more/?order=all#comment-efda1ab3-fe1a-4c74-bb1c-ac780169fb63

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production (Read 5077 times)

JulesP

The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

h20power

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

JulesP

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

h20power

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

JulesP

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

Paul-R

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

h20power

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

JulesP

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

JulesP

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

h20power

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

JulesP

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production

h20power

Re: The optimum electrode waveform for watergas production