I have just spend quite  bit of my hard earned on electronic components on ebay with the intention of building the Dave Lawton PWM circuit complete with s/s tubes operating as a resonant circuit.

I was reading Ravzz previous posts were he has replicted the Meyer design (at least the 'bench' demonstration), however in one of his calculations he was suggesting a power input of about 6W and an output of about 42W

Whilst this seems to achieve over unity, 42W still seems somewhat trifling and unsuitable for any ICE or other practical appication.  How are people achieving more output than this - with conventional hydrolysis and lots of amps?

I cannot believe that people are getting mpg benefits using 42W of hydrogen power - it just does not make sense!

If I make any progress or breakthroughs I promise to post all details here and share my work.

Any comments please?

Gazza

hey Joker,there is a way to compare fuels,it is how much of energy they store.U can compare per mass or per volume. So by this factor u can say how much hydrogen (liters,kg..) u need to obtain the same power as burning gasoline.Look around in this section of forum to find ur answers.

gazzzwp can't u just scale up if the design is really OU?

Yes i know that,
This mass and volume and molecules inside ... makes enthalpy. It is mathematical  unit.

But they way these fuels burn inside engine is very different.

They say that hydrogen is perfect energy storage, thats way there are hybrid cars.
Also hydrogen is used in rockets as fuel so it got to be effective.
Also burn value is 4.1 % to 75% and it got to o something with air and burning...

------------------

And about overunity u calculated...
How u measured output? Just L per h ?

Gazzwp: 42 watts was combined voltage and amps that went into the brushes on his alternator. Look carefully at the Ravi video where the wires that lead to the cell are burning. 42 watts wouldn't do that. Use a pwm to pulse your d.c. voltage to the alternator. Remove the rectifier and regulator from the alternator. You will have 3-phase a.c. coming out of it. Put a full bridge on the a.c.
Meyers did the same thing. He showed the amps and volts that were going to the alternator...not what the alternator was actually putting into the cell. Look at waterforfuel.com to see West's setup.

Thanks Voltar

I think I understand where you are coming from - I thought Ravzz was calculating the actual power (wattage) from the Hydrogen produced by his cell.  I thought he new the conversion from hydrogen volume to Watts.

Just one other point - I propose to use the Lawton circuit without alternator that relies on a tuned circuit (resonance).  The simple reason being that an alternator would be difficult for me to procure and also I would need some drive unit and heavy duty power supply.

Lawton says that this alternator free circuit gives the same result.

Could I ask you then - what is the typical energy or power output in terms of hydrogen produced?

Gazza

I'm not sure if anyone has replicated the Meyer system using so little total power; but theoretically it is possible to do so; once you accept the general theory of the electrolyzer with pulser and transformer output.

Because, capacitors in DC do not use much power, what little power a cap uses in a steady-state DC circuit actually comes from its leakage (usually uA's). However, since there is an "AC" component to the signal (meaning not bi-directional, but "changing state" differentially), there should be some small power used from X of C too. Since the tube electrodes and the water between them act as capacitors, theoretically it could use very low current indeed (although in tap water the "cap's" leakage current would prolly be a lot more than uA's lol).

Using a step-up transformer, 2 choke coils (one of them variable), and a rectifying diode on the output half of the circuit was designed to limit the current going to the electrodes dramatically. Instead of pulses with peaks of 15 or 25 volts, they are stepped-up to over 100V peak (up to 350, i believe Meyer once said). Also, the transformer acts as an "isolator" to the electronics part of the circuit; which should help to protect it and add to its longevity.

But note: Hooking your 'scope's ground to any point on the Output side of the circuit (secondary side of the transformer) could blow the scope (unless it is "isolated to ground" which most are not); because the ( - ) minus side is not at ground potential. This will make it tough to make an accurate "DC" measurment of  the waveform at the output, unless your scope allows "differential measurements" (using channel's A and B's positive probes together and no ground). Or simply use it in "AC" mode with no ground. I must have repaired a hundred scopes before from ppl who forgot about this

If the thing was done right, the number or value of the current-amplifying power transistors could even be lessoned. But I do suspect that when doing this, an additional load should be added to the "input" (electronics) side of the circuit, tho... Maybe a '"power on" lightbulb and some resistance; in case the impedance of the output side goes into the dumper and the transformer acts like a short.
 
Now the interesting thing is, that DC (unidirectional) spike pulses are thought by many researchers to be what momentarilly "turns on" zero-point energy, allowing over-unity in a circuit. This principal is seen in the Tesla Switch and dozens of magnetic motor designs.

I have never fully made up my mind about the choke coils' importance to the current other than the variable coil acting like a pot to lower the total pulse voltage (Dr. Lindemann says they are there to lower current flow), but i suspect they are really calculated to set the desired impedance for the general F range he was using as seen on the secondary of the transformer... Something would have to; and it would be a lot easier to use a certain-size coil than to try and match the electrodes

So either the stepped-up higher voltage pulses allowed less current/power draw to do the same work simply because of the laws of Capacitance (in this case, disassociating the water via "catastrophic failure" of the water dielectric); or ZPE was somehow tapped and subsequently kept the "regular" current draw down.

I guess the easiest way to test your system effectivity is to compare.

Just hook it to same power DC current and compare result visually.

But yea i guess measurements had  to be done right way.

Good luck !