Hi everyone,

Just a comment on my video.

First, look at Luc's diagram. The relay connects the bridge to charge the cap, then it disconnects the relay and connects cap to coil.

In my diagram, I show the cap/bridge constantly connected but only a switch to discharge the cap coil, while it is connected to the bridge (not shown)...just showing a cap, but implied that obviously it is charged from somewhere.

Here is the difference between both our diagrams at least when it comes to WHAT IS HAPPENING? The answer is NOTHING.

Here is why: The HV output leaving the ignition coil is moving towards ground through a lower voltage positive potential. It can be the cap directly, it can be a bridge...doesn't matter. The HV output of the coil moves towards ground and the easiest path is towards that low voltage potential that is connected back to ground.

Have to forget about positive voltage moves to negative. Positive voltage will move to positive voltage if it is less voltage and there is a common ground. A POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE is all that is needed and polarity is irrelevant...again...as long as there is a common ground. Go search Bedini's splitting the positive diagrams.

Anyway, the voltage potential is a GAS...that is NOT an analogy...these circuits are GAS VALVES...the Heaviside flow over the wire IS an "electric" aetheric gas that flows over the wire.

This is what happens, you dump a cap impulse into the coil, windings multiply the voltage obviously but there is also time compression there. The high gas pressure leaving HV output moves to the diode seaking ground through low voltage potential. The diodes block this off and all that gas pressure slams hard against a wall...VERY HARD! You are getting a WATER HAMMER effect literally with the gas...where can that go? Only path to ground then is towards the plug.

Please understand that the gas analogies are really not analogies and are literally what you are doing with the gas pressure.

HI:

I need some advice. I know some of you don't recommend to try it on an engine at first. I know nothing about electronics but I know a little about mechanics. So if You could help me to avoid a blowing inverter. I'll buy a 400Watts inverter tomorrow.

Do you think Gotoluc diagram with some modification like this could work on a one cylinder 4 stroke aluminum head?
If I need to isolate the engine I think I can do it. But, if You Who Do Know about electronics could give me and advice, it would be great.

VenomTT

Regards,

Useing my setup .. 

Its super bright!!! And shoots out about a little over 1/2"!!!

@qiman/Aaron

qiman quote:"There are some very specific ways to design the circuit so that worrying about the isolation is not even an issue. There are extra benefits to this that I will discuss later."

Just the concept of arcing Hi positive to Lo positive (and not to ground) to achieve plasma should have all circuit designers attention.
Is this why you are saying "isolation" is not even an issue?
Can we chat about the "extra benefits"? It's time..... the world hangs by a thread.... we need to work together.
Thanks ahead for sharing Aaron.

@ Luc, Ossie and all
In this video presented to the group here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l54wlbi0Szk

qiman/Aaron is challenging us.
We are continuing to design/modify circuits around a basic premise that we have adopted defacto.

That is, we assume we are piggybacking a HV spark onto a LV spark as a simultaneous event to produce the plasma effect.

He clearly shows the HV spark can be separated (unless I misunderstood) and still produce the plasma effect.

Am I right about this?

Hi goldenequity,

The circuit presented in the video is simply a basic embodiment of what the strobe only drive circuit does. You can view S1 in the video circuit as the xenon tube. But regardless, the beauty of such a circuit is that it allows the same and single low voltage source to created both the HV pulse as well as the LV current to create the powerfull plasma discharge. Although I think this will have great application for other forms of devices as well as in other areas of research, the reasons I am focussing on a LV current driver circuit is because I feel that this is what will be the best way to be able to adapt existing engines to run on water only as existing engines already have the HV part of the circuit working in their ignition systems.

Regards,

Ossie

@Group
Please pardon my intrusion, but I have missed a valuable bit of information and hope someone will point me in the right direction (without sarcasm).

Where is the information on why one needs atm*x versus atm=1 to observe the effect of the plasma on vapor? Has no one tried something as simple as I have?

I may be all wrong, but is the basis of the research on a few people that have stated they have engines running or is it based on the ability of blowing up a simple plastic bottle containing some vapor and a plug?

Please, I do want to explore this, but as so many say about my work, they want supporting information.

Thanks Much....

Bumfuzzled - open up the gap on your plug.  And check that your capactor isn't short circuited.  You are drawing far too much current.  The object of this exercise is to use the minimum voltage to create the spark, and the minimum current to explode the water.  Power = Volts x Amps - and if you are using too much power, you will never achieve overunity. 

Inserting a light bulb, or a high wattage low ohms resistor (around 2 ohms) might also give you some current limiting - but it's also a waste of energy.  See if you can charge your capacitor to 110V without blowing up your inverter.  Then, use the capacitor energy to fire your plug. 

@Group
Please pardon my intrusion, but I have missed a valuable bit of information and hope someone will point me in the right direction (without sarcasm).

Where is the information on why one needs atm*x versus atm=1 to observe the effect of the plasma on vapor? Has no one tried something as simple as I have?

I may be all wrong, but is the basis of the research on a few people that have stated they have engines running or is it based on the ability of blowing up a simple plastic bottle containing some vapor and a plug?

Please, I do want to explore this, but as so many say about my work, they want supporting information.

Thanks Much....

No sarcasm, but ... WTF is "atm*x versus atm=1"?  Atmospheric Pressure? Please don't assume that everyone here has followed all your posts and knows what you are talking about ....

I'm seeking answers too - and my big unanswered questions are:

Why vapour?  If the energy comes from the latent heat of liquid water, then why not use water - and get the spark to turn the water into vapour, liberating the most energy?

Why compression?  That's applying existing ICE ideas to something that may not behave anything like an ICE.  AFAIK, lightening bolts in a storm cloud are in localised low pressure zones ... a depression weather event.

Why air?  Hydrocarbon fuels require oxygen, but water already contains oxygen.  And maybe the effect we want isn't the high temp disassociation of hydrogen & oxygen anyway (that would appear to require too much power input)? 

So is the ideal process Anaerobic?

I'm not wanting to muddy the waters - I really want to clarify the very essence of the overunity principle that is being tested here.  There will be many versions of working designs - but we need to understand the heart of the working principle ... there have been many false leads so far.

For example - can we safely consider that "special inverters" was a mistake/red-herring/mis-direction?