Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

Projects by members => Projects by members => Gauss => Topic started by: Gauss on June 30, 2009, 15:59:38 pm

Title: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on June 30, 2009, 15:59:38 pm
Hi, just got the WFC working without any coils etc. Down to 1.5 V and any freq between 500 -50 000 Hz.'

The key is the mechanics. Yes that is right. Let the cylinders or plates vibrate inside the water, there you go, the whole secret. And we tried with the VIC and our current version does not work up to 30V primary side. 1:1 transformers work well. So the Amps is key, and the shorting of the transformer is a big issue.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on June 30, 2009, 18:24:29 pm
Good to hear,

Now what kind of results are we talking about?

can you be more specific?

power used VS gas produced?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on June 30, 2009, 18:53:05 pm
Vibration of the Resonant Cavity, nice to hear you are having success with this. Great News!

Amps is the key? hmm, that's not Stan's process, any luck with restricting amps to a minimum and raising volts?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on June 30, 2009, 20:17:13 pm
Any chance that you can video record the vibrating tubes? I wonder how it sounds.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on June 30, 2009, 22:54:24 pm
Found the key to magic by accident. We built the whole WFC thing ultra professionally from pulsers(no 555ers etc) to VICs(thanks John) to the cell mechanics with machined Delrin holders for the pipes and a large number of pro coils, still nothing worked out for us. We have suspected acoustics for a long time now.

So the other day we increased a pipe hole in the Delrin holder too much so the pipe got a bit of space to move. When we started pulsing we just got this strange tone and the whole setup was vibrating and when placing the hands around the water cylinder the vibration seemed to increase.

Spurred by this accident we decided to go "all in" for a "farmer´s solution" with just one pair of cylinders! Said and done we pushed 6 pcs of some vibrational dampening material like soft rubber between the cylinders(3 in the top and 3 in the bottom) and hanged the electric wires in a holder on top  of the water cylinder, voilà, now anything works and a kid can do this!!! Pipes have no insulation, nothing.... You can not hear the vibration but you can see the pipes are swinging inside the water a bit. No use for tuning(as far as we could see today, any frequency worked perfectly fine). Deionized water was used.

1.5 V up to any voltage works, no coils, it does not matter what you do, we throttled with the voltage and can get very big amounts of gas. And the minimum amps for production was like 0.1 Amps but that is preliminary. About why  this is working, well, vibration is everything. The vibration seems to transport the Amps from plus to minus in some magical way. A transverse wave becomes longitudinal and there is a standing wave between the cylinders shattering the water at the center point in the gap.

Believe me, we were shocked, I just did it and had no time for filming or extensive testing but in case you look at Youtube, notice all successful replicators have soft rubber spacers and just hang the cell loosely into the water. That is the key! About Stan, well, I just stick to my Piezo bolts theory more than ever tonight! This was the hole deal and the HV, Low amps I believe was about the Piezo crystlas and nothing else.

Good luck to everyone, just replicate me and tell about your results. ;D



Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 01:59:33 am
dude thats awesome .

Hurray . :D

Im so motivated right now , thx .

Im continuing with this project I'm making , stephen meyers  dual synchronised 3 phase analog driver @ 24 volts .

I believe you Gauss , I think 2curious saw that too .

http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,683.msg6683.html#msg6683

But everybody should keep working on the tesla hairpin too , we need to divide efforts .

Electricity and transport .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 03:26:59 am
we pushed 6 pcs of some vibrational dampening material like soft rubber between the cylinders(3 in the top and 3 in the bottom)

vibrational dampening material? would you rather suspect that an arrangement with minimum dampening characteristics would have better results?

With a tuning fork, it is fixed at one end, when you vibrate it and touch rubber it will dampen out quickly, when you touch metal it will continue to ring. (and when you dip it in water it splashes like crazy!) I suggest a metal structure to hold the tubes secure yet still able to vibrate. it should provide better characteristics than rubber mounting.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 08:29:36 am
Donald, you might be right with that theory. We just have tried two extremes, one extremely stiff solution where nothing can vibrate. Then we tried a solution ith extrem,ely soft rubber like a gymnastics carpet and the results were amazing. Our extremely soft rubber is not very dampening, maybe it changes the amplitude but not the frequency, sorry for the misunderstanding.



we pushed 6 pcs of some vibrational dampening material like soft rubber between the cylinders(3 in the top and 3 in the bottom)

vibrational dampening material? would you rather suspect that an arrangement with minimum dampening characteristics would have better results?

With a tuning fork, it is fixed at one end, when you vibrate it and touch rubber it will dampen out quickly, when you touch metal it will continue to ring. (and when you dip it in water it splashes like crazy!) I suggest a metal structure to hold the tubes secure yet still able to vibrate. it should provide better characteristics than rubber mounting.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 09:43:45 am
Hi gauss,

Very nice to read this result from you! Well done!
We love to see some on vid, if that is possible?
I know that Keely also worked with vibrations..........

What are the dimensions of your tubes?

Br
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 10:17:24 am
Im continuing with this project I'm making , stephen meyers  dual synchronised 3 phase analog driver @ 24 volts .

Stephen said in his patent it works like a tuning fork shattering the water ;D
Stan said freq must be matched to the spacing, also makes one think of physical vibrations.
LF physical oscillations are acoustic vibrations, so it makes perfectly sense.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 10:28:37 am
Good luck to everyone, just replicate me and tell about your results. ;D
Awesome

so thebuzz was right?

What kind of waveform did you end up with at the cell? Sharp spikes or rectified ac pulses?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 10:35:23 am
@Steve, yeah we will do that but we have like time once every 2 weeks to experiment.... Vacation times and extreme overload of regular work.... Basically the best thing to get it out quickly is that if anyone of you have time to hang up your cell with soft rubber as the only spacer(friction between the rubber and the SS is enough to keep the tubes fixed), then let it swing from the electric cables.

I can take a photo though very soon.

And we got brown mucky water(probably from the rubber, can not find any other source).
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 11:43:07 am
Gauss,

Can you tell us what the dimensions are from your tubes?
The brown muck comes from the water.....Thats why i use a waterfilter in my setup.

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 14:45:59 pm
Some photos, as you can see we did not even clean the water from the brown muck yet...
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 15:26:51 pm
What dampening material are you using ?

The name of it .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 15:30:55 pm
Our dimensions are(I believe): 3/4´´and 1´´ of the cylinders, the inside gap is 1.5 mm between outer wall of inner cylinder and inner wall of outer cylinder.

Pretty much seems like anything is working, we tried running 55 V input and got about 2 Amps of current with 50% square wave duty cycle. That means about 55 W input. I believe with more cylinders we will get much better efficiency. We have no measuring equipment for efficiency yet but we will get it, I am sure we can get OU but with coating I believe it will be much better. So many more things to do...

The rubber material is called EPDM 1722, 2 mm thickness... So we push it in between the pipes, very amateur style but works.... :o
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 16:13:10 pm
I don't mean to be negative here, I just want to say this:

Tube cells are very deceiving about its gas production, specially longer tubes like the one on your picture, they concentrate the gas and make it look that it is producing massive amounts of gas, but when you take real measurements, they are very disappointing.

What I'm saying is we can use just a simple visual guess on how much gas the cell might be producing, real measurements need to be made.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 16:40:40 pm
extremely exciting news Gauss, Thank you for sharing. I will soon have my setup operational, and i'll be trying vibrating tubes right away.

I am currently thinking of something like this for a metal tube support that will allow vibrations.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 17:01:22 pm
@Electrojoit, yes you are probably right, we will try to use ultrasonics soon to try to shatter some molecules in the center cylinder too. And coating is a major progress to make too. BUT the secrets are unfolding very quickly in discrete steps.

At this stage, the most important result is that a kid can do HHO from distilled/tap water with extremely limited resources. About OU yes I believe with coating and some magnetic back pulses from coils we can go further. Most important will be the ultrasonics principle, to get a firm grip on the crystals(1 mm per 2 kV is a thumbs rule I learned). They need precise tuning, can not support amps but HV and that is another reason Meyer talks about tuning. Maybe we must have HV to polarize almost all the water in the center cylinder and make it possible to shatter it too by altrasonics, it is kind of the only idea that makes real sense to me..

Anyway, I am now seeing the resemblanc between Kelvin generator, Leo Umila´s GEET modification and Stan Meyer´s pulsing. PLus, neutral and negative, mix it and ignite. Same idea everywhere, different methods. Leo Umila has rubber connections and loose parts in his modification................ ;D
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 17:02:54 pm
Good luck Donald, I am very interested in your results!

Looks good that drawing, please report back your results asap.


extremely exciting news Gauss, Thank you for sharing. I will soon have my setup operational, and i'll be trying vibrating tubes right away.

I am currently thinking of something like this for a metal tube support that will allow vibrations.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 18:11:29 pm
Very nice to see progress in small steps here on this nice forum ;D

@Gauss
Can't wait to read all the details of your setup.

I suggest to start your own project page that keeps everything little more organized.
We all want to find information, but everything is spread all over to place.

I'm kind of stuck right now with my alternator setup 8), I'm building a new (better) pulser system.

br
Webmug
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 18:53:41 pm
Hi, just got the WFC working without any coils etc. Down to 1.5 V and any freq between 500 -50 000 Hz.'

The key is the mechanics. Yes that is right. Let the cylinders or plates vibrate inside the water, there you go, the whole secret. And we tried with the VIC and our current version does not work up to 30V primary side. 1:1 transformers work well. So the Amps is key, and the shorting of the transformer is a big issue.

This is a bit confusing.  Was a transformer used or not. ?   Does "No coils"  also mean no transformer or just no chokes? 
When   you said "1:1 transformers work well" I can't  tell for sure if you are referring to the VIC or to the no VIC process.


Quote
Found the key to magic by accident. We built the whole WFC thing ultra professionally from pulsers(no 555ers etc) to VICs(thanks John) to the cell mechanics with machined Delrin holders for the pipes and a large number of pro coils, still nothing worked out for us. We have suspected acoustics for a long time now.

So the other day we increased a pipe hole in the Delrin holder too much so the pipe got a bit of space to move. When we started pulsing we just got this strange tone and the whole setup was vibrating and when placing the hands around the water cylinder the vibration seemed to increase.

Spurred by this accident we decided to go "all in" for a "farmer´s solution" with just one pair of cylinders! Said and done we pushed 6 pcs of some vibrational dampening material like soft rubber between the cylinders(3 in the top and 3 in the bottom) and hanged the electric wires in a holder on top  of the water cylinder, voilà, now anything works and a kid can do this!!! Pipes have no insulation, nothing.... You can not hear the vibration but you can see the pipes are swinging inside the water a bit. No use for tuning(as far as we could see today, any frequency worked perfectly fine). Deionized water was used.

1.5 V up to any voltage works, no coils, it does not matter what you do, we throttled with the voltage and can get very big amounts of gas. And the minimum amps for production was like 0.1 Amps but that is preliminary. About why  this is working, well, vibration is everything. The vibration seems to transport the Amps from plus to minus in some magical way. A transverse wave becomes longitudinal and there is a standing wave between the cylinders shattering the water at the center point in the gap.

Believe me, we were shocked, I just did it and had no time for filming or extensive testing but in case you look at Youtube, notice all successful replicators have soft rubber spacers and just hang the cell loosely into the water. That is the key! About Stan, well, I just stick to my Piezo bolts theory more than ever tonight! This was the hole deal and the HV, Low amps I believe was about the Piezo crystlas and nothing else.

Quote
Our dimensions are(I believe): 3/4´´and 1´´ of the cylinders, the inside gap is 1.5 mm between outer wall of inner cylinder and inner wall of outer cylinder.

Pretty much seems like anything is working, we tried running 55 V input and got about 2 Amps of current with 50% square wave duty cycle. That means about 55 W input. I believe with more cylinders we will get much better efficiency. We have no measuring equipment for efficiency yet but we will get it, I am sure we can get OU but with coating I believe it will be much better. So many more things to do...

So let me summarize.   And please correct me where I may have misunderstood.


1. There are no coils.  ( I assume no coils also means no transformer.  The Meyer blocking diode was not mentioned so I also assume that was included in the "etc" and is not used. )

2. The tubes are 1" and 3/4" with spacers made of  2mm thick EPDM 1722.  This gives a gap between the tubes is  about 1.5mm.

3.  The length of the tubes is not given.

4.  The tubes are suspended from the input wires down into the water reservoir where they hang loosely. 

5.  There is no insulation or coating on either tube.

6.  The water is de-ionized water.

7.   The input is a 50 percent Duty Cycle square wave from 500-50,000 Hz.
 
8.   The  minimum applied voltage is 1.5v  for gas production

9.  Gas is produced at a seemingly  increased vs Pure DC  regardless of applied frequency.
      In other words,  any resonance involved is not affected by applied pulse frequency.

10.  No actual gas production levels we taken

So basically there are 2 tubes with rubber spacers suspended in deionized water
with pulsed DC applied. 

Gauss,  please correct anything above that I misunderstood.

Goey
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 19:22:07 pm
@Gauss
The brown muck is not from the water, and, not from the rubber....it is rust!
Any time you use amps (electrolysis)...you will have metal ions traveling out of the metal. In my experiments it is most noticeable from the + to the -...the negative turns dark colored...while the positive looks all sparkly and pitted. 

This does not hold true to what Meyer said about the electrodes not disintegrating...the only way to keep your electrodes alive in an electrolyzer is to swap polarity back and forth.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 01, 2009, 21:57:21 pm
I wonder if you took your outer tube and put a little sealer (like that plastic dip) on the ends so the inner tub could float freely without fear of short with outer tube.
What do ya think?

Robert
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 00:18:39 am
I don't mean to be negative here, I just want to say this:

Tube cells are very deceiving about its gas production, specially longer tubes like the one on your picture, they concentrate the gas and make it look that it is producing massive amounts of gas, but when you take real measurements, they are very disappointing.

What I'm saying is we can use just a simple visual guess on how much gas the cell might be producing, real measurements need to be made.



Well, one of the questions is: How much gas do you produce with hard spacers and no vibrations and vica versa.....


Steve


Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 02:27:47 am
Gauss,

I built this set of tubes about 6 months ago thinking that the effect might be physcial but I never finished them for testing.  Do you think that this arrangment might work?  If you would like a set of tubes like this send a PM.  I feel like I owe you anyway. This is a 4" x 3/4" outside with a 6" x 1/2" inside.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 09:12:49 am

1. There are no coils.  ( I assume no coils also means no transformer.  The Meyer blocking diode was not mentioned so I also assume that was included in the "etc" and is not used. )
a: Correct but we know 1:1 transformers work too.

2. The tubes are 1" and 3/4" with spacers made of  2mm thick EPDM 1722.  This gives a gap between the tubes is  about 1.5mm.
A: See drawing

3.  The length of the tubes is not given.
A: See drawing

4.  The tubes are suspended from the input wires down into the water reservoir where they hang loosely.
A: Yes the tubes hang freely inside the water in their electric screw connectors

5.  There is no insulation or coating on either tube.
A: Correct

6.  The water is de-ionized water.
A: Correct
7.   The input is a 50 percent Duty Cycle square wave from 500-50,000 Hz.
 A: Correct
8.   The  minimum applied voltage is 1.5v  for gas production
A: About 1.5 V
9.  Gas is produced at a seemingly  increased vs Pure DC  regardless of applied frequency.
      In other words,  any resonance involved is not affected by applied pulse frequency.
A: Correct, maybe efficiency is better at HF but not yet confirmed
10.  No actual gas production levels we taken
A: Correct, but we will do that in a few weeks with more pipes(maybe 3 or 5 pairs of cylinders)
Title: Keely honoration...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 09:20:10 am
I would like to baptize this experiment to "Keely´s HHO vindication". The greatest mind of all times. He must be laughing today the "biggest humbug of the 19th century"..... ;D

Good luck to everyone, it should not be long before you have all this experiment confirmed, just remember "QAD", Quick And Dirty, get some soft rubber that you push between the the cylinders in the top and bottom to keep them in place, then lower the pipes into the bath with a pipe holder on top(any non-conductive material will do).  You can see our homemade holder(3 minutes production time)..

Connect your PWM and start making gas. We are convinced tap water will work perfectly well, in fact I will check it today for you.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 09:41:21 am
Hi John, you owe me nothing! You could not help that the SS wires had a bad insulation and your price was too cheap anyway for that quality work. In fact we ran our test with your VIC and we get transformer ringing up until about 1 kHz, then it is dead and it gets terribly hot. No gas production, we tried without diode too, did not work either. 

BUT we are CONVINCED that is because our primary voltage when we ran that test was only up to 30 V so the Amps on the secondary side of your VIC is virtually zero, so it is logical we got nothing. That VIC is intended for a monster crystal I believe..... :P Let´s look at crystals after finishing these tests, that is the future, shaking stuff making music.

With 1:1 transformer on an E-type ferrite core we also get good gas but unsure whether more or less yet. We have to measure production soon. I am pretty convinced this will become an easy OU demonstration in the future since we have not optimized one thing in our setup. And I believe we were right in sharing this asap, or else we might have gotten into trouble...

About your holders they look very good, I might want to add some soft rubber material in the screw connectors to make the tubes swing more easily, remember our tubes are behaving like a teeter in the water and only FRICTION between the rubber and the SS tubes are holding the tubes in place  outside the cell. All kinds of stiffness must be avoided I believe at this point(gut instinct after alot of failures with stiff holders giving nothing) but I am not yet certain.


Gauss,

I built this set of tubes about 6 months ago thinking that the effect might be physcial but I never finished them for testing.  Do you think that this arrangment might work?  If you would like a set of tubes like this send a PM.  I feel like I owe you anyway. This is a 4" x 3/4" outside with a 6" x 1/2" inside.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 10:25:41 am
No we did  not, only rthe rubber was pushed into the 1.5 mm gap and one problem when the pipes are not fixed is that they slip out of eachother sometimes because the friction is not enough. Anyway, inside the water the weight is reduced and we did not have a problem. A good idea is to put a blockage so the outer pipe can not slide down if friction gets lower. But after fixing the pipes in the plastic hanger there is no need for that either.

Who is ready to make an experiment soon?


I wonder if you took your outer tube and put a little sealer (like that plastic dip) on the ends so the inner tub could float freely without fear of short with outer tube.
What do ya think?

Robert
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 10:32:28 am
Some more pics, you can see the small rubber pieces in black that we pushed between the pipes. Then some pics of the pulser that we built.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 10:48:32 am
No we did  not, only rthe rubber was pushed into the 1.5 mm gap and one problem when the pipes are not fixed is that they slip out of eachother sometimes because the friction is not enough. Anyway, inside the water the weight is reduced and we did not have a problem. A good idea is to put a blockage so the outer pipe can not slide down if friction gets lower. But after fixing the pipes in the plastic hanger there is no need for that either.

Who is ready to make an experiment soon?


I wonder if you took your outer tube and put a little sealer (like that plastic dip) on the ends so the inner tub could float freely without fear of short with outer tube.
What do ya think?

Robert

Gauss,

I hope to try this coming weekend with one of my tubes. Its an easy setup. Lets see if i can make a humming setup.. ;)

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 13:37:42 pm
In fact we ran our test with your VIC and we get transformer ringing up until about 1 kHz, then it is dead and it gets terribly hot. No gas production, we tried without diode too, did not work either. 
hi gauss,
with or without load [wfc]?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 13:40:51 pm
@Alan: with load, it shorts out we believe. Anyway it seems like we would need in hte range of KV primary side to get any amps on 2ndary side since the VIC has like 5000:1 resistnace ratio between 2ndary and primary side.

@Steve: i am waiting for your good news!
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 13:57:58 pm
Just some suggestions:
try without a load and try to measure with a scope over a single choke, instead of between the outputs of both chokes [because a scope can also be seen as a load]
If you want KV on the 2nd, you must tune into the self resonant freqs of the coils, this too will make 'em hot.
In other words, play around with the vic setup without a load, I think tuning for the max voltage with a load connected will give varying results and will look to you like a shorted coil - first look for the max voltage [which means no current] and then connect to the wfc.

So your secondary consists of SS wire?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 16:17:18 pm

@Steve: i am waiting for your good news!


LOL, yeh. Me too.......
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 16:17:41 pm


With 1:1 transformer on an E-type ferrite core we also get good gas but unsure whether more or less yet. We have to measure production soon. I am pretty convinced this will become an easy OU demonstration in the future since we have not optimized one thing in our setup. And I believe we were right in sharing this asap, or else we might have gotten into trouble...
[

My  guess is that a 1:1 transformer will only act as a loss, and will serve no useful purpose in a pulsed DC system.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 16:24:57 pm
Hi Alan, what I meant is that we have about 14:1 ratio of turns and resistance ratio of 5000:1. That means about (14/500)*primary side Amps on the 2ndary side, virtually nothing unless we use kV range primary side Amps. So any resonance tuning felt rather meaningsless... We need to understand what the VIC is really meant to do first. More thinking will clarify it, at this point my limited knowledge of crystals gave me the answer it was meant to drive a massive Piezo crystal. Prove me wrong, I have no answer at this stage.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 16:56:15 pm
Update: just tried tap water with 2 car 12 V car batteries as input. Output increased as did the amps. With 25 V input the Amps sky rocketed to 10 Amps!! Unbelievable if you compare to a normal HHO cell with electrolyte! :o
This HHO cell will beat anything on the market, mark my words.

Now we tried to estimate the output at 3V input and 0.3 Amps(input 0.45 Watts). The output looks like at least 50 ml gas output per minute(0.05 lpm).

I have hard 1 lpm equals 60 Watts output.

That means output is 0.05*60 = 3 Watts

Input is 0.5 Watts to be on the safe side

COP is 6 according to this. First we estimated gas flow to 0.1 lpm and halfed that estimate.

Now we are CONVINCED this is OU by all means despite the "farmer solution"(or thanks to it). Vibration is amazing.

We will measure gas flow more accurately soon but preliminary indications are this is easily OU.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 17:29:28 pm
Cool, try to find out which frequency it is vibrating at, with a mic [try to let it make audible sound]. see if it is the same as the pulsing frequency
Why use piezo if you can let it vibrate at will at the desired [keely?] frequency.  ;D
2 freq's: 1 to tense, 1 to shatter
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 19:16:37 pm
notice how the outside tubes are being held only by a stainless strip attached at the base... then all the inner tubes are connected to a base plate... this tells me the inner tubes disqualify the idea of series on the negative side, but it still allows option for switching on the positive side... notice the drawing is from around 1993.. notice it has notches cut out of the outter tubes at the top.. this set up would allow for vibration without a doubt i would say..
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 21:23:37 pm
I got out some tubes and  trial fitted some tie wraps as spacers to make  free floating center tube.

Just an idea,  but may be worth a try.

Drawing attached
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 22:48:58 pm
I got out some tubes and  trial fitted some tie wraps as spacers to make  free floating center tube.

Just an idea,  but may be worth a try.

Drawing attached

Good idea, Goey. Maybe you better add some softfoame under the " bars" , lets say on top of the outertube...
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 02, 2009, 22:58:42 pm
Update: just tried tap water with 2 car 12 V car batteries as input. Output increased as did the amps. With 25 V input the Amps sky rocketed to 10 Amps!! Unbelievable if you compare to a normal HHO cell with electrolyte! :o
This HHO cell will beat anything on the market, mark my words.

Now we tried to estimate the output at 3V input and 0.3 Amps(input 0.45 Watts). The output looks like at least 50 ml gas output per minute(0.05 lpm).
I have hard 1 lpm equals 60 Watts output.
That means output is 0.05*60 = 3 Watts
Input is 0.5 Watts to be on the safe side
COP is 6 according to this. First we estimated gas flow to 0.1 lpm and halfed that estimate.
Now we are CONVINCED this is OU by all means despite the "farmer solution"(or thanks to it). Vibration is amazing.
We will measure gas flow more accurately soon but preliminary indications are this is easily OU.


Hi Gauss,

Maybe you must help me out here with your calculations....
3V*0.3A = 0.9 Watts and not 0.45 is it?
Assume you get 0.05lpm gas from that amount of power, then you say you need like 60 watts for 1 litre per minute of HHO
My math says: 1/0.05 = 20   so 0.9watts times 20 = 18watts a litre/minute
That would be fantastic. However, the more volts on the cell, the more amps and the worse efficiency you get..
But it still would be great...
I hope you can confirm all this soon.

br
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 02:34:20 am
Hi Gauss,

For brute force electrolysis 13.8 vdc and 10 amps yields 1 LPM as a norm for about 2 volts/set of plates so that's about 138 watts.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 04:33:03 am
Hi Gauss,

For brute force electrolysis 13.8 vdc and 10 amps yields 1 LPM as a norm for about 2 volts/set of plates so that's about 138 watts.

Regards,
Andy

So that would mean  for maximum efficiency with a 13.8V supply,   you would need  7 tube sets wired in series.
Which I  think would require that that the outer tubes be insulated ......   



Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 09:27:31 am
@Steve, I use 50% duty cycle so that means 3V*0.3 Amps*0.5(50%) = 0.45 Watts input

But I made an error on the HHO energy content. 1 litres of hydrogen holds 7744 Joules(?) of energy as far as I ahve found out. That means about 125 Watts effect for 1 LPM hydrogen. Assuming our HHO has the same(!) energy content as "normal" hydrogen that means we can at least double my calculation again(COP 12).

However, I believe I might have exaggerated the output despite all(most bubbles at 3V are very small and it is hard to estimate their volume) so let´s assume COP 6 for now anyway. At least we can get OU that is or sure.

Chris Eckman wrote an article where he measured 1 LPM HHO to generate more than 700 Watts, which I don´t believe..... Let´s not get excited.

We will measure gas flow(which is hard) soon.

And yes you are right, AMPS lowers the efficiency(normal electrolysis will always diminish our COP) dramatically but the effect is cool(after 3 seconds you run...).

I maintain this phenomena is truly an interesting proof of concept but holds little industrial value.
However, if you understand what this HHO is and then mix it with positive water mist and neutral water mist, then you have the water ion engine à la Meyer, that is where we aim. This is the first part and it is always the hardest.

I recommend anyone near Arizona to go to Teslatech 2009 and see Chris Eckman about Brown´s gas, or buy the hard copy of the latest issue of Extraordinary Technology.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 09:42:02 am
@Goeytex, yes IF we think normal electrolysis you are right. If we think vibrational electrolysis we might have a different situation.

Maybe we should consider chords, minor thirds, music and tones like Keely did instead? And now things get complicated(at least for me)..... :o
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 13:07:11 pm
Hi Gauss
Try to figure out of what the mechanical vibration frequency is a variable of: pulse repetition rate or tubular dimension, or both?

And instead of measuring gas flow rate, if you have a sensitive weight scale, monitor the weight during and after electrolosys.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 14:16:54 pm
I think this is regular electrolysis Gauss .

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 18:15:34 pm
Gauss, I think its great you are doing some experimental work.

The vibrations can resonante water apart and possibly help the gas move out of the tubes or electrodes quicker.

Here is a link youtube for Tibetan singing bowl.
There were a couple others that people put water in their bowls.
The resonance of the bowl would cause the water to bubble , this always interests me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdOJZDWJkuk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdOJZDWJkuk)
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CycFRkWboQU/[url]

Most of us should already know a pond fogger piezo crystal makes a cold fog sitting just covered by water or 1" or so under.
Puharich's sparkplugs were covered with (vitreous ceramic mixture containing piezo family materials).  ;)
Most likely others, you may have mentioned this.

I think if long tubes are mounted secure at the bottom, epoxied or potted in, that they will vibrate more longitudally or at their tips.
Using no spacers at the tip.
Pretty soon I will have a set of 12" tubes mounted like this, hopeing also for vibrational effects.

I have 2 large pieces of piezo ceramic from a ultrasonic cleaner small tub with lead wires but can't find out what voltage or signal to apply to the ceramic.
Guess I could just apply AC voltage with the autotransformer. Have a feeling this will possibly only make fog again.


Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 19:49:04 pm
Quote
Puharich's sparkplugs were covered with piezo.

That is untrue....they were coated in nickel....nickel is a catalyst.
Nowhere in the entire patent does it say anything about piezos. I have studied the whole thing...it's RF resonant oscillations......sorry to burst your bubble. But, that is an assumption not supported anywhere in the patents.

If you can show me otherwise (proof from patent) I would welcome it.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 20:15:24 pm
Yes I do believe it states in the patent he made a ceramic mixture from the minerals that make piezo's.
In a certain combination.
You should be able to see that.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 20:36:48 pm
Many replies. Well this is not regular electrolysis, otherwise it would not work in distilled water. The pulses act like a hammer on the tubes creating a sound wave that shatters the water in the rarified points.

I believe the Piezo crystals are hard to apply to this system. S1R or something like that tried in some fashion on Youtube with little effect.

Anyone has tried the setup yet. I guess before that happens it is kind of secondary what I now write..... But in our system a kid can make HHO in any water and the production is efficient, but we do not know how efficient yet. Good estimate will come next week.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 20:45:21 pm
Interesting news
It is a good thing when someone dares to try to come up with something new...i like that.
 
Got to find out how to precision measure the gas output.
Is it so that during resonance an unlimited number of cells can be driven for free?..

Best regards


  
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 20:51:07 pm
Hi Gauss,

Well, test 1 is done.
I used an outertube of 15 cm /  6 inches long
Innertube  is like 18cm /  7 inches.

I have to say that NO vibration what so ever is noticed.....I tried destilled. I tried tap and yes, even some with NOAH.

I have the most soft spacers in the world......
I used a HP signal generator with a 50% duty. I can run this thing between zero and 50Mhz.
Hooked it up to a FET and a variable powersupply which can run from zero till 35V. Max 3 amps.

So, again. No vibration detected.

Question: Have you tried shorter type tubes? Or does it only work with the length you have tested?
Question: At what kind a frequency are the tubes vibrating?

Steve




Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 21:10:17 pm
With short tubes you will not see this.

With long tubes, there becomes a pathway for hydroxy exiting the tubes to run downward along side the tube entering back into its bottom.


With short tubes, the water will not become Completely Milky.



With Long tubes, there becomes a path way, the gases get circulated to the bottom and the water quickly becomes hazed from top to bottom. With long tubes, hydroxy is recycled. With short tubes, hydroxy is not recycled. The effect can be seen with a tube of 9 inches in height. It is possible the longer the tube, the more the recycling. Untested at this point.

The pathway in which hydroxy is pulled down along the side the outer tube is visible.

Good day
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 21:20:41 pm
Hi Steve,  can you send a picture of your tubes with the spacers? Rubber is soft? Tubes hanging in their cables?

Do you get any bubbles? Not even with electrolyte? Then my guess is you might have a problem in your circuit somewhere, electrolysis must work regardless of the spacers or else you are not getting any amps through.

Anyone has a PWM Lawton type pulser with 555ers?

Our pulser is very advanced, I will try with a simple Lawton pulser next week. Maybe our pulser is "too good", that needs a check. My feeling is anything will work. A good start will be with lye to check the circuit and then try with distilled. And we need to make a document for this procedure asap.

Well done Warp, you got it working there?!
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 21:32:39 pm
I'm only guessing at a test for this to prove vibration strength.
A 4-20ma vibration transducer will tell you how much vibration you are getting.
Also this would aid you in finding the strongest vibrational point of your signal.

I think this test can be done cheaply if you can find a good used transducer. (ebay).
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 22:31:28 pm
Hi Steve,  can you send a picture of your tubes with the spacers? Rubber is soft? Tubes hanging in their cables?

Do you get any bubbles? Not even with electrolyte? Then my guess is you might have a problem in your circuit somewhere, electrolysis must work regardless of the spacers or else you are not getting any amps through.

Anyone has a PWM Lawton type pulser with 555ers?

Our pulser is very advanced, I will try with a simple Lawton pulser next week. Maybe our pulser is "too good", that needs a check. My feeling is anything will work. A good start will be with lye to check the circuit and then try with distilled. And we need to make a document for this procedure asap.

Well done Warp, you got it working there?!

Hi Gauss,

My spacers as soooo soft. Its more like foam
Sure i ll get bubbles. The tube pulls like 2 amps on 30V

No movement on the tubes, when i touch with my finger. Not on the bucket as well not on the tubes...

Here are 2 pics

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 03, 2009, 23:17:43 pm
My tubes are 9 inches long, and supported individually on plastic/nylon stands, without spacers in between. Once I get my pulser going i'll see what kind of vibration i can get out of this set up.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 05, 2009, 16:36:41 pm
This is a kind of misunderstanding regarding the vibration that I mentioned.

We just noticed the vibration tone with Delrin holders with a bit of extra space around the pipe and we got NO bubbles anyway with tight Delring holders. With the soft spacers we got alot of gas and a small teeter effect.

Anyway, a kid can now make HHO from tap water. This is an important breakthrough to betterunderstand what we cna do with water and Keely must be our master of vision. Oscillation and vibration, just like our planet.

So basically what we identify here is that the soft spacers let the pipes vibrate but you will not see it in the water other than the pipes are swinging just a little bit from side to side. But we are convinced the spacers are the key to VIBRALYSIS as we now call it.

Soon I will try to measure the frequency with the Delrin holders and see whether I can get a hold of the self resonance in the water with the soft spacers, if possible, it must be possible.

I am very happy you got it working so that you can produce HHO from 2 V input which is fantastic in itself, did you try to ignite it? Measure COP?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 13:34:11 pm
Another feedback, we get water inside our pulser, especially the negative connection. So the gas rises up from the tube and follows the electric cable and then condenses inside the pulser...... It must have an electric charge. This is getting more and more exciting. The bubbles are very different and pop much more than normal electrolysis bubbles.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 14:01:31 pm
that they are more explosive could be a hint for ionized gasses.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 16:10:16 pm
Yes indeed but now that we retry with new water, new rubber dampeners and hanging cable, then we are back at "normal" H2... :'(

This is really sensitive to the mechanics and the correct spacing.

Well, I guess we have long tests ahead.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 19:09:03 pm
So a hard day this was.... COP about 1 in our new setup with changed water, hanger and rubbers. Mostly distilled but 20% tap was in, unfortunately we did not have enough distilled left.

Impressions:

1) The straightness of the pipes in the water and the even spacing around the cylinder seem very important.

2) Bubbles, the "ionized" bubbles pop like crazy and are real heavy, like a boat in water floating on the surface attracting in new small bubbles making massive bubbles on the water surface. That is real Brown´s gas, the other stuff is not nearly as reactive.

3) Copper pipes with very small spacing of 1 mm was used, very large and rather ionized bubbles but they stick to the copper surface so production is very low. If you use copper pipes you will need big spacing and probably some insulation, maybe not practical.

4) My tone vibration with Delirn holders could not be reproduced today since we only had a little distilled water left and with tap we got bubbles....... >:(


Well, all in all a very long day, tomorrow is a new day let´s focus on that one.... Many things left to try. Starting by tuning hte pipes acoustically, then trying to find a way to resonate them.

Anticipating a crystal solution I foresee the need of ambient air with water spray(transducer fogger), if the temperature of the water rises you can not match the crystal resonance with the pipe resonance freq.,, that is another reason for ambient air with a water nozzle. Just some idea for now. Goodnight.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 19:40:29 pm
Another feedback, we get water inside our pulser, especially the negative connection. So the gas rises up from the tube and follows the electric cable and then condenses inside the pulser...... It must have an electric charge. This is getting more and more exciting. The bubbles are very different and pop much more than normal electrolysis bubbles.

Had a similar problem.  The water may just be ingressing  the between the wire and the insulation....probably from an exposed area near the end.  Some "liquid electrical tape" solved this  temporarily.   May just be capillary action.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 07, 2009, 23:09:32 pm
So a hard day this was.... COP about 1 in our new setup with changed water, hanger and rubbers. Mostly distilled but 20% tap was in, unfortunately we did not have enough distilled left.

Impressions:

1) The straightness of the pipes in the water and the even spacing around the cylinder seem very important.

2) Bubbles, the "ionized" bubbles pop like crazy and are real heavy, like a boat in water floating on the surface attracting in new small bubbles making massive bubbles on the water surface. That is real Brown´s gas, the other stuff is not nearly as reactive.

3) Copper pipes with very small spacing of 1 mm was used, very large and rather ionized bubbles but they stick to the copper surface so production is very low. If you use copper pipes you will need big spacing and probably some insulation, maybe not practical.

4) My tone vibration with Delirn holders could not be reproduced today since we only had a little distilled water left and with tap we got bubbles....... >:(


Well, all in all a very long day, tomorrow is a new day let´s focus on that one.... Many things left to try. Starting by tuning hte pipes acoustically, then trying to find a way to resonate them.

Anticipating a crystal solution I foresee the need of ambient air with water spray(transducer fogger), if the temperature of the water rises you can not match the crystal resonance with the pipe resonance freq.,, that is another reason for ambient air with a water nozzle. Just some idea for now. Goodnight.

I would suggest to use a different set of tubes for the tuning exercise.
This because you had that effect with this set and you might wanna try to get the effect again. If you change anything on yr current one, then you might not be able to replicate it anymore..

br
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 03:10:15 am
I would like to make a point about the wall thickness of our pipes.  Thin wall will give the best resonance.  Does on my cells.  ;)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 07:00:29 am
yea, i can see that, considering stans cell has 35 and 40 thousands thick tubes, you could crush them in your hands if you wanted too
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 10:56:09 am
Yeah the thin wall must be a key and also the dry cell concept which means you pump the water through the cell putting away all the bubbles asap. What is your COP with thin walls?  We will advance very quickly now I believe. Anyone wants to feedback their results I am most grateful. The more replicators cooperating the stronger we get, I also believe getting official is the best thing you can do and tell everyone about your results asap to protect yourself from bad stuff, they will know you anyway since you have an IP and e-mails so get official is your best strategy.

Put free energy at the bottom of every e-mail to make them work harder. Add in Stan Meyer and they will get overloaded. Remember who has the real power, it is us cooperating. 8)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 13:13:54 pm
I do have sme sort of magnetic filter design in my project section .

just isolate well so there is no charge exchage and it just might work , I dont know .

I didnt make it , I wouldnt patent it if it did work , no $ for that shit .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 13:29:04 pm
Question,

Why did Meyer dedicate page upon page of technical data, formulas. etc  on LC resonance and almost nothing on acoustical resonance? 

Is it possible or even likely that Meyer did not understand his own process? 

If I were to really attempt to prove or disprove  the value of acoustic resonance in a tube cell, here's what I would do. 

First pick a frequency, let's say 4 kilohertz.  Then cut a  center tube that resonates at exactly 4 Khz when tapped.  Then cut an outer tube of a proper length to match the center tube.  Next cut a slot or slots in the outer  tube  until it also resonates at precisely 4 Khz.   Get a magnetic or piezo  buzzer that  operates at the same frequency ( 4Khz is common).   

Mount the tubes loosely or suspended so they are free to vibrate.
Mount the buzzer somewhere so that it induces oscillations.. 
Get some earplugs then   Pulse the cell at 4 KHz and turn on the buzzer.

A submersible transducer/buzzer may work better than what I showed in the drawing. 

See attached conceptual drawing.   
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 15:22:36 pm
why didn't stan talk about acoustic tuning, it may be that he did, just in a different context

we should start reading and listening to what he says in this new light to see what relations we can come up with

he says the bubbles traveling through the tubes will change the resonant frequency, we think sure that's because of the dielectric effect, but maybe that was more related to the variation in the medium in which the vibrations are being sent through, they will vibrate different in air and water, so gas going through will change the vibrational resonant frequency

he says he imparts a physical impact onto the process with the water+gasses+electrons being reflected rapidly around the resonant cavity

he has a whole patent on the resonant cavity.... just going through it here are some clips

please excuse all the big pictures, but i think this is important stuff on the topic!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture21-1.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture22.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture23.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture24-1.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture25-1.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture26.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture27.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture28.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture29.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture31.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/bigbuba/Picture32.png)

has anyone ever tried spheres? the way he shows them drawn would indicate they might be set up to vibrate easily and freely
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 15:42:03 pm
Another feedback, try a medal side to attach to the outer tube, seems like a good idea, one rubber and one metal side.

Another one, the gases ionize around the cables IF the plus and minus cables are separated and not a 3-split cable shich neutralize the charges, they follow the cables all the way to the plus and minus source. They are looking for the neutral center where it can restart the loop.... That means an electrostatic filter and an injector is very appreciated, anyone has built an injector so far?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 18:00:12 pm
Donald,

Please provide the patent/document references for what you cut and pasted.  What documents did  they come from?

The way  they were cut and pasted,  it may seem to someone that they belong together,  but I believe they may have  come from different documents/patents and in different  contexts referring to different  systems. 
 
Now,  at the bottom # 6 he mentions the slots.  It has been speculated that these slots were for acoustic tuning. I find that speculation pretty weak considering that Meyer clearly states,

       "...the outside element comprises a longitudinal slot to provide a side projection output. "

It seems the slots were simply  used to channel the output horizontally.   There's no evidence  that Meyer cut slots to acoustically tune the tubes. 

In regards to the phenomenon that Gauss observed,  the vibrations and or seemingly higher output,  that is interesting.  It is especially interesting that it went away after making some changes.   

What was changed ?.    The water,   maybe  the wiring/ wire lengths.  The water level,  the spacers?  What else?

All these can have an effect upon a resonant system.   Change  one thing and resonance can go away.   Change 5 things at once and you may never get it back unless everything was meticulously documented and measured before making any changes.

As was mentioned before by Electrojolt , seat of the pants visual measurements of gas production  can be very misleading.  The only way to really confirm gas production it by actual measurement.  This is not difficult nor is it expensive to do and is absolutely necessary for any  respectable research. 

I would be very careful not to draw any solid conclusions without actual gas output measurements.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 18:20:55 pm
i like the idea of adding vibrational action with the action of applying voltage.... i think they could work together...

and stan does have a drawing showing slots cut in his outter tubes.. it was for a demo cell from around 1993....
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 19:19:52 pm
Anyone has seen someone using a pump to a dry cell(Stan´s drawing is  adry cell)? I bet it would be interesting to have water pumped through the cell in a closed loop at the same time as taking out the gas from a bubbler or whatever.  Or even better use GEET and vibralysis together. It seems like the GEET reactor can generate electricity.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 19:30:30 pm
it would help to have the cell hooked to a pump to pump the water from the cell past a static filter... it would keep the cell from over population of contaminates. stan has a drawing for that as well.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 08, 2009, 21:06:01 pm
that was this patent, all from the same patent, in the order taken out

you can see the slot refers to a different drawing
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 11:58:30 am
I threw away my stupid measurement equipment and restarted everything...

I tried with one metal side on the rubber spacers, results are very interesting.

Next I will try to use a SS container. Then longer and thinner pipes.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 13:41:04 pm
that was this patent, all from the same patent, in the order taken out

you can see the slot refers to a different drawing
The whole resonant cavity and effects can be summarized by C :)

The patent talks about very low voltage and much lower current, this is before the discovery of a resistor or choke at the negative, or does it? havent read the whole patent.

Gauss, try a [choking] coil on the negative plate only. Or, if you find resonance with vibration, play with the dutycycle, I have a feeling the wavelength of the gap is also or more related to the duty cycle than to the frequency. Perhaps vibration disappears without a decrease in gas production.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 15:28:04 pm
@Alan, I will try it in due time... Now I am disappointed with my pipes.... I want to get them thinner and longer.

Just had a very interesting finding, if you hang one cylinder from the top and one from the bottom so one pipe is free for vibration in the top and one in the bottom, you get NO GAS. That shows this works like a transmitter and a receiver. Both pipes must be free to get any gas, they are communicating. Over to the next test...
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 15:57:20 pm
longer and thinner does sound good, i've tested by tubes trying to get them to ring and they just dont, too thick, it's just a clank, stainless is very dense... compared to aluminum. if i had an aluminum tube of the same dimensions it would ring, but since the stainless is heavy it takes more to get it to vibrate, i think i might machine my tubes down on the lathe and see if making them thinner will help the tone.

stans demo cell says 35/40 thousands, outside/inside, 39.37 thousands is a mm. note the inside is thicker which makes sense if you want to design them match tone.

anyone buying new tubes, get them thin!
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 16:20:35 pm
Gauss ,

I would like to see a video so I can  listen the sound see this effect for myself and say " Now this is the way to go " .

I believe in this theory and Keely but I wanna see your video first so I can start working on this the Dankie way , not the imaginary way like some ppl .



Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 16:41:25 pm
Ok Dankie, but to make bubbles and hang the cylinders in the cables, anyone can do that. After you have gotten the bubbles you want to go further. I have never made a video and do not even know how to do it, surely I will need to do it but first I want to experiment a bit more.

As you have the picture of how tyo hang the cell you can get a quick start. Otherwise just wait for the video, no stress.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 16:41:48 pm
@Donaldwfc

I don't see the problem with the tube thickness, as the patent p7 line22 said...

"If the distance between the inner and outer sphere is of a wavelength related to the frequency of the pulsating direct current applied to the water, the water molecule will be set in motion and thereafter enhanced in motion in the resonant cavity 3 and exceed the impediment of water"

I want to know what SM means with the signal generated in FIG2.b.

Looks like we have one option missing. We use mostly PULSE / GATING and NOT aperiodically gating ?

br
Webmug
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 09, 2009, 18:13:54 pm
Ok Dankie, but to make bubbles and hang the cylinders in the cables, anyone can do that. After you have gotten the bubbles you want to go further. I have never made a video and do not even know how to do it, surely I will need to do it but first I want to experiment a bit more.

As you have the picture of how tyo hang the cell you can get a quick start. Otherwise just wait for the video, no stress.

Ok  Gauss I will be waiting on that video .

Once I am sure I will go full speed ahead .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 10, 2009, 12:03:12 pm
not the imaginary way like some ppl .
;D
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 10, 2009, 13:30:46 pm
Ravi is now commenting on my idea about vibrations(he got COP 5.4 from his cell):


Thats an interesting point about the vibrations increasing the efficiency of gas generation in tap water.. coming to think of it I used soft foam as spacers in between the tubes. So this could probably be one of the reasons for the higher efficiency in my unit.


..well before I shelved my WFC  R&D I was looking into using ultrasonic transducers connected directly on to the tubes but this would create a lot of other headaches which need to be sorted out and they can be ...but I thought it would have to work as the bubbles would be shaken off the surface of the tubes much earlier than normal and this exposes more amount of the surface to come in direct contact with water for the same amount of time increasing the efficiency of the cell.


Ultrasonic Transducers integration is one direction which needs to be looked into to increase the efficiencies. We would have to have a lot of electronics to control the vibration frequencies.. for some idea on how this can be done check the following patent..


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4063542.PN.&OS=PN/4063542&RS=PN/4063542


click on the images tab in at the top of the above page to see the pics of the apparatus.

R.


Well, THINGS ARE MOVING FORWARD...... The confirmations are too many that it is a hasard. Next week I have arranged for longer pipes(400 and 460 mm) and thinner(1 mm and 1.5 mm). Let´s see what it can give us, and then a coating.




Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 10, 2009, 15:33:52 pm
Another comment I have here is that you could get the bubbles off the walls by using a water pump pushing water through the cell gap continuosly. But then the water pump input must be less than the gain of this method.

It is soon weekend..
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 10, 2009, 21:17:10 pm
This discussion led me to read the EPO Patent Application more carefully.  I never really bothered with this one becasue it was "old"  and no actual patent was ever issued that I can tell.

In Meyer's  EP0 103656 Patent Application,  Meyer explains what he means by resonance and resonant cavity.  Meyer says:

         "The spacing between the plates comprises a resonant cavity to a particular frequency. The direct current voltage is pulsed at a
          repetition rate that matches the frequency of the resonant cavity." 

In this same document Meyer goes on to say:

           "It has been found that the distance between the plates of the exciters will have,  or can be adjusted to have, a wavelength, or
           partial wavelength, or multiple wavelength related to the motion of the water molecule in traveling from one plate to the other."

And in refering to the spherical plate device:

          "...the distance from the outer surface of the central element to the inner surface of the outer spherical element will be at some
            wavelength to the molecular motion of travel. When the wavelength is matched with a physical force equal in frequency to that
            wavelength, the inner area becomes a resonant cavity and the water molecule will forcefully be driven repeatedly."

Meyer uses the term "physical force equal in frequency".  I take this to mean the motion/inertia  of the water molecule and not the pulsed DC, as that would be an electrical force. Meyer goes on to say that coaxial tubes work in the same manner as the spherical design.

So when we take Meyer literally, the resonant cavity is not the tube itself but the space between the 2 tubes.  Therefore,  the "wavelength"  and the related resonant frequency of the cavity , is a function of the distance betweeen the tubes and not the resonant frequency of the tube itself (as if it were an organ pipe).  It is not likely that the wavelength of the acoustic resonant frequency of the tubes will be the same as the wavelength of the distance between the tubes.

Does anyone see where I am going with this ?

Goey 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 10, 2009, 22:59:23 pm
@Goeytex

Yes, I follow you. Harmonics are the key.

br
Webmug
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 00:56:24 am
Well I will be working with plates for starters .

I think Stephen Meyers said something about why he loved the adjustable plate so much .

His interview has really inspired me , he seems to say that his setup is more advanced and rafined as well .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 01:19:08 am
stephen meyers seemed to like the way you could see ribbons of gas production between the gap.. must be the ribbon formation in production that was fascinating?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 03:31:05 am
Yeah well that was a bit fascinating . Not much on the technical side but revealing none the less about the anamalous nature of his process .

He said more interresting technical clues .
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 05:00:48 am
This discussion led me to read the EPO Patent Application more carefully.  I never really bothered with this one becasue it was "old"  and no actual patent was ever issued that I can tell.

In Meyer's  EP0 103656 Patent Application,  Meyer explains what he means by resonance and resonant cavity.  Meyer says:

         "The spacing between the plates comprises a resonant cavity to a particular frequency. The direct current voltage is pulsed at a
          repetition rate that matches the frequency of the resonant cavity." 

In this same document Meyer goes on to say:

           "It has been found that the distance between the plates of the exciters will have,  or can be adjusted to have, a wavelength, or
           partial wavelength, or multiple wavelength related to the motion of the water molecule in traveling from one plate to the other."

And in refering to the spherical plate device:

          "...the distance from the outer surface of the central element to the inner surface of the outer spherical element will be at some
            wavelength to the molecular motion of travel. When the wavelength is matched with a physical force equal in frequency to that
            wavelength, the inner area becomes a resonant cavity and the water molecule will forcefully be driven repeatedly."

Meyer uses the term "physical force equal in frequency".  I take this to mean the motion/inertia  of the water molecule and not the pulsed DC, as that would be an electrical force. Meyer goes on to say that coaxial tubes work in the same manner as the spherical design.

So when we take Meyer literally, the resonant cavity is not the tube itself but the space between the 2 tubes.  Therefore,  the "wavelength"  and the related resonant frequency of the cavity , is a function of the distance betweeen the tubes and not the resonant frequency of the tube itself (as if it were an organ pipe).  It is not likely that the wavelength of the acoustic resonant frequency of the tubes will be the same as the wavelength of the distance between the tubes.

Does anyone see where I am going with this ?

Goey 

Yeah, I did get that but something doesn't add up, the freq would have to be in the Ghz so its wave length would match the resonant cavity.

Jolt
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 05:07:47 am
The water is pulsed in the audio range, so it vibrates in the audio range, so if the tubes also vibrate in the audio range, that might be a good thing. eh?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 06:45:47 am
Postedby Electojolt
Quote
Yeah, I did get that but something doesn't add up, the freq would have to be in the Ghz so its wave length would match the resonant cavity.

No,  it doesnt add up,  does it?   The frequency at full wavelength for a gap distance ot 1.5mm would be about 6 gigahertz ir we are talking about  radio waves.   But is that was Meyer was really saying ?

How fast does a water molecule travel through water when a DC potential is applied between the tubes or plates?     In other words,  how long does it take a water molecule to travel the 1.5mm distance between the tubes or plates ?    Maybe that is the wavelength Meyer is talking about?  Maybe Meyer was just guessing?   


Heres a thought ..........

The speed of sound  in water is about 1560 meters per second,  about 4.4 times faster than in air.   That would be 1.56meters in 1ms and 1.56 mm in 1 microsecond (if I did the math right)

Resonance of a tube ( pipe organ) is calclulted with  the speed of sound in air as one of the factors.  So ... if  the  tubes is  submerged in water .......  Hmmm .....   wouldnt the formula,  and therefore the resonant frequency be different than in air ? 

Goey 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 09:42:47 am
Eigenfrequency for the standing waves between the cylinders:


F = (c/2d2)^0.5 , c =1500 m/s in water.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 11:01:23 am
what is 2d2? what stands D or D2 for?

In this same document Meyer goes on to say:

           "It has been found that the distance between the plates of the exciters will have,  or can be adjusted to have, a wavelength, or
           partial wavelength, or multiple wavelength related to the motion of the water molecule in traveling from one plate to the other."

I think the partial wavelength causes the vibration, but not sure I am
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 11:07:54 am

Yeah, I did get that but something doesn't add up, the freq would have to be in the Ghz so its wave length would match the resonant cavity.

Jolt
bingo
it is in the GHz, formed by the bemf spike during the rising edge and falling.
listen to puharich

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 11:13:45 am
Postedby Electojolt
Quote
Yeah, I did get that but something doesn't add up, the freq would have to be in the Ghz so its wave length would match the resonant cavity.

No,  it doesnt add up,  does it?   The frequency at full wavelength for a gap distance ot 1.5mm would be about 6 gigahertz ir we are talking about  radio waves.   But is that was Meyer was really saying ?

How fast does a water molecule travel through water when a DC potential is applied between the tubes or plates?     In other words,  how long does it take a water molecule to travel the 1.5mm distance between the tubes or plates ?    Maybe that is the wavelength Meyer is talking about?  Maybe Meyer was just guessing?   


Heres a thought ..........

The speed of sound  in water is about 1560 meters per second,  about 4.4 times faster than in air.   That would be 1.56meters in 1ms and 1.56 mm in 1 microsecond (if I did the math right)

Resonance of a tube ( pipe organ) is calclulted with  the speed of sound in air as one of the factors.  So ... if  the  tubes is  submerged in water .......  Hmmm .....   wouldnt the formula,  and therefore the resonant frequency be different than in air ? 

Goey 


Hi Goey,

Maybe this helps: When you take a tubeset and put it in new water.
Then turn on the power.......It takes about 1 till 3 seconds before the electrons have travelled between one electrode and the other......

Stan always talked about the DIELECTRIC PROPERTY'S of water.
Well, that around 80.


So, in some way or formula, that variable of must be added.

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 12:22:24 pm
1.5 V up to any voltage works, no coils, it does not matter what you do, we throttled with the voltage and can get very big amounts of gas. And the minimum amps for production was like 0.1 Amps but that is preliminary. About why  this is working, well, vibration is everything. The vibration seems to transport the Amps from plus to minus in some magical way. A transverse wave becomes longitudinal and there is a standing wave between the cylinders shattering the water at the center point in the gap.

I hope you don't mind me asking a few questions.
1.5V * 0.1 A => big amount of gas? or was the power probably higher? If it's true, then wow!


I'd be careful with the transversal to longitudinal wave things though. ;)


edit: oh i didn't see the other pages lol .. unfortunately cop about 1 seems like <1 to me :/ good luck
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 14:10:39 pm
Steve, 

How does a  dielectric constant of 80 equate to a  resistance  of 80 ohms ? 

 I don't think it works like that .   Does  air have a resistance of only 1 ohm ? 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 14:31:42 pm
See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant

seems to be a dimensionless constant and related to capacitance and static electricity
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 14:33:03 pm
Steve, 

How does a  dielectric constant of 80 equate to a  resistance  of 80 ohms ? 

 I don't think it works like that .   Does  air have a resistance of only 1 ohm ? 

It doesnt :] but it does relate to the reactive resistance.
have seen meyer intermixing leakage resistance and dielectric constant.
now, what is the specific ohmic resistance of water? much higher than 80ohm-cm, more in the range of 1k-1M ohm-cm [divide by the distance to get the resistance]
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 16:02:03 pm
Hi,

Well, let me explain it a better way.

Although water is a polar molecule, its hydrogen-bonded network tends to oppose this alignment. The degree to which a substance does this is called its dielectric constant (permittivity). Because water possesses a hydrogen bonded network that transmits polarity shifts extensively through rapid and linked collective changes in the orientation of its hydrogen bonds, it has a high dielectric constant.

That way, it takes some time before the water molecules are aligned and electrons can flow from one to the other electrodes, in our case.

In Stans case, you can read that he didnt want electrons to travel thru the water.
Thats the reason why he writes in his memo that he wanted to use water as part of the total resistance part of his setup.

I maybe have said it a little cru, but i think you all understand that the real resistance is depening on many parameters. I have seen resistances between the 0.1ohm till 100 ohm in my tests.


Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 16:32:36 pm
Steve, 

How does a  dielectric constant of 80 equate to a  resistance  of 80 ohms ? 

 I don't think it works like that .   Does  air have a resistance of only 1 ohm ? 

It doesnt :] but it does relate to the reactive resistance.
have seen meyer intermixing leakage resistance and dielectric constant.
now, what is the specific ohmic resistance of water? much higher than 80ohm-cm, more in the range of 1k-1M ohm-cm [divide by the distance to get the resistance]

Aren't  these number specific to theoretically pure water?   

When we are using "natural water" as Meyer calls it,  doesnt everything change?    Natural Water is not really  just H20.   It is a mixture of all kinds of stuff .... H20,  disolved minerals,  disolved gases,  chlorine, etc,  all of which render any pure water formulas  less than accurate, if not completely useless.   

For example when I model the VIC circuit in SPICE,  I can get  primary resonance and resonance at hormonics,  and huge voltage gains with using a standard Capactior model ( Very high parallel resistance).   However as soon as  parallel resistance is reduced to say, 100 ohms  it all goes to crap.   In other words, the high conductivity as a result of the low resistance  of the "natural  water kills the resonance and any voltage gains.       

Same thing with my system.  I can get huge voltages from the VIC transformer  at "resonance"  but very little voltage potential across the cell.
It seems the "resonance"  is more related to the inductance and distrubited capacitances of  the transformer and chokes than to the "water capacitor" .   The water capacitor appears to act only as a low resistance and not as a capacitor at all.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 17:15:38 pm
now this thread has some good questions and perspectives..

"""Meyer uses the term "physical force equal in frequency".  I take this to mean the motion/inertia  of the water molecule and not the pulsed DC, as that would be an electrical force. Meyer goes on to say that coaxial tubes work in the same manner as the spherical design."""""

i would like to repeat this quote once more by stan..
" No one ever dreamed of using opposite electrical voltage, Being pulsed in a sequential mode in order to perform the work to split the water molecule in a simple physical process. Now isnt that amazing?"

i think i see whats happening...  tell me what you think of these perspectives...

the resistance of water and or any other dielectric of resistance determinds the speed of the wave.. 
the more contaminates means more less resistive paths for energy transfer..
so would higher resistance (80 dielectric value of water) be the lowest freq used for generation, while with more contaminates the speed of singal transfer across resistant gap increases, resulting with higher freq??


the way voltage is interacting with water is atomically meaning having an effect on water molecule individually.. since they share the same relative quantum space they appear to the eye to be affected as a whole and they are to a extent.. when somthing is effected with physical (matter hitting matter) as a whole,  like your hand hitting the water( you are hitting the with 2 wholes your hand and the water... this force effects the whole but its effects are proton verse proton deflection ...voltage force is on matter and not a current through the eather.. it effects both protons and electrons rather then the the proton verse proton of direct physical force (like the water and hand)....   voltage is more efficient for vibrating/ pumping the water into higher states of vibration..

so what happens if we allow both to happen? the physical force and the voltage force???

in order to get the cell to reach max potential in both physical proton verse proton (hand hitting water)
and the pulsing voltage potential.. wouldnt your freq of voltage pulse and gain of amplitude match the wave of the tubes?

to match them would give dual resonance? vibrations from 2 demensions..  voltage (which is a atomic physical force), and matter hitting matter = physical..  if they hit in tune voltage can encourage the tubes to vibrate giving you the both in the water.. the vibration will oscillate the protons and electrons more effective i think.. maybe just the proton mass..   

i see the tubes or plates having a attraction during any potentializing on time, while on off time the plates will be attracted by the charge inducted and will be steped up in pulse.. during of time they appear neutral 0 since there is a balance and the plates take out there magnetic attaction on the closes matter (the water)  the positive plate will not take on electrons because the transformer will not allow it to happen.. it itself is also balanced having the same charged induced and magneticaly stuck on its core...

this patent explains what stans transformer is doing to the T.   nikola tesla explains the bifilar coils well and how they create false currents

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 17:47:23 pm
Quote
i would like to repeat this quote once more by stan..
" No one ever dreamed of using opposite electrical voltage, Being pulsed in a sequential mode in order to perform the work to split the water molecule in a simple physical process. Now isnt that amazing?"

Outlaw,

Please provide a reference for this quote.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 17:53:55 pm
Quote
When we are using "natural water" as Meyer calls it,  doesnt everything change?
these are the specific resistances, 1000ohm-cm at 1mm makes 100 ohm, like stevie found.
But yes, I guess these numbers are for quite pure water.
found em here  http://aqua-sol.com/water_technology.html (http://aqua-sol.com/water_technology.html)


Vic must work in a dead short condition, can we compare it to, or do we must approach it as the hairpin circuit, in which a 0v node exists in the middle of the bar at dead short condition?
Is 0V in fig 8-10 such a node?

Above:
I think he said that in the colorado lecture.

Hmm, when approaching the coils as capactitors [at hf they become capacitive], we have a circuit similar to tesla hairpin, but without a gap to discharge em, no need to perhaps?

If a wfc is connected on a hairpin circuit  close to the caps for HV, no disassociation appeared, but what happens when the freq is adjusted to a freq corresponding to the wfc?
hairpin circuit is a proven HV at dead short device.


and once again standing wave comes to my mind  :D
which is possible if the spikes are seen as ghz pulses: 3e9 m/s /  100ghz = 3 cm wavelength, hmm 100 ghz  I doubt it.
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 18:32:42 pm
if there is a current in the cell it would be restricted by the resistance of water  if the charge is held in the transformer due to mutual inductance... 

we know matter wants balance its self, but can be contained from reaching balance by things such as dielectrics..like the enamel on magnet wire..  so you can displace charge and sit them next to each other with balance.. thats what makes them mutual.. they will couple in the transformer and be fairly happy with where they are as a volume...

but matter (protons)  such as in the positive choke and plate will be looking for a closer connection to the electrons sitting in the wire next to it...   the negative choke will feel the need for more protons, but can not recieve them in the space that they are in.. protons will not transfer into your circuit... this is why the negative electrode can get a build up...

it leaves the charges with only one choice for a full conection to balance... that is the resistance water has for taking on and giving electrons and also the resistance of the choke wires have for moving the electrons
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 18:32:42 pm
Here are some bullets from my water research...
You can read them all here: http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,602.0.html
Take yr time and read it....

ESD (electrostatic discharge) may free electrons from atoms and accelerate them to energies high enough to free other electrons from atoms which creates an avalanche of electron interactions
The dielectric strength of water remains almost independent of the pulse width, when the pulse width is within the microsecond range,
When the pulse width decreases to the sub-microsecond range, the dielectric strength starts to increase
For short pulses, water combines high dielectric strength, high dielectric constant (~80), and is "self healing" in the event of an electrical breakdown 
Increasing the water’s temperature will reduce the water's density and increase ion mobility . It decreases the dielectric strength
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 18:49:20 pm
i would also like to add that if there is current and it was dependent upon resistance.. it would be very little and that maybe the only thing that determines chemical process from physical is that since with amps the plates heat and cause the plates to expand atomicaly and might swet out contaminates?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 19:51:13 pm
Gauss, here is a video of Spodie Odie.. ;)
 


 
He is talking about tuning his apparatus in there.
He has a setup that can draw a massive 800 amps, but he uses just 40 amps and switches that on and off across parts of his cell.
He talks about tuning with screws..So it must be mechanical.
 
Maybe it helps you.
 
br
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 21:23:10 pm
if there is a current in the cell it would be restricted by the resistance of water  if the charge is held in the transformer due to mutual inductance... 

we know matter wants balance its self, but can be contained from reaching balance by things such as dielectrics..like the enamel on magnet wire..  so you can displace charge and sit them next to each other with balance.. thats what makes them mutual.. they will couple in the transformer and be fairly happy with where they are as a volume...

but matter (protons)  such as in the positive choke and plate will be looking for a closer connection to the electrons sitting in the wire next to it...   the negative choke will feel the need for more protons, but can not recieve them in the space that they are in.. protons will not transfer into your circuit... this is why the negative electrode can get a build up...

it leaves the charges with only one choice for a full conection to balance... that is the resistance water has for taking on and giving electrons and also the resistance of the choke wires have for moving the electrons

Outlaw,  is this what you have observed or measured via actual testing or are you theorizing as to how it might or should work ? 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 21:31:54 pm
Quote
Outlaw,

Please provide a reference for this quote


@Goeytex

i heard him say it word for word in 2 of his videos... i think it was his way of saying it in kiss method...  keep it simple stupids lol   he gives you 3 main points..

voltage, sequential mode pulsed, physical process..

tells me that voltage can perform a physical process with frequency and potential.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 21:54:04 pm
Quote
  Posted by Outlaw:
 
i would like to repeat this quote once more by stan..

" No one ever dreamed of using opposite electrical voltage, Being pulsed
in a sequential mode in order to perform the work to split the water molecule
in a simple physical process. Now isnt that amazing?"

Can anyone tell me what context this quote from Meyer was in and what particular system
he was refering to?   Was he referring to a simple tube cell setup or to something else?
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 22:06:12 pm
read this and understand how tesla is relating the inductance to the capacitance of charge a coil can posses under a false current..
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 11, 2009, 22:34:54 pm

@Goeytex

i heard him say it word for word in 2 of his videos... i think it was his way of saying it in kiss method...  keep it simple stupids lol   he gives you 3 main points..

voltage, sequential mode pulsed, physical process..

tells me that voltage can perform a physical process with frequency and potential.

Some folks may diss me for saying this and thats ok.  But becasue Meyer said something does not necessarily make it so.  For me the proof is in the pudding.
 
There is nothing simple about this Meyer stuff.   If it were "simple"  there would be many working replications.  There are none that I can tell so far.  Lawton and Ravi were not actual Meyer replications IMO. 
 
Assuming Meyer was a master of water dissasociation and not a master of equivocation and deception,  what could it be that so many very intelligent people are missing in replicating even a simple Meyer system?
 
Goey
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 00:26:54 am
Goeytex,
 
I totaly agree with you.
 
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 00:36:15 am
your right there is nothin simple for this setup it takes precision design for completion of the task.. but there are such things as roots to the task... such as the main things needed to be considered...

the potential conventional transformers are able to produce voltage and pass it in the form of current... its like they build up the negative but no positve .. it leads to amps across water..

a transformer designed to teslas standard with the bifilar is able use secondary to store the energy on the core in seperate but equal wires called bifilar chokes... he designed it to rid of the condesor (capacitor). stan says the chokes must have equal to or more capacitance then the cell itself... i think this is so it will couple the charge on the core rather then allowing it to try to couple in the cell in the form of amps... amps will happen when you dont have chokes of equal inductance on the same core... the coupling between the opposite wires create a cancelation since they are exact opposite.   

the bifilar coil is part of stans vic.. read teslas patent that i have posted and it says clear as day that the transformer acts like a condensor in that wind style..

what could people be missing to go forward in showing there work??? money money money.. some havent had the chance in their life to bank and stack cash to play with.. to bring words out of someones mouth that has patents and the main concept to the idea then to have it looked at in doubt is fine by me but it just shows negativity and doubt to the mind .. stan had the pudding right? he remembered that statement word for word he corrected his self in one video when he was saying it.. he must have seen this statement to be correct from some perspective.. maybe you just cant see his yet? 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 02:58:40 am


...what could people be missing to go forward in showing there work??? money money money.. some havent had the chance in their life to bank and stack cash to play with.. to bring words out of someones mouth that has patents and the main concept to the idea then to have it looked at in doubt is fine by me but it just shows negativity and doubt to the mind .. stan had the pudding right? he remembered that statement word for word he corrected his self in one video when he was saying it.. he must have seen this statement to be correct from some perspective.. maybe you just cant see his yet?

I absolutely did NOT mean what people are missing to "go forward in showing their work".  I meant what are people missing in actually understanding Meyer's process scientifically to the point of replicating it ...even in a very basic manner. 

Surely you are kidding when you said money.  Money cannot buy results if the science is not understood.  And money cannot buy understanding is the science is esoteric to the inventor.   

Anyone with a couple of grand and a little help can replicate a Tesla Coil, or a Plasma Globe, or other such devices.  Yet over the last 10  years,  with hundreds if not thousands of experimenters world wide (some of which are highly educated)  and with countless thousands of dollars spent, not one single person has actually achieved anything close to the results Meyer claimed.   The patents are there and have been followed to the T by many experimenters,  yet  still  nothing close. 

Meyer had the pudding....  Did he really?  I really want to believe that but unfortunately the actual evidence is sparse.  ... A patent is no proof of the pudding, neither is a statement in a video lecture.   A working system based upon a patent would be.  Where is one ?    It seems to me that given the available patents and other documents and bye the sheer number of attempted replications that  someone would have at least stumbled upon a working replication.  Even a pair of deuces wins a poker hand from time to time. 

Meyer said "the Lord" showed him this stuff.  What did the Lord  reveal to  Meyer  that He is not telling the rest of us ?   

No,  it's not lack of money IMO.  Something else is missing.   And I really hope someone discovers what it is.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 03:18:04 am
Well I think that not wasting his $ on this is a wise choice .

When theres a break on something thats when you do it .

There are other interresting things popping up these days .






Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 03:18:36 am
Goeytex, I could not have said it better my self.
 
In one of Stan's images, he depicts the water molecule bouncing from the negative and positive electrodes.
 
now the only way I can see this occuring is if the water molecule is in vapor form, like steam or in tini droplets.
 
there is no way that water molecules in liquid form will bounce like that.
 
So could it be that the resonace he talks about is actually this effect of the tini water droplets boncing between the electrodes? this bouncing rate should be much slower than the tipical RF wave length for that 1.5 mm gap, or +-6Ghz.
 
Maybe the 1st thing that needs to be done is to break away single water molecules from the liquid water, then have the independent water molecules flow up the HV WFC, and as the molecule flow up the cell, bouncing between the electrodes, it will eventually break into H2 and O ?
 
This is the only way I can see the use for the VIC, there is no way that the VIC will do anything when the WFC is full of liquid water.
 
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 07:05:00 am
I believe that the vast majority of folks dwelling in topics of Stan's work spend way to much time trying to learn from others, and not enough trying to learn from Stan.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 10:08:38 am
Well put Donald!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 10:43:24 am
Hi there,

you seem like a new member, did you build the setup? Results?

0.075 Watts input does not yield a massive output but you see a clear fountain of milky gas coming up between the spacers.

About the longitudinal/vibrational stuff we are convinced. But you might have a different opinion.

About COP I would use Ravi´s setup as role model until further notice, he gets COP 5.4 and anyone in here can replicate his open source document now that we know the foam spacers were used.

Of course we are just beginners yet, pipe optimization, coating, acoustic tuning and crystals should get us above COP 10. We did  not yet even test temperature and pressure dependence. So please, some optimism and experimentation is asked from you. Then please feedback your results.



1.5 V up to any voltage works, no coils, it does not matter what you do, we throttled with the voltage and can get very big amounts of gas. And the minimum amps for production was like 0.1 Amps but that is preliminary. About why  this is working, well, vibration is everything. The vibration seems to transport the Amps from plus to minus in some magical way. A transverse wave becomes longitudinal and there is a standing wave between the cylinders shattering the water at the center point in the gap.

I hope you don't mind me asking a few questions.
1.5V * 0.1 A => big amount of gas? or was the power probably higher? If it's true, then wow!


I'd be careful with the transversal to longitudinal wave things though. ;)


edit: oh i didn't see the other pages lol .. unfortunately cop about 1 seems like <1 to me :/ good luck
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 14:09:15 pm
@Alan.
 
Let me address your post point by point.
 
 
Quote
People never went beyond the simplest meyer design, which is gas above 1V using SS and no heating up.

What people are you referring to?   Certainly not me and countless others that I know that took Myers patents as the gospel truth and have built many many systems, following the patents as closley as possible.
 
Quote
I think there are plenty replications shown on youtube - other went beyond by tuning and scaling up just for more lpm, but not for better efficiencies.

I think that the vast majority of "replications" on Youtube are just electrolysis cells and not Meyer replications at all.  Sure they use tubes,  but beyond that they can hardy be callled Meyer replications. 
 
Can you refer me to one verifiable replication where a VIC transformer (4 coils on a common core)  is used per one of Meyers Patents?   Can you refer me to one verifiable replication where a VIC circuit ( 2 chokes and a blocking diode) is used and almost no current
flows though the tubes. Where only voltage potential is doing the work?
 
Quote
Assepom might be the first who's showing the last accomplishment of meyer: an atomic hydrogen flame.

I saw his video.  Cool stuff.  But is it really a Meyer replication?


Quote
don't count too much on scientist, they are very capable to translate it to real science, but many cant think beyond the indoctrine of the laws of thermodynamics, if they do it is blasphemy - if it supposedly breaks the laws, it is not worth looking at. It is the strongest weapon in their scientific crusade against people that are getting things done that may not happen. some call it scientism  (http://www.ionizationx.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)

Sure "many" scientists are rigid and cannot think beyond Maxwell and Faraday et al. I'm not too concerned with those people. They are irrelevant to what we are trying to do. 
 
But the flip side that you failed to mention is that "many" scientists CAN and do think outside of the box and are very open to new ideas and new technology.  I would not paint scientists with such a broad brush.  To me,  that's a cop out and only leads  to an "us against them" mentality that serves no useful purpose.  The "crusade" against us is probably mostly between our ears. But it does kinda give a sense of validity to what we are doing by imagining that that we are being persecuted by the big bad "Scientists" that act as the  Maxwell Police .     

Quote
The difference between the VIC and hairpin [pls comment]:

hairpin creates HF HV pulsing potential gradient by rapid discharging caps through a sparkgap.
the vic creates the same by very rapid changing magnetic flux.

I'm not sure where you are going with this or how it might apply in practical application. Are you suggesting using a spark gap to replace the Voltage intensifier Circuit? Or are you just using the hairpin as a way of explaining (differently from Meyer) how the VIC circuit works.   
 
I'm very open to to the use of spark gaps to create HV in the process of releasing hydrogen from water.  But as far as I am concerned that takes Meyer out of the picture.  Certainly could not be called a Meyer replication ... could it ?       
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 12, 2009, 15:01:11 pm
People mostly on YT who are using SS, pulser and no electrolyte, some have big ampflow though -
and most importantly.... Gauss'. 
Meyer's earliest patents were about LV and raising the level of breakdown,  without chokes.

n/m the scientist story, have read _many_ comment from educated people who said it is rubbish, because laws of thermodynamics..., that was what I had mainly in mind when typing.


n/m the hairpin too, I have never tested it, was just a thought.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 09:58:11 am
Let´s finish this discussion by concluding the VIC has a possible use in shaking a crystal, let´s exploit that avenue of research asap by discussing tuning forks, acoustic resonance freqs and crystals/ceramics materials to shake our cell. How will a higher acoustic resonance freq affect our options for gap spacing and maximum distance between pipes?

Another thing to consider, why is it that a radio transmitter/receiver is long, thin and flexible?... ;)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 10:10:30 am
Another interesting thing is that 50% duty cycle yields the same results no matter which freq you pulse with. So let´s test 25% and 12.5% duty cycle to find out whether that works as well too.

Keely had 620, 630 and 12 000 Hz as magical heating freqs. What if we tune our pipes to these freqs?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 10:23:08 am
LOL...someone's got piezos on the brain  ???

Personally, I prefer interpreting the confusing facts that Meyer stated, and understanding his BIG PICTURE...IONIZED gasses!!...and less with chasing your damn goose!...If ANYWHERE in even ONE Stan Meyer patent you could show something that even HINTED at piezo it would be one thing.....THERE ISN'T

Stop trying to lead astray!

P.S.
(FOR THE LOVE OF *!...plz research an ION...and also PLASMA)
Then read all of the attached patent...(especially around...say....Pg. 20 (on the pdf reader) on the left side...lines 20-60....with special attention to line 35)

THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND....look no further then what is presented...leave your expectations at the door and let Stan educate you.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 12:51:17 pm
Radiant, I am not crazy about Piezxo, just a way of getting the pipes to shake. If it´s ceramics, vortex or other ways is not really very important to me. Please give your suggestion of how to shake it in the easiest and most efficient way.

I give you a clue on how to ionize in the easiest way. See the attached doc and notice the soft rubber in the connections.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 13:05:44 pm
Btw I am NOT convinced Stan was the engineering genius so many people believe.

I will educate myself and interpret his results as my experiments confirm the real picture of what is happening. Why use his words as your law, we have no idea whether he is trying to mislead you or not or whether he is just wrong... And his VIC is first of all a massive resistor and why did he need that?? Only 14:1 transformer, everybody is speaking about kV pulsing but that does not come from a huge transformer but from Stan´s theories of water taking on a charge with the pulse train, that may be true but should that be our focus? In the end he left the WFC and went for water mist and air anyway. If the mechanics is so important I believe a good idea is to examine that path carefully first.

Well, let´s experiment and see where we get, it is an open affair still. I am anyway not doing anything on Piezo at the moment, there are so many other things to do first.

And the ionization is the most important part I agree, the efficiency of HHO production is not that important. We are after a water ion engine and nothing else.


LOL...someone's got piezos on the brain  ???

Personally, I prefer interpreting the confusing facts that Meyer stated, and understanding his BIG PICTURE...IONIZED gasses!!...and less with chasing your damn goose!...If ANYWHERE in even ONE Stan Meyer patent you could show something that even HINTED at piezo it would be one thing.....THERE ISN'T

Stop trying to lead astray!

P.S.
(FOR THE LOVE OF *!...plz research an ION...and also PLASMA)
Then read all of the attached patent...(especially around...say....Pg. 20 (on the pdf reader) on the left side...lines 20-60....with special attention to line 35)

THEN YOU WILL UNDERSTAND....look no further then what is presented...leave your expectations at the door and let Stan educate you.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 13:09:59 pm
Maybe you should try to find out first what the cause for the shaking is, you could be mixing up cause and effect.
perhaps it is just sympathetic resonance picked up by the tubes from the maximum deflecting [=resonant effect] water particles.

But then again, positive tube attracts the other tube, maybe you can rule this out by pulsing without water?

think of a reason for the cause, and try to prove yourself wrong by experiment  ;)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 13:39:32 pm
You may be right but how do I identify the two options? Maybe trying the same experiment in moist air? Then how do I measure the percentage HHO? It is really hard to id the cause and I am inclined to evolving the experiments into some radio system copy with long thin pipes and matched pipe resonances and gap width experiments by coating etc. I am 100% sure we can easily reach COP 10 without exotic tech(ceramics/crystals etc) and that is more than enough if we then ionize the water fuel before ignition.

Look at the Kelvin water dropper and Leo Umila, more is not needed I believe..

Back to the experiments.

Maybe you should try to find out first what the cause for the shaking is, you could be mixing up cause and effect.
perhaps it is just sympathetic resonance picked up by the tubes from the maximum deflecting [=resonant effect] water particles.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 13:45:14 pm
No vibration means no HHO
But, no HHO because of no shaking, which is your current theory, or,
no shaking because there is no resonance?
[or it is shaking because of partial standing waves  ;D ]

Quote
Maybe trying the same experiment in moist air?
yes, or just air, see if it vibrates.
and what you could try is playing with the dutycycle, with water added, I expect that shaking will cease but HHO wont drop - because a partia standing wave becomes a whole or half wave. but am absolutely not sure.

I'm not behind the bench, so for me it is easy talking.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 14:27:13 pm
For now longer and thinner pipes and then duty cycle modulation will be the easiest progress to make. Then twosided metal spacers with foam between them to minimize vibration dampening area. Finally burst frequency may be interesting(1 pulse, wait 5 periods, 1 pulse etc) if we achieve a high enough Q value.

Then coating and maybe John´s variety of mounting the cylinders, more like radio antennas. We´ll see, I am not the least worried, results will come and I hope more people go to their bench soon, this really isn´t rocket science... :)





No vibration means no HHO
But, no HHO because of no shaking, which is your current theory, or,
no shaking because there is no resonance?
[or it is shaking because of partial standing waves  ;D ]

Quote
Maybe trying the same experiment in moist air?
yes, or just air, see if it vibrates.
and what you could try is playing with the dutycycle, with water added, I expect that shaking will cease but HHO wont drop - because a partia standing wave becomes a whole or half wave. but am absolutely not sure.

I'm not behind the bench, so for me it is easy talking.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 17:11:27 pm
Hi,

Based upon some formulas/calculators I have found on the Internet a .75" diameter tube that
is 6.0625" long will have a primnary resonant frequency of 4978 Hz.

The mounting point to prevent damping of the resonance will be 1.3125" from the end. 

This calculation assumes the the speed of sound in AIR which is 343 m/s.  The Speed of sound
inwater is 1500 m/s. So air calculations will probably not work with a tube submerged in water.
 
My point here is that with some modifications of the formulas for AIR we should be able to
calculate for resonance in water.
 
Another significant point is that: the mounting point on the tube is critical to
maintaining optimal resonance.
 
References:

//mysite.verizon.net/cllsj/windchimes/home.htm (http://mysite.verizon.net/cllsj/windchimes/home.htm)
//home.fuse.net/engineering/Chimes.htm (http://home.fuse.net/engineering/Chimes.htm)
//hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/p7120lab.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/p7120lab.html)
//hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml  (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml)

@Steve.
 
FYI, anytime a link is entered into a message when that message also contains bold or colored text,  the entire message will appear blank when posted.   This is why I had to remove the "http :"  in front of these links.
 
Goey
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 17:24:53 pm
@Goeytex, thanks! Great job, we will note this and start pinging our pipes in air and then try to submerge them and ping again. This is the start we needed, thanks again for your effort.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 17:25:39 pm
Gauss, 
 
You can download these two programs that will be of the utmost help in determining resonance. Both are freeware and both work very well. 
 
You can even run them at the same time.  Visual Analyzer will show the precise resonant frequency and harmonics of a tube via the spectrum analyzer /FFT function as well as with the frequency meter.  You will need a mic  and a soundcard.  Thats it.  Works great.
 
You can find the exact resonant frequency with Visual analyzer.  You can then program that frequency into the Chime program.  Then "ping" the tube with chime and hear it resonate sympathetically.  You can keep VA running a see all that is happening in the spectrum analyzer.  The attached inage file is a snapshot of a one of my crystal wine glasses resonating after being "pinged"
 

http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VA/ (http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VA/)
 
http://www.gdp-research.com.au/soft_1.htm (http://www.gdp-research.com.au/soft_1.htm)
 
 
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 20:37:10 pm
very good stuff .

The tubes are critical .

This is like a keely music instrument . So the materials dont matter , great to read this .

Perhaps we have to cross the electrical resonance with mechanical oscillation .

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 22:37:35 pm
@Steve.
 
FYI, anytime a link is entered into a message when that message also contains bold or colored text,  the entire message will appear blank when posted.   This is why I had to remove the "http :"  in front of these links.

Did you use the hyperlink button?
Its the same as using the youtube button on the left.
Let me know if you still having problems. Better write me a PM so we can keep this topic clean.
 
 
Best regards
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 13, 2009, 22:41:55 pm
Hi,

Based upon some formulas/calculators I have found on the Internet a .75" diameter tube that
is 6.0625" long will have a primnary resonant frequency of 4978 Hz.

The mounting point to prevent damping of the resonance will be 1.3125" from the end. 

This calculation assumes the the speed of sound in AIR which is 343 m/s.  The Speed of sound
inwater is 1500 m/s. So air calculations will probably not work with a tube submerged in water.
 
My point here is that with some modifications of the formulas for AIR we should be able to
calculate for resonance in water.
 
Another significant point is that: the mounting point on the tube is critical to
maintaining optimal resonance.
 
References:

//mysite.verizon.net/cllsj/windchimes/home.htm (http://mysite.verizon.net/cllsj/windchimes/home.htm)
//home.fuse.net/engineering/Chimes.htm (http://home.fuse.net/engineering/Chimes.htm)
//hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/p7120lab.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/p7120lab.html)
//hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml  (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml)

 
Goey

 
Nice find, Goey! This is interesting stuff. Lets see what it can bring.
 
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 13:51:10 pm
Just got new pipes, 0.04 inches is ok to get a tone, 0.06 does NOT work, it is too stiff... My workshop can get thickness down to 0.02 with machines... About the minimum to get to without advanced work.

Other interesting news about efficiency when we burst 1 pulse per pulse train, 40 kHz pulses and 5 Hz burst freq(5 pulses per second), this looks real crazy. Same gas production no matter which number of pulses(1 or 512) we use. Must be examined thoroughly, I do not believe this. It seems like the pipes are vibrating like normal between every pulse train. IF this is true efficiency is freaking crazy.....

Let me do a recheck, something must be wrong here..
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 13:59:06 pm
dutycycle?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 14:43:56 pm
when stan speaks of the chokes needing to have more capacitance then the  cell,  does he mean capacitance across the water gap or does he mean that the chokes need to have more volume to hold charge then the tubes themselves?  gauss decided to shave down the volume of the tubes giving them less volume to take on charge... by shaving them down real thin does it enable less induction needed in the circuit?
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 15:38:09 pm
Gauss extremely exciting news, you are ploughing a new path through the mountains for us. Keep playing! we'll try and catch up soon.
When you say 100 OU, do you mean 100% unity, or 100x Unity? or how are you figuring this? it would be nice to get a number like "1700% more energy released that consumed" like Stan had... just to show a comparison, and see how things are coming along

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 16:35:25 pm
Just got new pipes, 0.04 inches is ok to get a tone, 0.06 does NOT work, it is too stiff... My workshop can get thickness down to 0.02 with machines... About the minimum to get to without advanced work.

Can you please be a bit more specific?  Is the tone in air or when operated underwater? 

Quote
Other interesting news about efficiency when we burst 1 pulse per pulse train, 40 kHz pulses and 5 Hz burst freq(5 pulses per second), this looks real crazy. Same gas production no matter which number of pulses(1 or 512) we use. Must be examined thoroughly, I do not believe this. It seems like the pipes are vibrating like normal between every pulse train. IF this is true efficiency is *  crazy.....

Let me do a recheck, something must be wrong here..

Let me see if I understand you correctly. 

When you hit the cell with only one  single 40Khz pulse and then  500 ms  of dead time.....you get the same gas output as when you hit the cell with 512 pulses on and 500 ms  of dead time ....?  Is this correct ?

If this is a correct understanding  then I suggest that you may have a shorted FET or other condition that is putting pure DC across the tube.

Maybe you can put your scope leads directly across the tube electrodes and see if you have DC or pulses that go from 0 volts to the supply level.   Look at the voltage during the dead time.  What is it ?

Look at the  supply current during the dead time.  What is it ?   

Goey
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 17:16:42 pm
Well, this is embarassing but very interesting scope shot at least....

A transistor was borken so the cell got DC all the time...  Now when we switched it we got very different results...

Sorry, sorry, this is really embarassing. :-[ I will try to diminish duty cycle later with a different pulser instead of using the bursts.  WIth a low burst freq gas flow quickly diminishes. So we need to use lower duty cyle instead. I believe 20% might work well. But right now OU is very far away.... ::)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 18:46:44 pm
we all learn from our mistakes
was a bit too good to be true  :)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 22:15:13 pm
Well, this is embarassing but very interesting scope shot at least....

A transistor was borken so the cell got DC all the time...  Now when we switched it we got very different results...

Sorry, sorry, this is really embarassing. :-[ I will try to diminish duty cycle later with a different pulser instead of using the bursts.  WIth a low burst freq gas flow quickly diminishes. So we need to use lower duty cyle instead. I believe 20% might work well. But right now OU is very far away.... ::)

I appriciate your honesty very much. Next time more luck!
 
Steve
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 14, 2009, 23:43:56 pm
Thanks, just to encourage you a bit after messing up here, sorry again, really stupid what happened... I have pretty reliable information that if you use a pressure boiler and at least 240F with your cell inside you will increase HHO production efficiency like crazy and get dry steam at the same time. That is also logical since the water is more active with the higher temperature. Ionize that mix like Leo Umila does, then ignite the ionized mix - boom, then recycle back through the cell. You have an engine running on water. KISS...


So where should our focus be???! ;D
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 01:44:13 am
Thanks Goeytex.
 
I believe that's also why Stan's inner tube is longer than his outer tube...the frequency between inner and outer probably match.
 
Flag  8)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 03:37:56 am
Well, this is embarassing but very interesting scope shot at least....

A transistor was borken so the cell got DC all the time...  Now when we switched it we got very different results...

Sorry, sorry, this is really embarassing. :-[ I will try to diminish duty cycle later with a different pulser instead of using the bursts.  WIth a low burst freq gas flow quickly diminishes. So we need to use lower duty cyle instead. I believe 20% might work well. But right now OU is very far away.... ::)

I appriciate your honesty very much. Next time more luck!
 
Steve

Yeah Gauss .

Bummer , but like Stevie said , thx for telling us .

Sometimes the sign of a real man is when he can admit bad things things

we all learn from our mistakes
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 09:54:18 am
Thanks, just to encourage you a bit after messing up here, sorry again, really stupid what happened... I have pretty reliable information that if you use a pressure boiler and at least 240F with your cell inside you will increase HHO production efficiency like crazy and get dry steam at the same time. That is also logical since the water is more active with the higher temperature. Ionize that mix like Leo Umila does, then ignite the ionized mix - boom, then recycle back through the cell. You have an engine running on water. KISS...


So where should our focus be???! ;D

The theory and practisch is that hot water works better in my cell too.
Before i get the real needed gas output, the cell and water must be warm.
I am having a theory in my head. I wanna make a small water chamber in my closed water circuit with a heater build in. That way it will be much more quicker operational. With higher temp in the water, you can drop volts, because you stear on amps. I must keep my amps on about 8 in a steady way. When the cell gets it operating temp, the voltage across it has dropped by a third....(read: tuned down)
With an extra heater, the voltage must drop even more.
The output gasses must go into a waterbubler. Maybe even 2
That way you filter out most of the steam. Too much steam doesnt work. Some steam works better in an engine.
 
Steve
 
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 09:58:38 am
Steve, try a pressure steam boiler(at least 240F) instead so you get dry steam instead of wet steam, the difference is substantial, with dry steam you will get massive power, with wet steam almost nothing but cooling of the engine.

Thanks, just to encourage you a bit after messing up here, sorry again, really stupid what happened... I have pretty reliable information that if you use a pressure boiler and at least 240F with your cell inside you will increase HHO production efficiency like crazy and get dry steam at the same time. That is also logical since the water is more active with the higher temperature. Ionize that mix like Leo Umila does, then ignite the ionized mix - boom, then recycle back through the cell. You have an engine running on water. KISS...


So where should our focus be???! ;D

The theory and practisch is that hot water works better in my cell too.
Before i get the real needed gas output, the cell and water must be warm.
I am having a theory in my head. I wanna make a small water chamber in my closed water circuit with a heater build in. That way it will be much more quicker operational. With higher temp in the water, you can drop volts, because you stear on amps. I must keep my amps on about 8 in a steady way. When the cell gets it operating temp, the voltage across it has dropped by a third....(read: tuned down)
With an extra heater, the voltage must drop even more.
The output gasses must go into a waterbubler. Maybe even 2
That way you filter out most of the steam. Too much steam doesnt work. Some steam works better in an engine.
 
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 10:08:52 am
Gauss,
 
Can you explain or show what a high pressure steam boiler is?
How does it work?
 
Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 10:14:41 am
Well, if you ever experimented with steam locomotives you know what I mean..

It is a pressurized tank(typically the tank should resist at least 5 Bars) where you cook water under pressure up to ie 240F and then use a pressure release valve when you need to get dry steam and HHO out. Not hard to do but dangerous if anything goes really wrong and the safety mechanisms fail... Tip is to use a small tank with thick walls when starting the experiments.

Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 10:28:02 am
Well, if you ever experimented with steam locomotives you know what I mean..

It is a pressurized tank(typically the tank should resist at least 5 Bars) where you cook water under pressure up to ie 240F and then use a pressure release valve when you need to get dry steam and HHO out. Not hard to do but dangerous if anything goes really wrong and the safety mechanisms fail... Tip is to use a small tank with thick walls when starting the experiments.

So, my whole system is under pressure of at least 5 bars...
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 10:33:36 am
Well you can adjust the desired pressure by the pressure release valve, ie use 3 Bars constant working pressure. A well produced tank will take up to 13 Bars anyway without a problem.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 10:40:02 am
It would require a redesign or a new cell, in my case.
I use a dryplatecell with an external closed water system, including waterfilters and bublers and a waterpump.
The output goes into a extra bubler which i keep under pressure of around 1 bar.
 
I think you talk about tube electrodes in a boiler?
 
Steve
 
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 15, 2009, 12:05:16 pm
Yeah, a new pressure tank with your HHO cell and a tube heat exchanger where the exhaust gases passes through to heat up the water. If not enough add an electric heater.

Easy stuff still. The question I have is around the mixing of the ourtside air and the dry steam-HHO mix before enterring the reactor, we wouldn´t want the outside air taking down the effect by wetting the mix too much. Needs experimentation though.
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 18, 2009, 20:14:22 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9125003792513982191&ei=lIAeSerEOIeAwgPEncT3BQ&q=%22dale+pond%22
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 20, 2009, 16:44:50 pm
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-to-Get-Electricity-from-Vibrations-51525.shtml

 ;D
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 16:11:29 pm
And now to reiterate steam injection:

If steam condenses quickly you will get both suction and pressure, unique on a combustion engine.

So HHO + steam, way to go. Who will be the first to show it? :P
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 16:21:24 pm
And now to reiterate steam injection:

If steam condenses quickly you will get both suction and pressure, unique on a combustion engine.

So HHO + steam, way to go. Who will be the first to show it? :P

All of us with a wfc is just doing that.... ;)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 16:41:13 pm
Great!  I hope you beat me to it... I will need some more time over vacations I am afraid...

And now to reiterate steam injection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU)

If steam condenses quickly you will get both suction and pressure, unique on a combustion engine.

So HHO + steam, way to go. Who will be the first to show it? :P

All of us with a wfc is just doing that.... ;)
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 16:44:07 pm
Great!  I hope you beat me to it... I will need some more time over vacations I am afraid...

And now to reiterate steam injection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU)

If steam condenses quickly you will get both suction and pressure, unique on a combustion engine.

So HHO + steam, way to go. Who will be the first to show it? :P

All of us with a wfc is just doing that.... ;)


There is most of the time steam coming along out of every cell having more then 2V across the electrodes.
So, in my engine tests, there have been steam too.
I also tried adding extra steam. That did help. Too much steam is no good....
Where are you going to on Holiday? Do you stay in yr country, Sweden, i believe?

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 16:51:40 pm
Yes I stay put here, maybe some small tour around the neighbouring countries, in the south of Europe the heat is too much for me anyway... This summer here is the best in years with "normal" temps from 70-85 F and not too hot nights like the last 5 years and not too terrible humidity.

Which temperature do you have in your WFC today?

So which pressure are you going to work with? I will use about 300 F and 5 Bars working pressure which will give >98% dry steam and massive amoounts of HHO, perfect I believe. Then you could throttle with the over pressure too.

Look at this closed loop condensing system, amazing: http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car (http://www.damninteresting.com/the-last-great-steam-car)



Great!  I hope you beat me to it... I will need some more time over vacations I am afraid...

And now to reiterate steam injection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAkRLjx8FeU)

If steam condenses quickly you will get both suction and pressure, unique on a combustion engine.

So HHO + steam, way to go. Who will be the first to show it? :P

All of us with a wfc is just doing that.... ;)


There is most of the time steam coming along out of every cell having more then 2V across the electrodes.
So, in my engine tests, there have been steam too.
I also tried adding extra steam. That did help. Too much steam is no good....
Where are you going to on Holiday? Do you stay in yr country, Sweden, i believe?

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on July 21, 2009, 19:02:18 pm
Well, maybe we see eachother then......I am going to Blekinge for some weeks.. ;)

Steve
Title: Re: Results from some tests...
Post by: Login to see usernames on October 19, 2009, 01:11:22 am
Gauss, 
 
You can download these two programs that will be of the utmost help in determining resonance. Both are freeware and both work very well. 
 
You can even run them at the same time.  Visual Analyzer will show the precise resonant frequency and harmonics of a tube via the spectrum analyzer /FFT function as well as with the frequency meter.  You will need a mic  and a soundcard.  Thats it.  Works great.
 
You can find the exact resonant frequency with Visual analyzer.  You can then program that frequency into the Chime program.  Then "ping" the tube with chime and hear it resonate sympathetically.  You can keep VA running a see all that is happening in the spectrum analyzer.  The attached inage file is a snapshot of a one of my crystal wine glasses resonating after being "pinged"
 

http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VA/ (http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/programs/VA/)
 
http://www.gdp-research.com.au/soft_1.htm (http://www.gdp-research.com.au/soft_1.htm)


thx goey , I will investigate what is known as''sound'' with some new modern equipment on the low budget tho, since there is alternating Q charge from those triplen tubes from inner to outer , the middle tube is in the best condition possible to start oscillating .

If it oscillates , it will create changing ''water pressure'' aka ''sound'' .  This will also correspond to maximum ''physical movement'' .

Because thats what sound is really , an electrical frequency being converted to moving a speaker wich changes air pressure and your ear piking those up , all the same ...