Author Topic: Results from some tests...  (Read 42402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #144 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

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #145 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
//home.fuse.net/engineering/Chimes.htm
//hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Class/p7120lab.html
//hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml

 
Goey

 
Nice find, Goey! This is interesting stuff. Lets see what it can bring.
 
Steve

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • "Help people enlighten to truth"
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #146 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..

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Sr. member
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #147 on: July 14, 2009, 13:59:06 pm »
dutycycle?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #148 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?

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #149 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


Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #150 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
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 17:22:44 pm by Goeytex »

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • "Help people enlighten to truth"
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #151 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.... ::)