### Author Topic: Results from some tests...  (Read 49255 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 368
• Yes I got Jolted,
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #96 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

• Hero member
• Posts: 980
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #97 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?

• 50+
• Posts: 58
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #98 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

• Moderator
• 50+
• Posts: 96
• "Help people enlighten to truth"
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #99 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.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 387
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #100 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

• Sr. member
• Posts: 387
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #101 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

• Hero member
• Posts: 4538
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #102 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
« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 15:53:09 pm by Steve »

• Sr. member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #103 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
« Last Edit: July 11, 2009, 12:43:52 pm by haithar »