WFC Tubes conditioning

[Farrah Day]

Only just seen this thread guys.

Some interesting stuff here... but where is Duranza nowadays? Can't find him on the OUPower forum either.

The electrode oxide layer is a real interest of mine at present.  To me the oxide layer (Chromium Oxide) will build up on the anode due to oxidation, and be enhance by the presence of pure O2, but these guys seem to be getting a white crud build up on the cathode, which they are also trying to work for them.

Now, as ss only really corrodes badly in an oxygen deficient environment, we have to assume that the ss cathode has lost its natural protective chromuim oxide layer and other elements of the ss are reacting... but what with... the hydrogen?  Whatever is happening at the cathode should be a reducion rather than oxidation reaction, so it seems to me that the white crud is unlikely to be an oxide of sorts.  That is not to say that it's dielectric properties do not go into enhancing the properties of the water capacitor, it's just another mystery to ponder... unless someone already knows the answer!

An interesting point was made by someone above somewhere, that a teflon coated electrode did not work at all, as it was simply too good an insulator. This again would tend to indicate that not only are we relying on a oxide layer to act as a dielectric, but also to breakdown once a certain charge level has been reached, before self-healing again.

All very interesting and very relevant.

[Farrah Day]

I'm at present conversing with Bob Boyce on another forum, and thought, as many of you are probably aware of Bob, that I'd bring the conversation over here.

So, for anyone interested it would seem that my ideas on cell conditioning and its function within the wfc are at real odds with his. 

He calls the dielectric oxide layer, a 'catalytic coating'. Don't know why yet. He claims to know what is happening in his cell when its being pulsed, but I'm not so sure. I'm hoping he can explain it in scientific terms and provide some reaction equations.

This is his post:

FarrahDay,
Testing was done woth both the 304/304L and 316/316L. I only gave the worst performer and best performer as a comparison. Carbon content only made a slight difference;

304 = 198%
304L = 200%
316 = 235%
316L = 238%

The addition of molybdenum was suspected to be the main factor in the performance difference. This was confirmed by the addition of traces of molybdenum to KOH electrolyte during the conditioning of 304L. The resultant catalytic coating performed just as well as that obtained from properly prepared 316L. The traces of nickel and molybdenum that are liberated during the cleansing phase of 316 or 316L play a big role in the makeup of this catalytic layer that is formed during conditioning.

I am very aware of why my system performs the way it does. Meyer relied upon the conditioned coating (which takes some time to develop), just as mine does. Only my design uses multiple cells in series to make an even higher impedance cell stack. In my system, the catalytic coating does not have to be so thick, nor does it have to be dielectric. Mine . Applied DC potential is kept below that threshold to entrain the water, and the 3 high frequency pulses are applied through the toroidal transformer that carries that entraining potential. The result is the entraining potential is modulated with the desired waveforms. These pulses do occur in trains with relaxation intervals.

I think the main difference between my system and Meyers is that mine uses electrolyte to increase conductivity within the water and multiple cells to build high impedance, while Meyer required more of a dielectric layer to reach high impedance. The Meyer method results in only surface action that does not penetrate deeply into the water, while my method uses the conductivity of the electrolyte to carry the modulated energy throughout the water completely. This is why cells using my method do not just evolve bubbles at the electrode surfaces, but throughout the entire liquid volume.

For those that do not understand the underlying energy brought about by pulsing inductors, the Meyer system may look like it works differently than it really does. Just like mine, anyone looking at it just assumes that it is just a brute force DC system. While it can be used in that way at higher applied potential / current, that is not the way it works in resonance mode. Both systems are far more than they appear, as they are energy systems coupled to water cells with the intent of coupling specific evironmental energy into the water for disassociation purposes. People like Bedini and Beardon may understand this sort of energy only too well, but I really do not expect most other people to understand this. Especially those that are so thoroughly entrenched in traditional science that they cannot see beyond it.

Bob

To me Bob's post brings up more questions than it answers, but maybe he will be more forthcoming in future posts. However, there are things that ring alarm bells for me. One being the fact that he talks about impedance, but never mentions the capacitance of his multicell wfc... and for anyone familiar with Bob's 100 x (6" x 6") plate cell, that's what he has, a lot of series capacitors.

This bit rings some alarm bells for me as it seems to be a direct contradiction of itself. Bob states:

I think the main difference between my system and Meyers is that mine uses electrolyte to increase conductivity within the water and multiple cells to build high impedance, while Meyer required more of a dielectric layer to reach high impedance

If he wants greater impedance, why add electrolyte to increase conductivity? There appears to be a certain illogic to that statement.

The other thing is his reference to his design having a catalytic coating that does not need to be dielectric??  Strange as that's surely exactly what it will be... a dielectric!  He also states his design, 'uses the natural barrier voltages of water (electrolyte) to metal contact to build up an accumulated effective high impedance'.  This sounds like Meyer speak to me. What this means is anyones guess.. has anyone ever heard of the natural barrier voltage of water?

Bob might be right and my ideas might be totally wrong, but if his ideas are going to infIuence my thinking in anyway then I need him to provide some real science to support and explain some of his statements.

You may or may not have already seen this post elsewhere, but to balance the argument, this is my post and what I think more likely is happening:

[When pulsing a square wave, unlike a sinewave where the voltage rises gradually, the square wave voltage is almost instantly at maximum. Now, across the resonant charging cct inductor, the voltage is 90 degrees out of phase with the current through it - the voltage leads, the current follows. Now, if the tiny little fast moving electrons can't keep up with the voltage, the relatively massive bulky ion impurities in the tap water certainly will not be able to do so.

Therefore we have a voltage across our wfc before the electrons get there, and well before the ions get there. As this goes on, charges are accumulating on the electrodes, waiting to exchange charges with the ions in the water, but... the electons at the cathode (and +ve holes at the anode) will be gathering far more quickly than the ions. A bottle neck forms and the charges on the electrodes continue to accumulate until massive dielectric breakdown occurs. At this stage, rapid ionisation of the water occurs and we get lots of gas, but as there is such an excess of charges on the electrodes, that no great surge of current through the electrical cct will occur. We are simply using up these charges, while the rest of the electrical cct carrys on the charging process. It will be important that the charges on the electrodes are not totally depleted, or else this would cause heavy current to be drawn through the electrical cct.

Hence, unlike normal dc electrolysis, the electrodes have an excess of stored charges, which can effectively be used before current is required to flow through the electrical cct. That is why a pulsed cct only draws a low current through the cct.

Here's an analogy:

Think of dc electrolysis as your house mains cold water supply running through to your kitchen tap. If you turn on the tap, that water mains pressure forces the water out. If however, you turn off the mains water supply at the stopcock, then no water flows when you turn on the tap.

Now think of pulsed electrolysis as your house hot water supply, where you have a storage (header) tank in the loft. Mains cold water is used to fill up the loft storage tank - like charging up a capacitor. Now again, you turn off your mains water at the stopcock, so no water can flow from in the cold water circuit. However, when you turn on your hot water tap and it will flow, and continue to flow until the storage tank empties, and during this time it requires no cold water supply, i.e, thanks to the storage tank, the hot water can flow for a time without drawing on the cold water.

Think of the voltage as the mains cold water pressure, the hot water storage tank as our 'water capacitor' and the hot water running with the mains cold water turned off as the exchange of charges between the ions and the electrodes.

Now, here is my thinking behind the signal pulses and components of the resonant charging cct.

Firstly, the main frequency pulse. We will want this to be quite high, as high frequency through an inductor will create a high resistance to current flow - hence the inductor acts as our natural current limiter. Note: I'm dismissing all ideas of resistive wire to restrict current, as this would simply waste power, whereas an inductor will store energy and release it back into the cct with only a very small loss of power.

The modulation of the high frequency pulses. Now I've heard mention that this is used to control the gas output in order to accelerate/decelerate a vehicle. However, I don't think we have that to worry about yet. So I believe that more likely the modulation of the high frequency by a lower frequency is what provides the 'off' time that allows the dielectric to reform.

I emphasise that this is only my personal theory of operation, but to date, as far as I can tell it's the only one that has been put forward that offers any kind of scientific explanation to go along with it.

Feel free to respond with your thoughts.
_________________
Farrah Day./quote]

[Farrah Day]

Anyone following my other thread will see that using concentric tubes, my test cell is holding a charge well, in fact it's very hard to discharge it!

It would appear then that even 'unconditioned' ss tubes possess a good enough layer of chromium rich oxide to act as a dielectric.  Yes it is leaky, but then all electrolytic capacitors are.  That said, it takes hours and hours to fully discharge by itself.

[Water Gauss]

Farrah Day,
  This is my first post on any of the news groups after watching them for several months.  I have developed a simple Meyers system and am currently only using brute force DC current at 6v and 12V.  I have to start somewhere.  Next will be to build the pulse circuites.  (Forgive spelling mistakes, oddly I know when I make one but I can't always reslove the spelling errors).

On last conditional before I get to my point.  I have avoided posting in the past because I'm get frustrated with the quasi-science babble.  I will do my best to only post thoughts that have sources to back them up.  I don't mind left field ideas but it does bother me people try to make things up just because (seemingly) they want to post something to look smart.  I just ask for people to back up their thoughts through sources or stateing it is there opinion.  Remember college or high school where you had to site your sources. Farrah Day I do think you have do well explaining yourself in the past.  That, I hope, was my only rant

After following for months and with my own experiments I want to comment on Bob's point about impedence and the use of an electorlyte.  The meyer's system produces a high impedence on the tubes.  Bob's system creates a catalyst in the water.  My simple understanding is we want to affect the water not the tubes, so it makes sense to inhibit electric activity to the tubes and increase electric activity to the water.  By increasing the impedance on the tubes you 'force' the water to be charged more before the current can flow.  I'm not sure (at least I say this part), but I think the electrolte would have the same effect.  It creates a condition where the electricity is 'happier' to flow through the water before moving to the tubes.

My tubes are getting conditioned very nicely.  Lots of white crap and it does seem to produce gas faster and quicker.  I say seems because I don't have a fancy system to measure gas output yet.  Baby Steps... Baby steps.

Water Gauss

[Farrah Day]

Hi WG

I agree it best to start from known science in order that you have a good background understanding on which to base future experiments on.

There are many people who dont have a clue what they are talking about on these forums. People with no science knowledge whatsoever. People who read a few patents, think they know it all, and just spout or quote, as you so nicely put it, 'quasi-science babble', that neither they or anyone else understands. There's a lot of it about unfortunately.

Bob's system creates a catalyst in the water.  My simple understanding is we want to affect the water not the tubes, so it makes sense to inhibit electric activity to the tubes and increase electric activity to the water.

What is the catalyst... KOH?  If so, why does he call it a catalyst and not simply the electrolyte?

This link is to Bob's electrolyser design.  In one design he's using 101 plates and full wave rectified 150V across the lot.  To me this seems to simply be very efficient dc pulsed standard electrolysis. It does not seem to compare to the Meyer set up at all. 

http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_BobBoyce_Electrolizer_Plans/d9.pdf

Having had a good look through the electrolyser details on this link, I can find no supplied explanation of what is occuring or why. That is, there seems to be a lack of scientific evaluation in terms of the reactions that are actually taking place.  Again I'm left with more questions than answers. Bob claims to be getting up to 1000% more gas produced than the maximum for standard electrolysis of equivalent power. If so this is quite phenomenal.

Bob details etching of the ss plates with light sand paper. Off-hand I can't remember the reason he states for doing this, but it's not to increase the capacitance of the cell, which it would do by many times,  I would etch the surface of my ss tubes specifically to increase the surface area, and hence the capacitance, (by as much as 50 times!)  Another thing Bob mentions is the formation of bubbles from out of the water between the cells rather than from on the plates. What I would like to know, is how you can actually confirm this with vigorous bubbling from plates spaced just 3mm apart.

Unfortunately Bob has not yet responded to a few questions I posed after his post, so I'm in the dark as to what he is using at present and how he thinks it works.  I think his post posed more questions that it gave answers, and I'm not convinced by what he said.

My theories are certainly at odds with his, but then my wfc is not comparable if he is effectively just using 1.5 volts across each cell.

Perhaps he will be a little more forthcoming soon.