Ever wounder what Stan meant when he said ?(pulsing electrical voltage fields of opposite polarity)??
Why has no one caught on to that concept? hmmm...
It took me a while to see it. It's kind of hidden in amongst all the techno jargin.
Here's a clue as to what Stan's been indicating as needed for the HV disassociation of water.
The document contains the Patent and Memo references.
Outlines the circuit. Tests to date. And, tests to be done.
-Dogs
This is a later add-on to the circuit and does what you are trying to do. At least part of it. The plates stacks(fig. 7) in your PDF is the electron inhibitor circuit. It is not Delrin. My guess is the material between the plates is a piezoelectric material or a transducer to create cavitation in the liquid. Cavitation is well known to increase chemical reactions by many fold in liquids. Electrolysis is a chemical reaction.
Here is a diagram of how Stan did the crossover voltage pulses. It's actually quite easy to replicate which I have not done yet. Sorry, still workin on it. But it's basically, an induction core coil connected to center tap of the secondary and your ground will be connected to the water of the cell or possibly the water acts as ground. Not really much to it. Hope this helps...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg167.imageshack.us%2Fimg167%2F5204%2Fsyncpulsedi5.jpg&hash=707204bbf013cc39635914bab4d25336de7adcd3)
HairBear
Here are some pics of my thoughts of what the electron inhibitor circuit would resemble. Taken from a different patent. This is the cathode only. The anode is not shown here.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg210.imageshack.us%2Fimg210%2F8069%2Ftubesectionmn2.jpg&hash=1a96d1fb2c5bb7b021ea6c251c9df3ee6b6b8f69)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg242.imageshack.us%2Fimg242%2F6773%2Ftube3dqx1.jpg&hash=069a641d7dfd1fb32b7384b8cfb947f64290f2e9)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg186.imageshack.us%2Fimg186%2F6720%2Fsectionia7.jpg&hash=63da521a026726af5c2566ce7e152526316e816a)
HeairBear,
Thanks for checking out my project.
Here's the result of my last experiment:
After leaving my PWM alone for a while, it seems to have healed itself and is working again.
Just as I started to test each component, I found it was working fine.
Test 1
So I did a test using 2 different tubes in 2 different water baths and verified that I had a positive pulsing waveform in one bath and a negative pulsing wave form in the other. This verifies that the circuit is correct.
Test 2
In this test, I place the tube with the opposing voltages into the same water bath.
What seems to happen is that the individual pulsing wave forms collapse.
It seems like the water allows too many electrons to cross flow between the two circuit, resulting in a collapsed wave.
Test3
In this test, is similar to 2, in that I place the tube with the opposing voltages into the same water bath. The difference is that 1 tube is insulated with Nylon, but allows water to enter into its cavity.
Once again, what seems to happen is that the individual pulsing wave forms collapse.
Next, try distilled water.
It may be that the only way to apply the opposing currents is to switch between them using the cross switch circuit.
The key here is to get voltage to do the work and not amperage.
Yes, I should have included that diagram with the center tapped secondary to my diagram.
That choke leads to the same cell and results in a reversed current with a pulse in the negative direction.
I have confirmed this on my oscope.
Not sure what to make of the tube images, given no reference and no significance to the stated objects.
Best,
-Dogs
Thanks Dogs, your work is an inspiration and I enjoy your posts. Keep doing what your doing, however you are doing it. It seems to be working.
Here is the link to the description of the pics I posted earlier. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4525645.html
In these tests, did you have a ground connected to the water? I have this feeling that if you ground the water, it may work. I'm not sure, just a hunch.
Gotta run...
HairBear
HeairBear,
Thanks for the kind words and link on the other patent.
I kind of get the feeling that I may have to pursue the cross switch circuit.
But first, the distilled water tests.
Best,
-Dogs
Excellent work Dogs!
Thank you!
;D
I just happen to be working on a similar circuit :D , when we apply a pulsed DC current to a standard cell we are locked to the source voltage/current and there is no isolation from source to load, but if we apply a single pulse to two tank circuits, each circuit driving one plate, then we can have a 180 degree phase difference and we can have load isolation. This is something most people don't want to consider in there black and white world, the gray areas. That two resonant tank circuits could be made to oscillate out of phase producing a "displacement current" not directly associated with the primary driving source. I have been testing a circuit to answer a question I had, what happens when a capacitor is discharging current through a cell---- but this same current is being pulled through by an inductive discharge---- two discharges in the same direction.
I've not seen that Meyer cct diagram that HB has posted before. So what does this mean - the previous ccts didn't work... and this one does? Or is it more Meyer games?
Am I the only one that has problems with this new cct diagram?
As Dogs has already found out, the supposed resulting mirrored pulses should cancel each other out, thereby doing nothing.
Look at Meyers input. He's now inputing positive squarewave pulsed dc into a centre tapped transformer (or in Meyer jargon: PROGRAMMABLE VARIABLE GATED PULSED - VOLTAGE FREQUENCY - guess old Stan never heard of KISS). The transformer will make the pulse voltage larger, but how can you achieve the -ve unipolar voltage from +ve pulses?? You can't with this cct, it's simply nonsensical. I see that the WFC has also now become a: RESONANT CAVITY VOLTAGE WAVE-GUIDE! Come on, get real!! Wave-guide is used at microwave frequencies, not at KHz.
Someone please feel free to prove me wrong, but I think that this cct is more Meyer fantasy. The centre-tap of the transformer, I think is intended to provide 0V, but it would only do this for an AC input - not pulsed from 0V. Pulsed means the CT will be at 1/2 full pulse voltage. Also, if the theory is to use the CT to draw electrons from the water, then the CT diode is the wrong way around.
I daresay Dogs at least will soon realise that Meyer is, rather frustratingly, toying with us again here.
Anyone with any electronics expertise will already be very wary of this cct - I would urge the rest of you to think carefully about this before you waste too much time getting 'Meyered'.
Hi Dogs
I can reproduce the step charging effect using an electronics software package, but I'm curious as to how your achieving nearly 2 megavolts.
The step charging effect is, as far as I can tell, simply due to the 10meg resistor slowing the charging of the capacitor and hence producing the step effect. Changing the value of the resistor alters the step rate.
How much does your transformer step-up the voltage initially?
As the cct can't resonate as such, are we to assume that the extremely high voltage across ypur tubes are a direct result of the bifilar wound inductor immediately before the cell? I assume it is bifilar wound and not simply another step-up transformer? Unfortunately there is no bifilar component available within the software package to experiment with.
Of course the other curious thing is that with nearly 2 megavolts you are seeing no gas production - even under that amount of stress the water is not ripping apart as Meyer states it does! Perhaps this is an indication that it is indeed all about ionisation, and that next to no ionisation can take place due to the lack of electrons available at the electrodes - but I'm only speculating!
Look forward to hearing from you. All the best.
@Ekfugo, Thanks.
@allcanadian, I think that the trick is to use the cross over circuit. (Here's my theory..., which is mine...)
The HV positive pulsing aligns the water molecules and packs them against the positive cell wall.
After a few pulses (say 3), we switch to the circuit with the diode facing the other direction.
The HV negative pulsing will pulls at the packed molecules, and results in the disassociation.
More stuff is probably happening, but that's the main effect that we are interested in.
@Farrah Day, You aren't the only one having a problem with that circuit. I'm still have a uncertainties about it as well.
But, I think that it holds a few clues that seem to align with the Steam Resonator data in the memos.
Also the diagram indicates OV in several locations, does that mean Zero Voltage, or is it a reference to
a lines connection point (always/sometimes), it is not clear.
Or, does the 0V pointing to the center of the cavity mean that the center of the cell experiences a zero Voltage
potential given that the two pulsing opposing potentials from the inner/outer walls result in a Zero Potential in the
center of the resonant cavity.
"Traveling Voltage Wave-Action (770) of Figure (8-1) of opposite voltage polarity (+/-) of equal Voltage-Pulse Amplitudes (+Vpp/- Vpp) are zero reference to electrical ground state
(OV) by placing Amp Inhibitor Circuit (860) (Amp Inhibiting Coil 617, Blocking Diode 618, and
Magnetic Induction Core 619) between electrical ground (OV) and Center Tap of Dual Bifilar
Secondary Pickup Coils (616A/B) of VIC Matrix Circuit (690) of Figure (7-8) as to VIC Impedance
Network Circuit (620) of Figure (7-1) , as illustrated in (840) of Figure (8-10)."
- Memo WFC 427 Pg 8-7
This actually indicates that the center tapped choke w/diode is attached to ground. Which would result in a pulse on the negative side of the cell.
Which would mean that the negative side of the cell actually has 2 chokes, one fixed and one adjustible. Which would make sense, in that the addition choke resistance on the the negative terminal results in greater electron blocking on the negative side, which then results in HV within the cell.
Re: 2.86 Mega Volts is basically the result of an almost open circuit on the negative side of the cell. The electron build up because of inhibiting electron flow on the negative side of the cell.
The voltage step-up up is probably very high from my 12v to 7k transformers (higher than the rated 7k). I have not probed the voltage coming out of the transformers. Using an additional transformer's secondary as a choke results in resonance and a step up in Voltage again. And the blocking diode on the positive side, keeps electrons from back-flowing on the AC current from the transformer, which again results in HV or lots of electrons trapped between the (blocking diode/choke) and the (10 Mega Ohm Electron Inhibitor), thus across the cell.
I have also been experimenting with reduced resistance on the Electron Inhibitor (resistors less than 10 Mega Ohms) to allow some current to pass. This results in less voltage across the cell. Which means that Stan is right about making that adjustable so that voltage within the cell can be controlled (If there is a correlation between voltage and HHO production).
I definitely get Higher Voltages with I use the secondaries of the HV transformers as chokes than if I use my hand wound 1"x1" bifilar choke alone.
Just started playing around with a simulator as well (CASPOC). I'd be interested to see what the wave forms from a circuit set up like fig 8-10 looks like if the center-tapped diode/choke simply goes to ground.
Best Regards,
-Dogs
Hi Dogs
I'm not sure you realise just how intriguing your 2 Megavolt across your cell is. If your transformer is upping to 7 kilovolt, then I would expect no more than 14 kilovolt due to the action of the chokes. This is very interesting, as when using electronic software I have found that I could get around 15 kilovots pp from a 12 volt supply, but this is only achievable with an ac signal at the LC resonant frequency. As soon as I incorporate the blocking diode, my voltage drops to twice the supply voltage. All this is in keeping with the practical side of electronics, so you can see how unusual it is to obtain your high voltage with a blocking diode in place. Is it possible that your diode/s are short cct?
I see 0v as being just that, zero volts - not ground. Just use old Stans stuff as a guide. Don't take anything he says too literally, and certainly don't trust his cct diagrams.
Keep us posted. All the best.
@Farrah Day, For the simulation, here are some other values the,
In my tests, I'm using 3 in series diodes for the blocking diode.
The chokes (Secondary of transformer) that I am using are valued at 1H.
The difficult piece to simulate is the Water Capacitor as there is capacitance and resistance going on.
Not really sure how to make accurate measurements of these.
And then the dielectric of the water.
And, not really sure about the details of how the water cap actually reacts to the current etc...
Or does it act along the exact same lines as any capacitor? (Not sure).
On the other side of the tube, a resistor from 0 to 10 Mega Ohms.
Behind this resistor, we have a patch that goes to the non-diode side of the transformer secondary.
We also have a patch to ground or to PWM (-) which attaches to the transformer primary (-).
Then there are the settings for the appropriate frequency and gating.
I've blown my PWM again. When I have it working. I'll try to get more data to you for simulation.
-Dogs
Hi Dogs
I think that the wfc can be simulated by a electronics software as a capacitor and resistor, but tap water as the dielectric makes for an extremely leaky capacitor, which is hard to simulate given it would make for such a poor electronic component. Where the simulation really becomes ineffective is once ionisation takes place. The ionisation reaction can not be simulated (at least by my software), but will have a marked effect on voltage, current and indeed power.
Due to work commitments I've been away from my workshop for a few weeks, but hope to be getting my hands dirty again soon.
Farrah Day,
Yes I agree. The point at which water Ionizes and the conditions under which it is willing to do so is all new territory. Especially if Stan is correct with regard to "...(pulsing electrical voltage fields of opposite polarity)..".
If this is new ground, then the details of the phenomenon are as yet unknown.
The details of what causes waters disassociation using the PWM alone, are not fully understood.
Hopefully someone performs enough experiments to and provides enough detail so that a sensible model could be created. Any entirely empirical model would suffice. Even if we don't know all the details of how HHO production occurs, we would have some idea of how much HHO production our simulated circuit would produce.
Best,
-Dogs
Hi Dogs
I concur, we are (as was Stan) in relatively unknown territory, so the theory of what we do know does not always line up with the mechanics of it all. Even todays scientists only have a limited understanding of the properties of water - look at that guy who recently bombarded salt water with RF waves and found he could set it alight!
However, I truly believe that Stan was out of his depth when it came to the theory and science behind what he was doing. This is plainly evident from some of his technical briefs, so a little caution in his interpretations is more than wise.
Stan always seemed to uneccesarily complicate his briefs with jargon that sounded very technical but often made no sense at all - he tended to talk a lot, but say very little!
His, 'pulsing electrical voltage fields of opposite polarity', is I believe an example of this. What exactly does it mean? If you apply a +ve pulse across the cell, then one plate will register a +ve condition and the other will be -ve relative to it. To make the cathode more negative with respect to the anode simply involves increasing the amplitude of the signal - you don't have to pull at both ends!
Here's an analogy: Think of it as an elastic band stretching to breaking point. It doesn't matter whether you are holding it between two fingers and evenly stretching it apart, or simply using one finger with the other end of the elastic band attatched firmly to a fixed point - the result is the same. This is where I'm failing to see any reason for Stan's comment, or your interpretation of it. But, perhaps I'm missing something.
The other thing about any ion current travelling through a liquid is that it is by it's very nature much less efficient than electron flow. Electron flow is near instant, like pushing a row of touching ballbearings; the moment you push one end, the ballbearing at the other end will move. This is because electrons hop from one very closely spaced atom to the next. In the liquid, the electrons don't hop from one atom to the next, which means that ions have to carry the charge all the way themselves, during which they are jostled about and slowed by the interaction of all the constantly moving atoms in the liquid. My analogy for this: An old lady, heavily laden with shoping bags trying to negotiate her way through the bustling town centre on a busy market day.
There must quickly be a point at which many electron induced charges are lining up on the electrodes, impatiently waiting for the old lady to finally get there to unladen her shopping bags! It would therefore, also seem logical that the longer it goes on the more charges will build up on the electrodes. Somewhere in all this the answers are there are waiting for us.
Keep up the interesting work.
@Farrah Day
QuoteHis, 'pulsing electrical voltage fields of opposite polarity', is I believe an example of this. What exactly does it mean? If you apply a +ve pulse across the cell, then one plate will register a +ve condition and the other will be -ve relative to it. To make the cathode more negative with respect to the anode simply involves increasing the amplitude of the signal - you don't have to pull at both ends!
I am not sure this is what stan meant, I posted some scopeshots which explain my thoughts in this respect.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3457.1260
If your cell is considered a capacitor there is no -ve in it, there is only a changing potential +ve, a voltage drop. What if you could "pull" at both ends? That is a very interesting proposition, there has been speculation that if two circuits were to "pull" at the resonant frequency of each resective molecule (02 -- H2) the efficiency would be very high. Personally I would like to see what happens when two inductive discharges are forced to move in opposite directions away from each other, with a cell in the middle. I have all the components ready maybe I will rig a cell and get back to you.
Interesting scope shots AC.
Not sure what you mean by 'no -ve in it', as the electrons are the physical -ve part of the equation, the +ve is only effectively a shortage or depleted area of electrons. And as you say a +ve pulse indicates only that the polarity is not reversed. I'm still mystified by the 'pulling at both ends' idea - can't get my head around this, but hey, I'm as interested as anybody to see any forthcoming results.
All the electronics aside, one fundamental and underlying aspect of the whole gas production thing that many people seem not to consider or simply ignore, is the reaction that must take place for gas to be produced. This is something that has always concerned me. Pulsing 2 Megavolts across a wfc is all well and good, but we know that to ionise and produce gas, water molecules need to react with electrons. So if we are trying our damndest to eliminate electron flow, the water can't ionise - hence no gas!
It is all very well Stan stating that this novel way of producing H2 and O2 efficiently does not involve ionisation, but if not... then what? We still have equations to balance and atomic laws to consider. We pull water apart without the interaction of ions and what do we get? A H2 molecule and a O++ ion or an O atom and two H- ions? So, we do manage to pull them apart and what is the first thing that they are going to want to do once out of the electrostatic field... yes, restabilise as water.
A lot of these questions bother me, because if we are getting true O2 and H2, then voltage alone cannot achieve this - surely we need the electron.
So, how can you get ionization without current? Mechanically?
HairBear
@Hairbear:
You do it with a large, short-lived electric field.
When I came across this "polarity reversal" thing, I assumed that one would pulse the plates alternately, i.e. the (+) plate and the (-) plate would periodically switch roles. Note that this is not the same thing as AC, 'though it does bear a close resemblance to it.
Thinking about this a little more, perhaps there is a difference if you "push" on one side while "pulling" on the other. That is, although the potential difference between the plates is the same as holding one plate at ground and "pulling" twice as hard, the potential difference between the plates and the waterwould be different.
As the excess charge in the water is supposedly recovered via the "electron extraction circuit", the absolute polarity of the plates relative to the water would make a difference, assuming that the mechanism for extracting the "water charge" is somehow coupled to ground.
Get my drift?
What it looks like to me is a modified voltage divider. The +ve and -ve is called a voltage differential. If +12v is on one side and -12v on the other, we have a difference of 24v. Kinda like on ATX power supply units from PC's. I have tried using the PC power supply's voltage differential leads, but, it just shuts down. Although, I did not try to ground the water as drawn in Stan's diagram.
Quote from: Farrah Day on January 22, 2008, 05:41:36 PM
..We pull water apart without the interaction of ions and and what do we get? A H2 molecule and a O++ ion or an O atom and two H- ions? So, we do manage to pull them apart and what is the first thing that they are going to want to do once out of the electrostatic field... yes, restabilise as water.
A lot of these questions bother me, because if we are getting true O2 and H2, then voltage alone cannot achieve this - surely we need the electron.
Ah, but have you seen the HHO plasma torch demos where the flame vaporizes metal, yet doesn't instantly burn skin? It would seem that the gas is ionized. This implies that yes, the ions do "want" to recombine, but will tolerate, at least temporarily, existence in a metastable mixture.
Also, in Stan's setup, there is this business of the "electron extraction circuit", whose job it is to balance the electron part of the equation, while recovering real, usable electric charge.
Now here is another version that comes to mind:
one side of the cell is connected to say +12V, the other to -12V. NOW...
there is a a third pad which is connected to the water. This pad is made
to oscillate somewhere at some frequency and not necessarily about 0v.
This idea puts the water molecules in some orientation and then they are
induced to break apart.
Stan did not have two heads you know. He could not have been that clever.
Stan's second head was his twin brother, Stephen. He is still alive and working with this technology through a company called Xogen.
This worries me. Xogen will never produce anything.
This technology will never be made available by a corporation. Anyone who is naive enough to think they will make money
out of making free energy machines is fooling himself. That will only bring him grief.
When discovered, as citizen of the world, one's duty is to distributes this technology quietly, quickly and even autonomously.
A sack of money to keep quiet will not bring one much pleasure when there are riots in the streets.
Hi Guys,
I am currently replicating Dave Lawton circuit as a univeristy project. I also met xogen and saw there cell working, it does perform the way it shud but they didn't tell me alot about there circuit. I have made my cell and I am using rectangular plates of 316L SS. I have made the lawton circuit and also made a bifilar choke with about 150 turns 22 awg wire and the inductance on both coils is 1.7 mH and the coils also have a capacitance between them of about 1700 pF. Now I also tried to measure the capacitance of the water fuel cell but no luck there as the water inside has a low resistance therefore I think the cell is not acting as a capacitor and I am just doing normal electrolysis. I'v heard about conditioning the plates which creates a non conducting oxide layer on top and then the cell should act as a capacitor and THUS producing more gass as people have said. I think therefore the real dielectric is that oxide layer that forms and not water so we NEED to make that layer on the cell. I am still trying to figure out a quicker way to make that layer. How about if I use spray paint on the cathode, heat the cathode create a black carbon layer + oxides on it, or just put a layer of a known dielectric material. Would that work??.......any suggestions would help.
Thanks
Hi Zero, can you explain or expand on this statement:
QuoteYou do it with a large, short-lived electric field
How do you think this works?
What is the reaction taking place?
How can you get gaseous molecules of H2 and O2 from ionisation without the interaction of electrons and the ions?
Raz, you'll find I've had some extremely good results and speeded up conditioning vastly if you read page 5 of my 'Meyer replication - from fabrication to test and development' thread or the 'conditioning' thread.
Hi All,
I've posted this new document on my projects page at waterfulecell.org.
And, given the discussion on this thread regarding the various way we are trying to produce HHO
based on Stan's "concepts", I think it worth posting here.
This document outlines details of the tests used to apply HV-Wave bursts against various cell configurations.
I have yet to test in distilled water.
I have also added a circuit that I feel more closely aligns with the Steam Resonator concept.
But rather than simple switching +/- terminals. It switches pulse direction (+ pulses, then - pulses).
The idea behind it is that we get the molecules to align as they would normally due in a HV environment.
(That's why water seems to become more viscous under HV). We pack them nice and tight, then we
apply HV wave bursts in the other direction to pull then apart. (Just my theory... which is mine... ;) ).
Hopefully it produces some interesting phenomenon.
There may be easier ways to create the new circuit. Chime in if you have any ideas.
It's just a guide line for a test, not a conviction.
Comments welcome.
Thanks,
-Dogs
@Farrah Day, Thanks for the insight on this subject. Yes, Stan may have been trying to communicate things he did not understand, or was obfuscating. Time will tell...
@AhuraMazda, We are thinking along the same lines with this one.
Quote from: Farrah Day on January 24, 2008, 06:37:33 AM
Hi Zero, can you explain or expand on this statement: QuoteYou do it with a large, short-lived electric field
How do you think this works?
What is the reaction taking place?
How can you get gaseous molecules of H2 and O2 from ionisation without the interaction of electrons and the ions?
Well, you can't. My point is, you don't need
current to make it happen.
The way I see it, the electrons "go into solution", and are not consumed in a current. The electric field provides enough energy to disassociate the electrons from the molecule, but is so short-lived that no appreciable current is induced. The left-over electrons, now hanging-out in the vicinity of the ion mixture, are more than happy to facilitate molecular rearrangement in the reaction 2H
2O -> 2e
- + 2H
2 + 2O
+ -> H
2 +O
2. In conventional electrolysis, a current of electrons in an electrolyte mixture causes collisions which ionize the water molecules and initiate the reactions, but here, we use voltage (i.e. a large electric field) to do the job on pure water, without asking any electrons to go very far.
Hi Zero
You have some things in your previous post that need to be addressed. You stated:
QuoteIn conventional electrolysis, a current of electrons in an electrolyte mixture causes collisions which ionize the water molecules and initiate the reactions, but here, we use voltage (i.e. a large electric field) to do the job on pure water, without asking any electrons to go very far.
However, this is incorrect. Water is not ionised by collisions and electrons are not the current carriers in liquids.
Ions carry the charges in a liquid, and it is these charge carrying ions that collide with other ions and molecules on their way to the electrodes that create heat. Not until these ions reach the electrodes does water itself ionise, and it does so because at the electrodes water is more electrochemically reactive than the charge carrying ions. Hence the charge carrying ions (the electrolyte) only serve to initiate ionisation and take no part in the final reaction.
What we are trying to achieve is to find another way of initiating the ionisation of water without any the ion charge carriers.
If we place our cell in deionised water and apply a voltage across it, little if any current flows, which is good. But we have no electrolysis taking place and hence no gas.
The point is, in this scenario, we have a decent capacitor and a build up of at the electrodes. All we need to do to get gas is to get the water to react with the charges on the electrodes - to ionise. We have all the pieces in place, but we need to somehow initiate the reaction. Too much applied voltage will simply break down the dielectric properties of the water an give us a massive current surge as the electrodes arc; this is not what we want. The answer is not simply high voltage.
The question for me is: are we trying to discover and create a completely new method of water ionisation, or are we simply performing and ultra-efficient form of standard electrolysis?
Dogs, I did a similar test for the voltage sync-pulse without a ground to the water which failed. second test with ground to the water worked. Maybe you can try it and tell us your results.
HairBear
We are trying to do electrolysis a different way, think of it as voltage dissoation of water. The aim is to creat a stronger electrical field than the one that holds the bonds together in a water molecule. Daniel Dingle too has done it, but the IMF and World Banks is stopping him from getting it out. Interesting note on the grounding of the water, something I have not tried yet. The circuit I am currently building has veriable voltage going too the FETs from 0-120 volts DC. That way once I hit resonance I can take the voltage up and see just how much gas this type of system can produce per minute. I will be limited to aproximently 30k volts anything higher will cook the diodes. I also took out the blocking diode and put a voltage multiplyer in it's place just like Dr. Dingle. I am using the skin effect to take out the current in the choke coils and also using a solid bar and tube. The idea again is too take advatage of the skin effect, Once the WFC is built I will start the testing. I am also using a water flow pump just like Meyers pumped the water too the injectors. The new WFC will have constant water level, full positive and negetive isolation, and I can put on a fillter if I deem it nessary.
It has taken me sometime to come up with the right design for the WFC but this time I think I got it ;). Matching the chokes to the WFC is what is changing for me at times. And building the transformer the same looking as Meyers in the technical breif. I also will make the air conditioner for the incoming air. Only time will tell if I get this thing working right. I think we need from 10L/min and up for an ICE. I am planning on doing it Meyers old way, or the way Dr. Dingle has done it using vacuum too draw in the Oxy/Hydro mixture with solindoid controled injectors.
I went back to Meyers old way for I just couldn't always make since of the injector technology. Seems at that point he was really hiding things, so secretive he was. Oh an I can have it set up to have 3 phases with the electronics. What do you guys think?
Dup Message Deleted.
Response:
@HeairBear, I'll have to try out you suggestion. Thanks.
@h20power,Thanks for the insight into Dr. Dingel's system. Very interesting that was... I like what you have designed. An excellent model for doing experiments. I hope all goes well with the implementation. Very, interested in your 3phase circuit design. Can we have a look?
Here's a link to my latest experiments with HV Modulation to see if HHO gas generation improves. No improvement as yet, but additional experiments in the works.
http://waterfuelcell.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3586&sid=e1c6af364649f8222749b9a6a944503b#3586
Best Regards,
-Dogs
I will build and test the circuit fully first then if I get good results I will post the circuit. I don't want too waste everyones money on my R&D. Give me about two months to get everything built and tested. I will share what happened openly, okay?
I do feel like I am getting close, but I've had that feeling before and nothing happened. So this time I will wait for the results of testing, like a good scientist would do, before letting my feelings get the best of me again.