carbully you hit the nail on the head! exactly what i was gonna say.

The simplicity of this experiment is the funniest thing, as there are heaps of people on this forum, all talking about it, and so far only 3 people have replicated it (not including s1r due to the fact he hasnt shown us his circuit).  Either its harder than it looks or there are lots of  "keyboard scientists" amongst us.

Quote from: broli on June 30, 2008, 06:28:28 AM
@send_to_nice: I don't know much about cars but I believe that's the alternators job.

You may be right. However, I always thought the alternator was what charged the battery and powered the car's electrics (eg lights, radio, fans etc) while the engine is running. A magneto, however,  powers the ignition system in simple engines such as those used in lawnmowers and chainsaws. Both these items share the characteristic of (generally speaking) being pull-start engines that require no battery. I have no idea what powers the spark on more modern engines.

Quote from: callanan on June 29, 2008, 10:33:02 PM
The energy appears the be negative in this explosion.

Are you saying it is an implosion ??

In that case, I'm starting to smell "Joe Cell"...

Just assuming for a second that there is implosion going on,
or even that there is somehow a larger explosion than should be
the case given the input energy,
would the total energy gain (at the explosion side of the equation)
plus the input energy perhaps account for the apparent energy gain
in Lucs readings? In other words, could it be that the OU readings
Luc gets are indeed not "real power" in the circuit, but when the
explosion (implosion?) is taken into account the OU readings
do accord with the total energy output? Even if the OU does not
occur as "real power" in the circuit, it does occur as "real power"
in the explosion (implosion?)...?
If so, then the apparent OU circuit readings might be a good indicator
for the final output COP...?
I'm just speculating here.

And on another note, if there is implosion going on, then we might
see similar effects as are claimed to occur with the Joe Cell,
in particular the claimed cooling effect... (It is said the exhaust of
a Joe Cell modified car becomes freezing cold during operation,
because it absorbs energy from the environment as the implosion occurs.)
And that might not only be used for energy efficient air cooling,
but it may even be possible to use it as a heat sink for other
devices, thereby increasing effective energy production...

That said, I can't help but notice how most people working on hydrogen
and/or "water fuel" experiments seem to be focused on producing hydrogen,
but I hardly evr see anyne actually run an engine on the produced hydrogen
and then see how much electrical energy they can get from the engine
(if connected to a dynamo or even if the engine itself is part of a generator).
I do regularly see people cite the volume of gas produced by a certain amount of power,
and I see many people getting excited when they think their electrolysis circuit
is producing OU readings, quite a number getting excited when the volume of gas
they manage to produce is larger than that of others, but I hardly ever see anyone
actually talking about how their hydrogen-fueled generator produces more electrical
output than was needed to produce the hydrogen.
I have heard quite a few claims in the past of people who say they've been driving
a water-fueled car for a while already, but when push came to shove they either
disappeared from view or they had to admit they did have to hook their battery up
to a grid-powered charger every night, and were thus actually running their car on
grid power.
And if we're going to be using grid power to produce hydrogen to run our combustion
engines on, then it's still more efficient to switch over to electrical cars.
After all, unless we have some funky over unity electrolysis, the process of producing
hydrogen, then burning it to produce motive force, is quite a bit less efficient than
producing motive force directly from electricity.

So i guess the question remains: what exactly are we looking at here?
Are we looking at over-efficient electrolysis? If so, where is the proof of this,
who has compared the volumes of gas produced by this circuit to the volumes
produced by other means? Who has burnt the volumes of gas to see how much
actual power can be derived from it? Who has compared that power output to the
input to the circuit?

Or are we looking at a funky way to get what appear to be much larger spark effects?

I understand that larger air arcs by simply adding a B-field while not increasing the
voltage seems to suggest that there is somehow either an effective voltage amplification
in the B-field zone, or there is a lowering of the dielectric 'constant' of the air inside the B-field.
If it were the former, it might be possible to get actual additional power from this if we
use it in an electrolysis setup, as it would seem logical that the water also "sees" a higher
voltage and thus electrolyses faster than it should. It is of course equally possible that there
is somethign else going on that just has the effect of enlarging the spark but there is no
actual (or even "virtual") voltage increase at all, and in that case there is no additional electrolysis.
If it were the latter (dielectric constant lowered), then it seems to me we still have a similar
situation where it may be possible that the dielectric constant is lowered because the water
molecules already 'split' a little bit, increasing free charge particles, increasing conductivity,
and of course then it should take less energy to split more of them into H2 and O2. But same
thing goes here, it seem equally possible that there is a different effect at work and the electrical
conductivity increases (resistance decreases) not because of partial dissociation of the water,
but rather because of some other B-fied effect... (I'm hesitant to suggest spin-coupling )

So what exactly are have we got?

Quote from: carbully on June 30, 2008, 01:58:07 AM
I am not an EE, but I am an ASE certified auto technician. I notice that in your most recent schematics you are "triggering" the HV ignition coil on the positive feed to the ignition coil's primary winding. This may work on a bench setup, but in a car you will find that the positive feed to the HV ignition coil's primary winding is not triggered, only switched on/off by the ignition switch. The HV ignition coil is triggered by making/breaking the negative side of the coil's primary winding to ground in an automotive application. Older cars used a set of "points" to do this, and newer cars use solid-state electronics to control a heavy transistor to make/break the primary winding's ground.

The only exception to this that I am aware of is some old British cars and a few older tractors.

So, where your schematics show that you are grounding the primary winding at the spark plug, in a car you will be grounding it either througn a set of points or through an ignition module.

-carbully

DOH!... your right, its been years since i have worked on a car with a coil like this. I started buying newer cars so i didnt have to work on them at all....LOL. I will make changes and re-post! Thank You!!

Quote from: nightlife on June 30, 2008, 04:22:42 AM
Has anyone thought of using a modern automotive coil. New coils pack a punch that can kill a person. The one Luc and others are shown using only produce about 40,000 volts and there are some new ones that produce 60,000 + volts. I also think the newer ones provide more amperage as well.

I will test a few tomorrow to see if there is any difference in the spark with having the resistor removed from the plug.

Also try it with the http://www.pulstarplug.com/

The Pulstar? Pulse Plug is not just another spark plug!
The Pulstar? pulse plug represents the first technological advancement in spark plug design in the past 100 years!

This new technology is a drop-in replacement for all spark plugs, including those iridium, high performance spark plugs. Pulstar is designed to more efficiently ignite the fuel in an engine's cylinders increasing fuel economy, horsepower and torque. Pulstar? pulse plugs look and fit like spark plugs, but incorporate an internal capacitor to deliver a spark 10 times more powerful than a spark plug with less cycle-to-cycle variation.

Pulse plugs are safe for use in all vehicles and improve combustion efficiency in all spark-ignited internal combustion engines, yielding better overall engine performance, with fuel consumption and associated green house gases reduced by as much as 10%.


IndianaBoys