Quote from: Magluvin on December 13, 2016, 01:31:46 AM
Hey Watts
Totally agree with forcing the bubbles off the plates and in the areas between plates.  Recommended pumping water through earlier. What sort of camera did you use to take the pics and vid? Mags

@Magluvin
I just aligned a stand mounted camcorder on the eyepiece of the microscope.
I put some photos here to not junk @TinMan's thread.
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Wattsups'%20stuff/hydrogen/

@Tinman

So I won't really talk about the electron because for me it no longer exists. Makes life so much easier.

OK, High Voltage is what? Answer that first then ask if it will help in HHO plates. So here is my take.

Let's say you had a primary coil that had 5000 turns. You apply 100 volts across it. The conveyance barely reached the 200th turn and the secondary output is just really bad. You increase the voltage to 200 volts but half the amps. Wow now you are at the 400th turn. So the more you increase your voltage the "deeper"  you will convey or change your effect into this very long primary coil of wire. But too much and you're wasting juice. Put 10000 volts across that same primary and you will get coil bypass, where the impulse just jumps across layers of winding instead of following the given winding path.

Let's say if you send 100 volts at 50 amps into a #10 wire. After the pulse if you took a copper atom survey, let's imagine that 80% of them will say "I felt it". So they felt it even if they reacted by conveying the wrong way and against others that are trying to reach a rhythm. Now send 10000 volts at .001 amp. After the pulse if you again surveyed the atoms, 90% will say "What the hell are you talking about and 10% will say "I felt it off and on". The high voltage can only send a thin thin stream of conveyance across that fat wire.

As you know, at higher voltages Tesla coils send arcs through air so it can go deeper not only in the length of wire but also in air. 750KV in wire will convey electricity from James Bay to Montreal. So in one way Voltage can be equated to distance.

So for a square metal plate to be energized by high voltage will just produce a dancing thin streamer and wherever it dances, you will momentarily attract minerals that will shoot through the water and fracture it into two gasses. Regardless of the method, the minerals are the blades, the water is the fruit and the pulsed plate is the blender. The blades in this case are not attached to a drive motor but are attracted to action while in the water medium where a two gas fracture is the "side effect". Like when you pulse a base that has a beaker of water on it with a small magnet in the beaker that rotates to the impulse of the base.

So I think HV is OK but under one condition. Test the same high voltage with a simple air gap and see how far you can separate the gap before you loose the spark. Then use that distance minus a smidgen in only a two plate system, positive and negative. That would be the starting point. The advantage of HV is distance so why confine it in such short spaces as the spaces between your existing plates. The more distance means more water is exposed to the effect of mineral attraction, more distance those minerals can shoot through the water before colliding with the plate thus should produce more gas.

You can try HV with close up plates but I can imagine it will be overkill. Maybe if you had 100 plates or more in a row (distance), but so close together and you will still oversaturate the chambers with bubbles so you still will need that pump I talked about to move crap out of there elle speedy. Nothing will help the main topology overcome its checkmates more then flow rate. I personally do not like the closed environment of those cells. You can use 1% of 10 square feet or 10% of 1 square foot and do the same thing. I think the effect if understood can be controlled much better then the happenstance occurring inside those cells.

What happens is the gas production needs to be looked at as rising and falling slope over time. When the pulse is on, it should stay on for a given period where the virgin water is ready to split with maximum production but as the process is engendered, the gasses themselves produce areas of reduced resistance to the pull force of the impulse of the plates on the minerals would then be directly colliding with the plates producing heat then if they are shooting through dense water to produce more fractured atoms so gas production goes down. If the situation persists, you will arrive at an rms production level that is less then when first started. This is where we are today.

And yes, a water pump may create a situation where the flow rate is too high, the minerals that are fighting to shoot perpendicular towards the plates are now also carried by the flow so their direction is now more parallel to the plate. The water flow will create plate surface tensions that can keep new minerald from approaching the plate at full speed hence may result in less gas. But then to fix those problems you would need to design new plate surfaces that will increase gas production with water flow that then both work together to produce and remove bubbles from the pack ASAP. But I still think closed plate cells are not the answer. Since water is not compressible, it is immediately reactive to any flow force that will push water though the complete cell at the same flow. So one way to do this is to
turn on the water pump only when the plate impulse is off. Produce-Move Out-Produce-Move out.

But the answer I am trying to show is not in the "electron" you think is responsible for the effect. This is all purely atomic physical cause and effects, all factors confounded, water chemistry, mineral types (blender blade models), static or dynamic flow, plate surfaces and pulse voltage, amps and frequency, straight peak pulsing versus sweeped rise and fall pulsing and we can go on and on. I think the main point to retain is if you can expand your vision of how gas is produced, this will eventually translate into wanting to manipulate more variables in your R&D. If all you think about is "electrons" do it, then you are left with little impetus to use the physical topology to augment the output results.

I think the best results will be designs that cut the gas exit times to its minimum possible, meaning the gas should be produced at or just below the surface water line where bubbles are made and reach the top gas pocket right away. If bubbles need to rise in vertical plate spaces, the effect quickly becomes counter productive and totally lost to any betterment save the possible simple or more creative use of flow rate, internal flow baffles to reduce dead zones but basically all attempts to reduce the bad effects of the given topology which in general should have all been anticipated before a build.

The problem I see with HHO production is you are creating a very isolated source of gasses but then let buoyancy and randomness to output it from that point of creation. So I will work on a even newer design alternative just to show what I am thinking about as a more natural method one can analog to a natural gas/water producing phenomena know as geysers. Geysers shoot out sporadically. They build up gas pressure that can overcome the head of water on top of it then shoot out the gas at the critical level thus reintroducing new water that takes up the space of the released pocket. So something that will overspill its top rim where the gas bubble would be released into an upper pocket while the non-fractured  water falls down from the top rim to be returned to the reaction chamber, etc. Let me work on it.

What interests me the most of this HHO business is that if after all this exercise you guys can open up to only one factor, to stop pushing electron science into very damn thing that goes on in OU research and return to the physical causal effect base of nature, then the world will really open for all of us and discoveries, which are normal observation of natural effects by physical atoms will push us way past this stalemate we are living through right now. Yeh yeh, we are good at making snazzier toys, always more complex, more features, but still chock full of the losses we are used too.

wattsup

You might be interested in this as you have written such a long and a very nice POST !! thanks ..

Acca...

http://overunity.com/16579/bike-runs-on-water-100-no-gasoline-microwave-pulse-generator-water-split/msg497183/#new

Quote from: gravityblock on December 14, 2016, 01:25:59 AM
It doesn't matter what the rate of reaction is if you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the method I showed.  If the rate of reaction increases, then the flow of water moving through the cell will naturally increase.  If the rate of reaction decreases, then the water flowing through the cell will naturally decrease.  The water flow through the cell is self-regulating according to the rate of the reaction.  More HHO production equals more water flow through the cell.  Less HHO production equals less water flow through the cell.  The "new rate of reaction" you speak of is totally meaningless when you let the cell naturally draw in it's own water according to the amount of HHO production the cell is generating.  The water flow through the cell is naturally linked to the rate of the reaction!  There's no need for additional energy to run an external pump!  IMO, the best way is to let the cell naturally pump it's own water according to the rate of HHO production.

Gravock

I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.


Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?


These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.


You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works. These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?


I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.


Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.


Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.


Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.


We can do this,
Ed

Quote from: h20power on December 14, 2016, 03:13:35 PM



I will let you and everyone else know the truth about this technology and what we all face in having to solve. The now catch phrase, "Keep it simple stupid," is a subjective phrase in that it depends on just who said it. If Nikola Tesla or Albert Ernestine said this then more than likely it would take most of us a lifetime to figure it out. My point is we all underestimated Stanley Meyer as this technology is far from simple.


Here are a few questions that will need answers when going to make use of this technology.
1. What voltage must the injectors be at to break down enough water for the time given for the injection cycle?
2. When the engine is under a load how do I increase the burnable fuel to compensate?
3. What voltage range must the gas processor be at to keep up with varying engine speeds to keep the fuel mixture constant?
4. How much water is needed to be broken down per injection cycle to effectively run the engine in question?
5. How do we keep the burn rate of hydrogen constant under different RPM ranges and loading conditions?


These are just a few questions that need to be answered by everyone attempting to solve this technology so don't you tell me it doesn't matter and/or is meaningless. The voltage to water breakdown rate is needed to run the injectors. Even in some of Meyer's lecture videos he talks about the water fuel cell not being able to supply enough hydrogen due to the water couldn't enter into the resonant cavities fast enough.


You see my background is mechanical and I am a fairly good troubleshooter for that what I was paid to do. I then turned around and went to college for mechanical engineering. With the water injectors they will still have to follow all of the rules of any fuel injected system so it's best you get to know how fuel injection systems work: http://jalopnik.com/how-electronic-fuel-injection-works-499902815 https://www.howacarworks.com/basics/how-a-fuel-injection-system-works. These water fuel injectors will have to break down the water at the proper rate in order to run an engine with water all of this is calculable. Meyer already has told us that the fuel rail pressure will be 120 psi. Each of the injectors will have to be made in matched sets which is to say they must all open at the same pressure or it will mess up the timing big time as you can't have one injector opening at 35 psi while the others open at 120 psi and you definitely can't have them all opening at randomly different pressures. So, with all of this said do you still think us needing to know the voltage to water breakdown rate is meaningless?


I don't mean to discourage anyone from trying to solve this technology but it's imperative that you all know just what you are up against so you can plan accordingly. This technology is not simple as Meyer was a lot smarter than we have given him credit for. Since I follow where the science leads me I have found this out first hand the hard way. There are many questions that need answers but I seem to have a way of asking the right questions and my old troubleshooting skills really have come in handy while I have been trying to solve this technology.


Now Meyer has given us quite a bit of information to work from and thanks to Don Gable giving us some specs of Meyer's devices we can build them just as Meyer did. Now the voltage levels per resonant cavity need to be 1000 volts of potential difference or more which means 500 volts positive and 500 volts negative at a minimum to be able to get this technology working correctly if the resonant cavities are built to Meyer's specifications. If you make changes then your pretty much on your own as then you really can't use any of Meyer's helpful tid bits. Now according to Meyer the injectors need to be at 2000 volts minimum to get them working correctly. So, first things first we must get the voltage up to meet and surpass these voltages Meyer has given to us. Trust me it's a lot easier said than done. After someone solves this problem then it's on to the next problem of just how to get the gas processor up and working correctly.


Now with the water the molecules they are made up of two different atoms but with the air gases the oxygen molecules are made up of the same atoms thus it may be different in how the gas processor and the exciter arrays/injectors work. Just more questions that need answers it seems but answer them we must. It's time to stop playing around with this technology and step up to the plate ready to bat. Just as long as we know what we are up against we stand a good chance of solving this technology.


Being that I am a mechanic I already know that the water must be broken down at a fairly fast rate be it with the injectors or with the resonant cavities of the exciter array to be able to run an engine off of water being it's only source of fuel. And being that I went back to college to gain some much needed understanding of science also helps me to solve some of the problems I run into. This technology is solvable but it's anything but simple. Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method is simple but this voltage dissociation of water isn't. I have posted a few pdf files with the science behind this technology solved but learning how to build it correctly is yet another story for that is where I find myself at right now. I don't have all the answers but I am doing my best to solve this technology one step at a time and in time I might require everyone's help when it comes time to bring this technology to the market place as it must go through mass production to bring the prices down so that everyone can afford this technology.


We can do this,
Ed

Yes, the voltage to water breakdown rate is totally meaningless in regards to the flow rate of water through the cell!  Please don't take what I previously said out-of-context and throw a broad blanket over it.  In a publication titled, "High Voltage Water Breakdown Studies", by the Defense Special Weapons Agency, says "The flow rate of the water was varied between 126 ml/s and 630 ml/s with no significant effect seen on E_BD or t_eff. He did observe a difference in the breakdown site on the electrode with a difference in flow rate. The breakdown region intended to be more localized when there was no flow as oppose to a more generalized breakdown region with the higher flow rate".  This more generalized breakdown region is the same reason why a pump was suggested to be used in the first place.

I suggest you do some research on gas vapor engines.  This technology isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be.  If we can produce enough Hydrogen on demand efficiently and/or find an efficient and safe storage method, then everything else is simple.

Gravock

@gravityblock

So that is exactly as I had predicted without such info in hand since there is no other explanation. If electrons where involved in the exchange/change phenomena then the effect should have been seen everywhere and not the "localized" without flow, and more regional with flow. If electrons where involved they would not care where or how the flow or no flow was. This confirms simply that this is a physical phenomena and has always been so, but science is just selling everyone an electron fairy tale.

OK in your post there is a big piece of info on their tests. They are saying "The resistivity of the water was varied from 14 mho/cm to 37 mho/cm which is very hard to relate to. OK so let's get this into a known perspective by converting those values to simple parts per million or PPM of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).

14 mho/cm = 8.96e+6 ppm = 8,960,000 ppm or mg/l
37 mho/cm = 2.37e+7 ppm = 2,370,000 ppm or mg/l

OK, so who on this forum can confirm that these two conversions are correct? I think it is but if not please anyone who can confirm of correct please do so. This is very important.

This will provide the main crux of their tests and why they see what they see since this is a direct indication of how much dissolved minerals (blender blades) are present in the solution.

But, if the above is correct, then what is wrong with those numbers? They say "There is no significant effect on breakdown strength with the change of the resistivity of the water". Why?

If anyone has time and some wire, some water, some salt and a conductivity meter and a frequency generator and a scope try the set-up shown below.

OK, so you make the A line which is a 3" length of 12awg copper wire followed by a 1" length of 18 awg then finish with another 3" length of 12 awg. The B line is the same 3" lengths but that are simply turned 90 degrees downward at one end to dunk into a small plastic water container. Now connect your pulse generator on both + and - of A and B so they are in parallel. Place just the scope probe only at the Ch1 and Ch2. As you pulse and see both waveforms add salt to the water container and see how the CH2 waveform changes. Measure the conductivity of the water at each salt addition.

If you can make a video showing this then you will have lots to talk about to explain the effects shown.

wattsup