Stanley Meyer replication with low input power

[demartin]

(thanks for the feedback Farrah Day. To coat the tubes I used R.O. water and calcium hydroxide, and yes it coated... but the coating came off kind of easily. Later I mixed calcium hydroxide with hot tap water, and that worked really well. So will do the latter from now on.)

Some observations after recent experiments:

* Made a toroidal 1:5 transformer from a 2" ferrite core. Bad results compared to hooking WFC straight to pulsing circuit through inductors. Whatever energy wasn't being taken by the secondary was being wasted by the primary, and by waste I mean the pulsing circuit treating the primary as an inductor and sending current back to the power supply. A limiting resistor just got hot and wasted more energy while reducing badly needed secondary voltage. I scrapped it and went back to the D14 inductor setup.

* Bigger charging choke inductance does produce higher voltage. That is good.

* Thicker inductor wire seems better. The increased resistance of thinner wire allows less current through the inductor, thus less of an EM field, thus less flyback voltage. The amp inhibiting effect, according to Meyer, should be strictly due to inductance. He said resistance only results in power losses. And when inductance inhibits current, it produces higher voltage as a tradeoff.

* Inductors were wound bifilarly onto the same core. When lead of one wire and opposite lead of other wire went to WFC, the opposite orientation seemed to cancel out the inductive effect and left only a resistance, and then I could not dial in any kind of resonant effect. However using leads from the same end made one coil's current oppose the other coil's current, thereby raising the voltage of both at resonance. From Meyer's Tech Brief:

----
Both Inductors (LI/L2) are Bifilar wound in equal length to optimize the electromagnetic field strength (FL) in equal electromagnetic intensity (FLI = FL2) to encourage and promote "Electron Bounce" phenomenon (700) of Figure (7-9) while adjusting (programmable pulse wave-form) input signal Pulse-Frequency (49a xx 49n) to "tune-in" to the "dielectric property" (Re) of water (85) ... causing amp flow to be reduce to a minimum value while allowing voltage potential (627) of Figure (7-7) to go toward infinity if the electronic components would allow it to happen, as graphically illustrated in (750) of Figure (7-14).
---

It looked like "electron bounce" to me, in the sense that as the inductor field collapsed it first tries to go back to the signal source, but then hits the diode and bounces forward again toward the WFC. If the signal pulse rate is too low, you may see several bounces of decreasing intensity. The second inductor also undergoes pulses in concert with those of the first inductor, sending a current / voltage pulse toward the first inductor through the WFC and thereby doing the "electron inhibiting effect."

* Problem is that in this configuration, to get that bounce effect, both inductors are sending the same polarity of voltage into the WFC. Both tubes get hit with the same + or - voltage. Thus there is no high voltage gradient between the tubes in that case, only the low voltage charge maintained by the blocking diode. To get the gradient I have to switch the bifilar leads to being opposite, but then like I said it cancels the inductive effect altogether. This matches what Meyer said about the electron inhibiting effect preventing arc-over in the tubes -- of course it would, if there weren't a high electrical gradient between the tubes to begin with.

* This resonance described above happened when flyback of one pulse overlapped the next pulse. When the flyback pulse is instead in between applied pulses, then that's where it looks like the frequency doubled. I could not get this with bifilar leads being opposite, only when the two wires from the same end of the core went into the WFC. And then, the double-frequency effect seemed useless and instead having the flyback overlapping the next pulse rather than being in between pulses is what made for higher voltage resonance effect.

* Higher inductance made for higher Q factor, meaning a more narrow range of resonance. With 50 ohm charging chokes the resonance was so sensitive that it would change if I held my hand just 1 cm away from the glass jar containing my WFC. That was interesting.

Not sure at the moment what I am doing wrong. The main problem I'm having is inductor resistance limiting how much power goes into charging the inductor EM field to create the flyback effect, and how much power ends up reaching the WFC to begin with. Think about it -- say you had two 11k charging chokes in series with the WFC -- that's 22k. All reactance aside, the pulsing circuit would see a 22k resistance and with 12V applied would submit just half a milli-amp! Well, if you look at page 139 of Meyer's technical brief, it says that the stainless steel / high-resistivity wire was used in something else, not the VIC with the blocking diode and resonant charging chokes. So I think the charging chokes are better to have high inductance and low resistance.

[demartin]

Attached are two images taken from Meyer's Technical Briefing. I drew current and magnetic field arrows on them to show how, according to the diagrams, during an ON pulse the WFC is hit with the same polarity pulse from both charging chokes due to magnetic flux from the first choke inducing current in the second choke.

As mentioned in my last post, only when I hooked up the chokes as shown in these diagrams could I get any type of resonance going similar to what Meyer described (with current going down, voltage going up, etc...). But this contradicts what Meyer said elsewhere about opposite polarities going into the WFC. I wonder whether the diagram is wrong, or a hidden clue on how it really should be.

[demartin]

If you pulse an ignition coil straight into the WFC, you will not obtain high voltages because water's low resistance demands too high a current. Current = Voltage / Resistance. The coil will just output current pulses instead of the desired high voltage. The resistance of water is relatively low unless it is distilled and de-ionized. Meyer could use either distilled or tap water, or rain water, even salt water theoretically. It is the two charging chokes acting together that overcomes the resistivity factor of the water, that's why he used those and not just a high voltage generator.

[BALLSCREWPRO]

I built the D14 circuit with bifilar inductors. See my video here for the results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBn8Y0BJZqc

Here is the text I posted along with it:

Single 4" cell, 304 stainless steel, 1.57mm gap. 1cm plastic straw segments used as spacers. Inner tube conditioned over 24 hours in calcium hydroxide solution (1/8 teaspoon Kalkwasser powder to 1 pint R.O. water). Beginning of conditioning took 12 volts at 1 amps, end of conditioning took 24 volts at .5 amps due to calcium oxide insulator depositing on cathode.

This here is driven by the newer D14.pdf Lawton circuit with bifilar inductor.

http://panaceauniversity.org/D14.pdf

As you can see it produces gas with .26 Amps @ 12 Volts. Looks like much, but the bubbles themselves are tiny.

Only real interesting thing is that the cell has self-voltage. When I disconnect cell from circuit and measure its potential, it drops quickly to 2 Volts but then takes 20 minutes to drop further to 1.5 Volts. The better the oxide insulator coating, obviously the more slowly voltage drops.

Therefore in between signal pulses, there is a unipolar DC field between the tubes. In Stan Meyers' setup, I am guessing that this DC field is much higher and acts to unipolarly stress the water dielectric right at the point of breakdown. What happens there is that the tiny high voltage spikes going into the tubes actually raise this DC potential over successive spikes, then the gate shuts it off and lets the potential fall back down a bit. This might be to avoid arcing if the DC potential rises too high. In this video, that DC cell potential is only 2.96 volts, but that's because only 12 volts are going in from Lawton's circuit.

Lawton's circuit is not a true Meyers replication. Meyer had the cell circuit electrically isolated through a 1:3 to 1:30 step up transformer (toroid) and employed some kind of resonance to get high voltage spikes pumping into the cells. The blocking diode in that case is what produces a flat DC charge across the cells, whereas the high frequency pulses ride atop the DC and goes right through the water cap (because capacitors pass high frequencies) and interacts with the bifilar charging chokes.

The goal is to insulate the tubes, maintain a high DC potential between them via the blocking diode, and perhaps employ a flyback effect in the toroid transformer to have high voltages. Beware that the blocking diode makes this circuit not perform as a typical LC series oscillator. Also remember that Meyer used maximum potential and minimum current -- it was not pulsed DC-current electrolysis, it was high voltage DC with high voltage unipolar pulses atop this fed into a cell that optimally used distilled water and/or insulated cathodes. Meyer was all about dielectric breakdown of water due to intense E gradients, not loads of electrons marching through ripping and heating things up.

I post this video here just to show that Lawton's circuit still does something regardless, and as others report does it better than conventional DC current electrolysis.

[mrgalleria]

Aloha,
Wow, I had a tough time getting back online after my last post. I think someone sabatouged it. Even now I am having difficulty, had to close my anti-hacker, etc.
Thanks for the encouragement Supermuble. If you have nut, bolts and washers in a cup- you take out the washers, you don't have to replace them with something else. In a cup of water, you have hydrogen, oxygen, and electricity. Take out the electricity, you don't need to add anything to replace it. The hydrogen-oxygen decompose into gases, soon you will have to replace the water. When Stan said that you don't get something for nothing, I believe that he was refering to the device and the initial power that it consumes.
Demartin, great info. What is your power source? Meyers always used an alternator with motor drive. I think this could only be because the alternator is part of the pulsing circuit. The alternator outputs three alternating circuit fields which are bended, turned to dc, (by diodes) and voltage regulated to about 14 volts. Simple mods can alter these functions. Removing the voltage regulator allows voltage from 1-150+ depending on RPM. Eventually, I think we will stumble upon the correct RPM, and other wiring mods to supply a power source that is also a functioning part of the device. A good start are the alternator mods in the Alaskastar project pages in oupower.com. Alaskastar claims to know people using the mods and acheiving incredible results.
Bill