research information sharing

Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #450,  »
And Dr. Stiffler in 2008, burning some more water generated with just milliwatts of power input.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTgY3GbGRs0

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #451,  »
thanks matt
I have come across that invention before, if I remember correctly I tried to find the patent without success, looks like microwave wavelengths from the waveguide, and some metal involved.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #452,  »
I was just looking at this video on irondmax website
" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9lAi_yEQX8 "
Its has stan meyer standing in front of his tube set ( 9 tubes? or 11 tubes? i'm not sure), anyhow its the tube set he used for patent office demo, he says something interesting at 2:08
" if you hit this fuel cell ( the tube cell on the bench he is referring to) at 5,000v 50khz you can convert a gallon of water per second, oh yeah absolutely, so that means 60 gallons per hour, rrrr, per minute times 3600 gallons per hour rate....we even have more advanced technology than that, we can purify this water without converting to gas"

So when he says " can convert a gallon of water per second" it seems he is saying that is the gas production rate. A gallon is about 3.8 litres, so he is claiming 3.8litres of water can be converted in that tube array in one second.......that is a rather interesting claim.
Perhaps he meant one gallon per minute, or 3.8 litres per minute.
Anyhow he does give voltage and hertz for that tube set, which is useful information.
He did seem quite rushed in his speech and may have made an error in his information.

Obviously a gallon of water per second is not possible, other video where stan has demonstrated that tube set, the production rate is a tiny portion of that rate.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #453,  »Last edited
so lets use stans stated value of 50khz for those tubes:
using formula
wavelength = vel / freq = 1484 / 50000 = 0.02968m = 2.968cm

If acoustic resonance is playing a role, then the wavelength is 2.968cm
This is one full wavelength.

Does this match the first harmonics for the tube length ( wave along the tubes )or water gap
( waves across the tubes)? First harmonic will give maximum resonance.
I think the answer is no!

First harmonic along the tube.........tube is open at one end........one quarter wavelength
assume tube is 12cm that represents one quarter wavelength, one full wavelength is 48cm.
We are looking for 3cm approx for one full wavelength. So it doesn't match the length of the column for speed of sound in water.

First harmonic across the tube:.........tube is closed at both ends.....i.e. both walls are the boundaries.........I assume this works the same as tube open at both ends........use one half wavelength for first harmonic.........
water gap  is 3mm approx represents one half wavelength.......one full wavelength is 6mm
which is much lower than 3cm ( 30mm for one full wavelength)......so again answer is no.

Could it be stan was using another harmonic ( which will be weaker in resonance), I think unlikely.

Could it be stan messed up his maths? This is a distinct possibility, as you can easily get the numbers to match his tubes, but the maths is incorrect.........I think!
It goes like this:
use his 50khz and 1484m/s for speed of sound in water, put that into the formula as before you get........3cm....... is supposed to be one full wavelength......lets assume stan made a mistake.......he thought that represented the 1/4wave resonance along the tube.......
so 3cm is the 1/4 wavelength ( in reality its not though), times that by 4 and you get 12cm, the length of his tubes ( approx ). 
So it looks to me like either:
acoustic resonance plays no role...............or stan assumed it did, and made some simple errors in his maths.........it would be quite easy to do......as shown in his video link (a couple of posts previous), where he claims to be able to convert one gallon of water per second into gas in those tubes ( obviously an error).

If acoustic resonance is playing a role, its difficult for me to see how to reconcile the frequency he gives with the length of the tubes.
You can do similar maths across the tubes, but again the maths is incorrect also eg.
you could take the 3cm wavelength ( from 50khz) and divide by 4 to get quarter wavelength
which is 7.5mm.......but its not opened ended across the water gap.....and then for some reason stan divides this by 2, to account for total diameter of water gap on both sides, and you get 3.25mm approx the water gap distance, but there are two mistakes in the calculations.
Its possible to get nice answers that match stans dimensions but they are incorrect and dont match the speed of sound in water........so I go around in circles again.........
I'll try some more calcs later and see if I can find anything else that might be relevant.

Basically I just cant reconcile stans 50khz to the speed of sound in water and stans tube dimensions using what ( I think!) is correct maths. I can reconcile it using incorrect maths!!!




Re: research information sharing
« Reply #454,  »Last edited
there are some other options to explore:
1. does the speed of sound in stainless steel ( 5790m/s) match his data?
2. is there a wave speed can be found and matched somehow to his data?
by data I mean 50khz for frequency for the tubes in his video.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #455,  »
nice paper on the formation of bubbles in ac electrolysis, and pressure waves created by the self combustion of the nanobubbles.
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/2/94/htm

I remember Valentin Petkov mentions in his last video that there is an ac bias created across the water  cell ( I think?) over a certain frequency. Using stan pulsing methods.
Here's another crazy theory:
I'm still looking for this other resonance ( apart from between the inductors and water cap).
Lets say the inductor/water cap LC resonance is creating an ac waveform i.e. current flows from cap to inductor at one time, current flow from inductor to cap at another time ( I think thats the basis of the LC resonance, in a simplified view), perhaps this is creating a type of ac waveform on each electrode, due to its LC resonance with its own inductor ( L1 or L2).
This ac form of current, might allow both oxygen and hydrogen to be created at each electrode, if the time frame is short enough the smaller nanobubbles may contain both H and O, and self combustion may occur ( mechanism for that self combustion I'm still reading up on that). These  tiny explosions ( too small to observe by eye) create pressure waves.
And might account for a type of acoustic resonance, the speed of those waves might not be the same as the speed of sound ( looking into that).
If the speed of the pressure waves ( assuming a type of acoustic wave) is greater than sound waves in water ( similiar to the shock wave of an air explosion, which travels faster than sound in air), it might account for the discrepency of stans possible acoustic resonance.
If I can find the speed of the pressure/shock waves from these nanobubbles explosions, I can do some calculatons to see if they might be playing a role.
Obviously I dont have a good understanding of the LC circuits, and the ac bias Petkov mentions, but it is at least some sort of theory that can be looked into.


Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #456,  »
Quote from brettly on January 16th, 2017, 02:02 AM
Basically I just cant reconcile stans 50khz to the speed of sound in water and stans tube dimensions using what ( I think!) is correct maths. I can reconcile it using incorrect maths!!!
My hunch is the 50kHz (or less) isn't mechanically related to the water splitting process.  This relatively low frequency is related to the self resonance of the water cavity electrically.  This is a frequency at which the water cavity is no longer a dead short and in such a state can be charged up to relatively high voltages.  Once charged, the resonant condition can be halted, at which point the water cavity becomes a dead short upon itself.

So suppose we get 20 KV charged across the water cavity with Re of 78.54 ohms.  At the moment we drop resonance, 254 amps of current now has no place to go except directly into the water.  That's 5,092,946 watts of power dissipated internally into the water.  Five million watts!   Evolution of HHO is a must-be condition for that very brief interval.  Once gas evolution has rolled off, we again go back to a resonant condition and recharge the water cavity.  The cycle repeats, trading voltage for gas output.

Webmug

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #457,  »
50kHz reminds me of John Ernst Worrell Keely and is very close to 42,800 CPS, the Keely dissociation frequency. But it could be completely something else...
~webmug

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #458,  »Last edited
thanks Matt,
thanks for that, I'm very curious about the self resonance of the water cavity which you mention,
the water should be able to be charge up to any voltage that is below the point where a spark or conduction pathway occurs between electrodes i.e. breakdown of the electrical resistance.

Below are some calcs where I thought i'd discovered something but seems it was just a coincidence, I leave the calcs below, but my error was the microphone was in the air ( I had
assumed it was in the water, so it was just speed of sound they were using.........just a coincidence that speed of sound in air, seemed to work for stans tube resonance I guess:

Here is my rambling...........

I have found something very interesting though:
this paper on nanobubble h and o self combustion
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep39381
It mentions about recording a clicking noise which comes from the nanobubble self combustion.
I'm trying to find the speed of this sound, they do give a value for it ( in a roundabout way).
They mention there is a 0.4millisecond delay ( in recording the click) due to the microphone being located 12 to 15cm from the electrode, so they are accounting for the lag time for the sound wave to travel to the microphone.
Since we have distance and time we can work out the velocity of this wave:
vel = distance / time  = 0.12 / 0.0004 = 300 m/s
( they say they expected this value, but they dont say why exactly)
anyway so now I have a value for the speed of this acoustic wave is 300m/s

Now if we use stans 50khz and water gap of 3mm using ( vel=f x wavelength)
So an acoustic  wave starting at one electrode ( due to the nanobubble self combustion) travels across the water gap to the other electrode, using half wavelength for resonance, as its effectively closed both ends, gives a full wavelength of 6mm.
Now plugging this into the formula gives:
vel = 50,000 * 0.006 = 300 m/s

Thats a pretty amazing result, or pretty amazing coincidence!
I'm not going to say I've found the missing resonance I've been looking for, but its a good candidate for it.
So if you use a velocity of the wave as 300m/s it gives an excellent result.

So what if we put this value into the injector:
width of the water gap is 0.01 inch ( from memory ) which is 0.254mm ( 0.000254m),
which represents half wavelength, so full wavelength is 0.000508m
using same formula as before  we get:
freq = vel / wavelength   = 300 / 0.000508 = 590,551 khz

So if these nanobubble sound waves are the source of the the acoustic waves, and if their velocity is 300m/s, then to get first harmonic resonance you would need to run the injector
at approx 591khz.
So the inductor and water injector capacitance in the voltage zone would need to ring at 591khz.

Ris

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #459,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 16th, 2017, 06:44 AM
My hunch is the 50kHz (or less) isn't mechanically related to the water splitting process.  This relatively low frequency is related to the self resonance of the water cavity electrically.  This is a frequency at which the water cavity is no longer a dead short and in such a state can be charged up to relatively high voltages.  Once charged, the resonant condition can be halted, at which point the water cavity becomes a dead short upon itself.

So suppose we get 20 KV charged across the water cavity with Re of 78.54 ohms.  At the moment we drop resonance, 254 amps of current now has no place to go except directly into the water.  That's 5,092,946 watts of power dissipated internally into the water.  Five million watts!   Evolution of HHO is a must-be condition for that very brief interval.  Once gas evolution has rolled off, we again go back to a resonant condition and recharge the water cavity.  The cycle repeats, trading voltage for gas output.
please enlighten me with these numbers

Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #460,  »
Quote from Ris on January 16th, 2017, 08:49 AM
please enlighten me with these numbers

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #461,  »
thats an interesting method to get power and  current, Matt but I'm not sure if it is an accurate
way to determine current that is generated in the water when the dipoles relax.
I think to determine the current generated would be extremely complex procedure.

Resistance of water in ohmns, there is table here gives some values:
http://www.aquaread.com/need-help/what-are-you-measuring/resistivity/

So lets try pure water, resistance: 20megaohmn
and voltage stan mentions 5kv on that last video from irondmax,
plugging those values in you get :
current: 0.25amp
power: 1.25watts
Obviously not what you want, I haven't started to look into what sort of currents are created when a charged water capacitor, discharges into itself. Its certainly something I'm interested in, but would take quite a bit of research to find out exactly how that occurs, and then there would be complex maths behind determining any values.



Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #462,  »
Try it again with 20,000 volts and salt water.  Six inch square plates separated by 1.5mm.

That was the principal I was trying to share anyway.  However, Webmug indicates he is unable to find any SRF for a WFC in the audio frequency range.  So I reckon my idea just went up in smoke.  There must be some other mechanism that makes this thing tick.

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #463,  »
HI Matt,
yup you can vary the parameters, but it should  work for pure water also, but I get the point, I'm thinking along thesame  lines of some high current dump over short time period, is behind the gas production.
Is proving difficult to relate acoustic energy, if there is this other resonance, its quite hard to determine what it is,
just found a paper on shock waves in water, not exactly the same as nanobubbles, but pretty close, seems the shock waves can travel up to about 3 times the speed of sound, but only for a very brief period of time, the shock waves slow down to speed of sound after 140nanoseconds ( well a bit longer), but looks like shock waves not involved ( from nanobubble self combustion )
heres link to the  the paper just for interest:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=6LL7CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=shock+wave+velocity++water+m/s&source=bl&ots=hojItULdJN&sig=HAbrTD6oECQzHd1Bz6H2KZ5du-k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNw5LnpcnRAhVFvrwKHfNxBhoQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=shock%20wave%20velocity%20%20water%20m%2Fs&f=false

Valentin Petkov in one of his videos, notes audible humming of the tubes at certain frequencies, also have viewed another video by someone else, who suggests tuning to resonance using the different sound produced when resonance occurs.
There will be acoustic energy involved in the system, the bubbles of course will create quite a bit of noise, but an acoustic energy involved in the splitting process is hard to find ( if it does exist).
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #464,  »
i wonder if the bubbles themselves play some role in the device?
The bubbles tend to be looked at as something that needs to be removed asap, to allow more surface area for gas production. But could they play some role in the oscillations to assist water splitting?
There is a theory to use gas bubbles in water to make a sasor ( sound equivalent of a laser),
basically a method to create standing waves in order to use the acoustic energy generated.

there are two relevant papers ( that I haven't found downloads for as yet)
1. S.T. Zavtrak and I. V. Volkov, Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 67, 92−100(April 1997)
propose micro, gas bubbles in water in cylinder could be used for acoustic wave energy system
2.K. A. Naugolnykh and L. A. Ostrovskii, Nonlinear Processes in Acoustics, Nauka, Moscow, (1990)
The first one above if I can find a pdf file on it, should prove interesting.

Phonons ( short wavelength acoustic waves), have wavelengths from mhz to terrahz, not really relevant at khz frequencies, at least it appears that way.

Just on bubbles:
the pulse on time, determines the size the bubbles can grow to, they can merge to make larger bubbles, but using stans khz pulses will give a maximum size to the bubbles before the depart the electrodes. So you could probably assume their is a fairly uniform distribution of bubble size........i.e. one size will predominate at the microscopic scale.

The gas in the bubbles can be reabsorbed into the water by diffusion, the less time the bubbles spend in the water the more amount gas will be useable.

The above was info from research papers, just couldn't be bothered writing down the sources.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #465,  »
seems there is quite a bit of research available on acoustic emission from electrolysis ( and other bubble phenomena), here is one example:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1989/c3b9d9213ce117f6e42d04b9e52f4002ecd8.pdf
they find for a standard dc electrolysis cell, they get from 50 to 100khz acoustic signals and they explain it due to bubble burst at the surface largely.
There is a formula for the resonant frequency ( acoustic) for bubbles to resonate ( not in this research paper though), vibrational of the bubbles can cause pressure waves ( cavitation of a bubble in particular can cause very large pressure waves).

X-Blade

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #466,  »
Quote from brettly on January 17th, 2017, 04:49 AM
thats an interesting method to get power and  current, Matt but I'm not sure if it is an accurate
way to determine current that is generated in the water when the dipoles relax.
I think to determine the current generated would be extremely complex procedure.

Resistance of water in ohmns, there is table here gives some values:
http://www.aquaread.com/need-help/what-are-you-measuring/resistivity/

So lets try pure water, resistance: 20megaohmn
and voltage stan mentions 5kv on that last video from irondmax,
plugging those values in you get :
current: 0.25amp
power: 1.25watts
Obviously not what you want, I haven't started to look into what sort of currents are created when a charged water capacitor, discharges into itself. Its certainly something I'm interested in, but would take quite a bit of research to find out exactly how that occurs, and then there would be complex maths behind determining any values.
Meyer states 0,025A out of resonance , and 1 or 2ma (0,001/0,002A) at resonance.
In my opinion the high voltage makes part of the "second physical force" that is "superimposed to electrical polarization process" aka resonant action, produced by the coil interaction. 8xa and alternator (10xa) is only a demonstration of the electrical polarization process.

Ris

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #467,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 16th, 2017, 04:57 PM
that is equivalent to a nuclear reaction  5 mega for whole one second

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #468,  »
5kv and 1mA, gives 5megaohmn resistance, not sure how related to nuclear reaction?
thanks for the amps x-blade,
One thing I mentioned previously:
a ringing LC series connection:
the current flows in two directions as the ringing proceeds at the resonant frequency
( thats my understanding of it), that would create ac voltage pulses?
if so, there would be a good possibility of hho being created in a single nanobubble,
and also the possibility of self combustion of those nanobubbles.
That might be a source for high energy pressure waves ( sound), and would be a possible second resonance condition based on space of the plates, still any pressure waves from self combustion of hho nanobubbles, would probably travel at the speed of sound, initially travelling faster than sound but only for a very brief period ( nanoseconds).
Cant seem to match speed of sound to stans tubes and his frequency though, at least not axially across the water gap.
Previous papers mentioned and ones I have read on the nanobubble self combustion, they noted a period of gas production, where it appeared the gas production ceased, at least appeared to cease, but appears due to self combustion of the nanobubbles. Too small to see by naked eye, I'm guessing those explosions might leave an em signature , they seem to leave an audible signature though ( according to the research).
If there is an ac signal at the electrodes its quite plausible this could occur, and might explain the second resonance stan mentions in his patents. He is very vague about how it operates,
since its invisible to the eye, but leaves an audible signature, its possible he wasn't aware of
what mechanism was producing these pressure waves, and had to do best he could to account for them, they would certainly account for his vagueness on it.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #469,  »
I vaguely remember reading the nanobubble hho self combustion occurred on one electrode preferentially ( not 100% positive on that though).
heres interesting version of LC resonant circuit ( for capacitor in vacuum), not sure if could be modified for water cap though.
https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module2_LC.htm
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #470,  »
just a copy of a post I put in another thread, puting here so can come back to it later.

 I was just searching for a link to all the listed frequencies for hydrogen and oxygen ( which is a large number) and came across this link:
http://astronomynow.com/news/n1004/26seti5/

Dont get put off since the link is from the SETI website, whats interesting is the radio wavelengths that absorbed/emitted by hydrogen and hydroxyl:
1,420Mhz for neutral hydrogen and hydroxyl is 1,666Mhz............not Ghz ( unless there is some error in the information).
These frequencies equate to wavelengths of 21cm and 18cm.
What was the height of stans tubes?  Perhaps these are the frequencies he was interested in.
They say in the article the 21cm wavelength is famous in astronomy. As its a good candidate for communicating over astronomical distances, being in a fairly quiet band of the radio spectrum.
Anyhow this is something I will investigate a bit further and see if these frequencies/wavelengths might be linked to stans devices.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #471,  »Last edited
long time no post.......been off research for a while.......
I recently watched a video of the Space X rocket designer Tom Mueller
" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu9sobNjPFY "
Near the end of the discussion he talks about SpaceX plans to visit Mars.......which is looking more and more likely to happen.
One of the major problems is that Methane has to be produced on Mars to be the fuel for the return journey. The Methane will be produced from water and Carbon Dioxode gas ( water from large ice deposits on mars and c02 from the atmosphere).
The water needs to be split into hydrogen and oxygen which poses and substantial problem, it seems they plan to use either solar panels ( for electrolysis) or a nuclear powered device to achieve this. The cracking of water is first step to producing methane ( the oxygen being used as oxidiser for the rocket engine and the hydrogen being used to convert co2 to methane as the fuel). Some of the oxygen being used for astronauts.
If anyone out there has cracked stans method and has the data to back up their water splitting efficiencies, it would be more than likely be of interest to SpaceX. Also considering Elon Musks' Tesla electric car company, he might also be interested in some form of retrofit for combustion engines using stans/puharich methods. It all depends if there is someone out there who is extremely advanced in their research
and has data to back up any claims. They key to gaining their interest will be hard experimental  data on conversion efficiency of the water splitting process.


Re: research information sharing
« Reply #472,  »
dont forget to follow Valyonpz ( Valentine Petkov) research on youtube, he is still posting all his results and circuits.
Recently he has posted some really nice work comparing Puharich and Meyer systems, and his most recent videos include
a working PLL circuit ( his own design it appears, but replicating stans dials/switches/interface), and also another look at frequency
doubling via the chokes and explaining it very concisely.

chuff1


brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #474,  »
just a link to an interesting video showing a novel method of water charging effect.
It consists of a water narrow water jet ( 0.004") striking a piece of glass, the water jet
travelling a high speed. Blue plasma is produced in the air next to the water jet.
Its worth listening to the video as the guy gives possible explanation for the phenomenon.
May have some relevance to puharich spark plug which involves water exiting glass tube,
or might have some relevance to exploring novel water splitting methods.
Here is the link:

induced plasma static charge

Also there is another phenomenon already been posted on this forum  where collapsing air bubbles
in water ( I think water ?)produce blue glow ( solar luminescence).
 solar luminescence

 The researches suggest  extreme high temperatures involved with the
cavitating bubble via collision of the gas ( air).
 Though this new video shows alternate method to produce blue glow
via induced voltages.
so I'm guessing there is some possibility its same ( or similar) process at work in the
cavitating air bubbles. Both produce air plasma.
Is it possible the cavitating bubble glow is not produced by collision but by induced
static voltages or are the two different videos unrelated phenomenon?