Quote from Dog-One on March 10th, 2013, 08:06 PM

So I ask again, do we really understand the medium we are working with or not?

Dog,
  No.  But I don't understand women, and I still got married (grin).  If I waited until I understood EVERYTHING, I would have died before I took my first breath... I mean, honestly, do we understand exactly how our body uses oxygen?  Why it is good, and bad (the bends, oxidation)?

  Just because we don't understand ALL OF IT, does not mean we can't work with it.  Keeping an open mind, and a scientific approach SEEMS like a good start.  But I challenge you to show me ANYTHING that you understand COMPLETELY, with no limitations?  It just is not how we work.  We focus, we specialize.  We learn, we grow, we adapt.

  I am here to Learn, to Grow, to Share, to Adapt, and to Replicate Stans work.  6 Months ago, I could not use an oscilloscope and barely used a VOM, and certainly did not know V=Q/C.  6 Months from now, who knows where I will be... (Those thinking in a drunken stupor, crying because I had it working, got so excited I knocked it over, and burned down the house can go to blazes LOL).

  Heck just look at the complexity of transformers (as gps pointed out).  I was hoping I could find someone here and leverage that.  But it looks like I have to do it myself.  My first pass into it, though, and it is a lot more complicated than a few turns on a core.  Especially if you don't want it to overheat, SMOKE, or give you less out than you put in, poor Smokey, LOL.

  So, I embrace my ignorance, pick a direction and sail.  Because my time on this rock is limited.  May I leave it in better shape than I found it!  Along the way, I will meet more amazing people, and together we will do more than any one of us ever does alone.

Point taken.

Hopefully something clicks along the way that takes the magic out of it.  I encourage the enthusiasm, but I hope no one is churning up resources that could have been better used elsewhere.  Currently I would rate a Stan Meyer replication as a risky project at best, but if there is something to learn that could potentially make the difference or be applied to other OSE projects, by all means, dig in.  Do try to document theories that when tested, do not seem to work, as this will help others avoid those same lines of thinking.

I wish I could be of more help, but to me the complexity, based on the number of variables, just seems too large to wrap my head around.  I'm not even sure what types of experiments can be done to attempt to eliminate some of those variables or figure out which are independent and which are dependent.  I'm afraid you guys are going to have to just go with your gut and see where it takes you.  Use your instincts and build what you think is right.

Something I will mention:  When using lower pulse frequencies, lower the duty cycle to prevent core saturation.  That will cut your amp draw dramatically.  I've made custom nanocrystalline toroids run very efficiently at 0.5% on-time duty cycle with fast switching and precision (24-bit PWM) timing circuits.  MOSFETs need fairly significant current at the gate for fast switching, so do use a driver chip when connecting to a digital pulse source.  You will also discover your MOSFETs run much cooler when using these drivers even though they are carrying the same load.

Dog,
  Thanks for the info.  My last 3 circuit builds were for MOSFET gate driving issues.  As an example, I was able to increase Amp Flow by using 15V at the gate (Zener Diode cutoff at that level), vs. when I was using 5-7V.  Then it dawned on me, the speed.  The higher voltage will saturate the gate faster.  It makes more sense.  But I appreciate it.  But they run much cooler when gated a bit harder.  (Now mine is mounted to a CPU Cooling Fan/Heat Sink.  driven by a 9V battery.  It barely gets hot, LMAO... )

  At this point, I am in deep enough to make it through June, and make the decision to continue or not.  Based on my current rate of progress, and some of the people here, I am feeling strangely optimistic (despite realizing that 13yrs after Stan, NOBODY has validated a replication)  But EVERYTHING I learn from different sources makes me believe it is possible.

If you haven't read it before Kirk, take a moment and study some of the information in Chapter 10 of Patrick Kelly's website:
http://free-energy-info.com/

Especially the water clusters and cavitation stuff starting at page 10-121.  If in fact you are attempting to make "Charged Water Gas Clusters" instead of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas, how you go about it may be different.

I have no doubt what you are attempting is possible.  I even suspect as you go along you might revise and improve your attempt.  I most certainly would like a solution sitting on my bench right now, however I can't help but think the learning process of discovery and insight is just as important.  I don't care when or how I go to my grave, but sure would like it to be with the knowledge that I "get it"; I figured it out.  I was given a body, a mind, a soul and put on Earth to figure it out and I did it.

A point of note in understanding the technology we use: We understand very little about current, voltage and Electron flow in a conductor, it's been changed time and time again. Voltage and current one way, Electrons the other at the moment but that may change. We know little about Electromagnetic fields, Electric fields and other inductance type fields in conductors. We as humans are experimental and we tend to invent things using Electricity without fully knowing how it works and there is no harm in that generally speaking until of course you try and work of the Meyer effect on paper then you begin to struggle. Most people switch their lights on and don't really care how the current and voltage make their way to the element in the light bulb as long as it works. That's all well and good until you need to know how it truly works in this technology field. We haven't been educated enough and tried to better our understand of Electricity in our circuits but rather fumble our way around making the current and voltage do the things we want but not necessarily understanding how it really works.
This is our nemesis as Human beings.

 

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 9th, 2013, 11:59 AM

...
Again, if anyone else wants to chime in...  Please do so.  My goal is to get some very direct focused problem solving going on.  To determine WHAT the state of the art is...  And to create some very specific experiments to allow us to understand what is going on...

My suggestions:

Whenever a configuration is built, operated and measured there should be a circuit diagram for the configuration showing all possible measurement points. and all measurements posted shall refer to those labeled measurement points.

whenever a configuration is operated a simulation should be configured (LTSpice) and checked if there is similar behaviour. that way we learn to simulate simple configurations and let them grow with circuit complexity.

For my switches I like to use IPW60R099CP (600V, 37A, fast, low resistance, not too expensive) perfectly driven by TC442X.

Quote from bussi04 on March 12th, 2013, 04:47 PM

...
Whenever a configuration is built, operated and measured there should be a circuit diagram for the configuration showing all possible measurement points. and all measurements posted shall refer to those labeled measurement points.

whenever a configuration is operated a simulation should be configured (LTSpice) and checked if there is similar behaviour. that way we learn to simulate simple configurations and let them grow with circuit complexity.

For my switches I like to use IPW60R099CP (600V, 37A, fast, low resistance, not too expensive) perfectly driven by TC442X.

Busi, great point.  I made so many little mistakes in the beginning.  Now, for example, I use stackable Banana Plugs at the end of my tubes.  This allows me to quickly change the setup, and drop probes in (I have alligator clips that takes the banana plugs on one side).  Again, I found I was fighting with things too often.

As to the board design and the simulation.  Agreed.  My Current board 9 Dual Blue standoffs for screw mounting things, and an IC Socket for dropping in my OptoIsolators, plus some of them are used to connect to Power and then finally the Gating Enable Switch on my box.  I will certainly update this layout shortly.  But this easily lets me drop in a P Channel Mosfet with a quick change.  I can swap out my 2 resistors (dealing with the gate), and the 3rd one (optional for my LED, for testing).

But the BIG advantage of these is that the screws are ON TOP, and I can quickly TOUCH them with probes, etc. to see what is going on.  Again, I am getting ready for the 400V FETS coming in, and running from the Variac.  So, Variable input power settings create a bit of a RESISTOR Nightmare.  Now, I can swap out the resistors with ease.

This is the opposite of the RUSSTIC (an amazing amount of work there)...  This EXPECTS a signal generator to connect to it and pulse it, to control the gate.  The voltage, etc is isolated, much like Stans Design.  The first board took me 10hrs, the next about 4hrs.  This one is down to about 2hrs, but mostly because I go slowly, and I am double checking everything.  Again, let me have a touch of success with this configuration and I will gladly share.

Also, as an FYI, some of these SPICE tools allow you to create your own NET assembly for a component.  This might come in handy for the WFC as a capacitor, as we learn a bit more.  If we were to program it for a water capacitor (Voltage > 1.47 with at least an amp will consume amps... kind of stuff.  Resistance effect on Voltage.)

Kirk Out!

Quote from bussi04 on March 12th, 2013, 04:47 PM

My suggestions:

Whenever a configuration is built, operated and measured there should be a circuit diagram for the configuration showing all possible measurement points. and all measurements posted shall refer to those labeled measurement points.

again. this is where i lack and would love to see a " project" built with people dedicated with longing everything so we can see whats going on.


bussi, do you have any suggestions on how to lay out his platform.

we need it but I'm not sure how to go about it.

the best thing i can say to do is make a thread and post results there...

but we need a guide line to go by. like steps for each post on the system built and tested. we need a system in place that we all need to fallow to properly compare results...

suggestions are welcome...

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on March 12th, 2013, 11:36 PM

...
again. this is where i lack and would love to see a " project" built with people dedicated with longing everything so we can see whats going on.
...
suggestions are welcome...

~Russ

Russ,
  Actually, it SEEMS like we could use a Wiki...  These posts get unmanageable quickly.  The challenge with the Wiki is that everyone can update it.
I am not familiar enough with this Message Board to know what it offers.  So I am open.

  But I think we need some structure.  A "folder" to put these types of threads in.  And a concept that makes it so that we are not discussing the build,
just describing it.  Maybe by editing the core post (each person edits their core post).  Again, not sure.  But this structure of posts is not as conducive for
presentation of a fixed set of information as it is for a conversation...

Quote from CaptainKirk on March 13th, 2013, 06:48 AM

Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on March 12th, 2013, 11:36 PM

...
again. this is where i lack and would love to see a " project" built with people dedicated with longing everything so we can see whats going on.
...
suggestions are welcome...

~Russ

Russ,
  Actually, it SEEMS like we could use a Wiki...  These posts get unmanageable quickly.  The challenge with the Wiki is that everyone can update it.
I am not familiar enough with this Message Board to know what it offers.  So I am open.

  But I think we need some structure.  A "folder" to put these types of threads in.  And a concept that makes it so that we are not discussing the build,
just describing it.  Maybe by editing the core post (each person edits their core post).  Again, not sure.  But this structure of posts is not as conducive for
presentation of a fixed set of information as it is for a conversation...

We could add a dropbox or google drive location as a file repository for coworking.
the thread structure could be a description for the cloud repository. of course we need some backup for the repository from time to time.
It´s easier to make changes at the repository than changing uploaded files in the thread.

Actually, I think the BEST way to handle file versioning and sharing is to use SVN (subversion), which is a solid version control system.
This would PREVENT loss of documents because you could always go back to prior versions, etc.  It maps to a local hard drive, which makes it easy to view/open/access and update.  Everyone has a local copy that they refresh (simply/easily enough).
As a software developer, this is a CORE TOOL for me.  More and more of my small clients are using it for their office documents for version history as well...

If we decide to go that way, I would be willing to set it up.  The client software is free and available on Unix/Windows/Mac, etc.

Electrolysis depend on Amps, lowest voltage is the best.

Faraday laws depend on a stable DC Voltage.Faraday laws depend on Amps.Faraday don't make laws about pulse voltage.

i thought "Meyer use Pulse high voltage equal 1.48 DCV or less but consume more amps than stable dc".because if you use low voltage you cannot make high amps(example 10ohms 1.5 v 0.15A you must make lowest ohms(by increase surface area) to create high amps).

Example 1:

- resistor spec = 10W, 10ohms.

if you use 10 stable VDC, max amps=1 A (10W),

20VDC 50% duty(10VDC-Avg) with 10ohms resistor amps=2A 50% duty(1A-Avg) =20V*2A=40W*50%=20W.

analog meter show avg voltage or amps.20VDC 50%duty=10VDC,2A 50%duty=1A.Avg power=10W but real power=20W.

Example 2:

-resistor spec= 10W, 10ohms.
if you use 10 stable VDC, max amps=1 A (10W),

100VDC 10%duty(10VDC-Avg) with 10ohms resistor amps=10A 10% duty(1A-Avg) =100V*10A=1000W*10%=100W.
analog meter show avg voltage or amps.100VDC 10%duty=10VDC,10A 10%duty=1A.Avg power=10W but real power=100W.

Example 3:

-resistor spec= 10W, 10ohms.
if you use 10 stable VDC, max amps=1 A (10W),

1000VDC 1%duty(10VDC-Avg) with 10ohms resistor amps=100A 1% duty(1A-Avg) =1000V*100A=100000W*1%=1000W.
analog meter show avg voltage or amps.1000VDC 1%duty=10VDC,100A 1%duty=1A.Avg power=10W but real power=1000W.

Now No one use high voltage with success.but someone use low voltage high amps make high output gas(fast freddy3v 55amps or 10v 70A).maybe Meyer make it difference.=use high voltage to create high amps.from example that show when use 20vdc pulse dc to 10ohms 10W resistor, real power=20W then resistor burn because heat(or energy).with this energy can split water to gas.

thanks
geenee

geenee,
  Meyers argument about high voltage was that it forces a STRUCTURE into the water.  Much of this is being confirmed, or has been confirmed.
The challenge is in reproducing his results, which nobody has truly done, that has been verified by anyone else (including Stan himself).

  But if it is about POWER only, then there can be no true savings.  10Watts = 10Watts, regardless of the voltages I use to get there.
The areas I *understand* that can make a difference are:
1) A large voltage field, requires a TINY amperage to make 40Watts of power, for example (40,000V x 0.001Amps = 40Watts).  So low amps required, but no SAVINGS (**unless**)
2) The current required to first start the process is higher at first and then drops, as the current starts to flow, hidden in there might be an opportunity
3) A spontaneous Voltage drop (V=Q/C stuff, where Q drops as it creates HHO), is equivalent to current flowing, without heat

**unless**: This is interesting.  If the voltage is increased from 100v to 40,000V in steps, that each have TINY Current applied to them (back EMF off of an inductor).  So that the work is being done by the LAST PULSE of 100V @ 0.0025A, but choked off from being continuous.  This is the Dielectric breakdown theory with Avalanche Mode that #3 works off of as well.  Despite this being a very specific rendition of it.

One thing I *KNOW* (and there is probably only a few things I truly know), is that Stans process did NOT produce the maximum HHO output possible (like Fast Freddy could using high amps).  I pushed DC power through up to about 80V @ 10A using the variac/rectifier, and the production of 4 Tubes 1/2 - 1/3 the height of meyers produced enough to scare me...

So, the question becomes How did he get the separation?
Was it the step charging?  (If so, how high did he get it?) [I looked at his pattern, and if you say the 1st Pulse was 80% of the 300V coming in.  The other pulses were not multiples taller.  They were increments taller.  I am doubting he had > 600V, as his diode would have failed.]

So, reversing it out.  If he did get 600V.  And we need 1.48VA to do HHO... 1.48VA / 600V = 0.0025A  or 2.5mA  where 25mA would product more.  The question is simple about the process.  What process allows us to SETUP the E-Field.  Start the process.  WAIT for the output to stop, and start it up again.

Heck, watching "It runs on water", I have even considered the generator on the table VIBRATING might be helping the process.  There are a lot of unknowns...

added picture,for thought.

thanks picture from valyonpz.
geenee

Quote from geenee on April 12th, 2013, 03:03 PM

added picture,for thought.

thanks picture from valyonpz.
geenee

This calculation looks quite strange.
85% moisture @ 1amp electrolyses?

Generally I think, without any explanation of this document, it is not possible to evaluate this readings.

The comment (application ote) of meyer is right, but, whats about the watts, energy consumed? Without voltage, we can not calculate this.
Because voltage only heats up the water, an explanation could be, that an thermolysis process is created between the tubes. Thermolyses can split water in H2 and O2.
I made some tests in the past with thermolyses, it works with very low amps.

Quote from Amsy on April 13th, 2013, 09:16 AM

Quote from geenee on April 12th, 2013, 03:03 PM

added picture,for thought.

thanks picture from valyonpz.
geenee

This calculation looks quite strange.
85% moisture @ 1amp electrolyses?

Generally I think, without any explanation of this document, it is not possible to evaluate this readings.

The comment (application ote) of meyer is right, but, whats about the watts, energy consumed? Without voltage, we can not calculate this.
Because voltage only heats up the water, an explanation could be, that an thermolysis process is created between the tubes. Thermolyses can split water in H2 and O2.
I made some tests in the past with thermolyses, it works with very low amps.

85% moisture = water vapor(gas form).15% is hho.normal electrolysis create very low hho(15%). 55cc/min/1amp

pulse electrolysis make hho 97% of all gas.68cc/min/1amp

high voltage make hho 99% of all gas.194.2cc/min/1amp    *****voltage????

under Faraday's laws 1 amp/min make hho = cc ????
 
thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on April 12th, 2013, 12:41 PM

Now No one use high voltage with success.but someone use low voltage high amps make high output gas(fast freddy3v 55amps or 10v 70A).

It's because it is a combination of electrolysis and cavitation that is doing the work.  You get those tubes physically ringing and bubbles form.  When the bubbles collapse, they release a tremendous amount of energy.