Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #100, on September 25th, 2013, 10:13 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 02:33 PM by Matt Watts
Farrah Day
Quote
So, let me ask again, what does a VIC do that a pulse transformer will not do? Whatxactly are you looking to see across the electrodes of a cell, and how are you proposing that what you see there works to dissociate the water molecule?I find that in the majority of cases people seem to be attempting to build or replicate something without even knowing what it really does or what they are ultimately trying to achieve, which I find very odd indeed. Surely the logical thing to do is decide exactly what you want to achieve, and then attempt to construct an item to meet your requirements. 
Well said,  I completely agree.

I should also say that I think Meyers work can be (and should be) explained by conventional science. Once people start talking about free energy, overunity, bifilar coils and magic magnetic fields they destroy their chances of being taken seriously.

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #101, on September 25th, 2013, 10:38 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM
Quote from lamare on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM
Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...
So the electrolyzer I built is a 59 (4 x 6 in) plate dry cell, running from 117 volts (about 128 volt DC bridge rectified) with NaOH.  This cell would not run my 305cc engine at full output (approx 13 LpM), but when using it to drive a torch head, it will:
  • weld brass to concrete

  • vaporize 1/4" titanium rod
  • burn a hole through ceramic plate
  • explode glass on contact
  • set off every car alarm in the neighborhood when igniting a one gallon milk jug full of it.
[/list]

So what is it producing Hydroxy or Brown's gas?
:)

What a shame that that genset project got glidges. :(  If you hear the Stephen Meyer tapes, he things that most tincklers just get part of it. Not completely understanding the whole picture. He thinks that his work is superior to Stan's. So shouldn't we go study his patents a bit closer then?



Farrah Day

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #102, on September 25th, 2013, 10:50 AM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 11:22 AM by Farrah Day
Quote from Matt Watts on September 25th, 2013, 12:14 AM
Quote from lamare on September 24th, 2013, 11:46 PM
If you'r already that far, I would suggest to try mixing cold water fog with the output of the electrolyser. It should make a lot of difference.
Did that too.  I used a pair of large piezo electric pong foggers.  I also used a 20+ joule per pulse plasma ignition system.

Results:

The cold water fog successfully gunks up the engine oil in very short order and causes the steel valves to rust almost immediate causing leaks and backfires.

The plasma spark fires the engine exactly the same as the conventional CDI--no noticeable difference whatsoever.  It might work much better with gasoline, but for Hydroxy gas, it is not needed.
There is some really good evidence that supports water being an effective additive to hydrocarbon fuels - I have a really good article filed somewhere, will try to dig it out. Found it, it's an interesting read: http://www.dave-cushman.net/misc/mannject.html

However, the key thing is that you only want water vapour reaching the combustion chamber. A fogger is providing a liquid water mist and so is very easy to over do, resulting in liquid water building up in the cylinders.

The right amount of water vapour entering the combustion chamber can enhance performance by reducing hotspots and creating a more even burn. The cooling effect also allows for a greater charge of fuel to enter the chamber. Indeed, there is some debate as to whether the greatest asset to adding common-duct electrolyser gases to the air intake of an ICE, may come not from the hydrogen content, but from the water vapour content (remember how much water vapour showed up in Eckman's Mass Spectrometer results of Brown's gas!).


Quote from FaradayEZ on September 25th, 2013, 10:38 AM
What a shame that that genset project got glidges. :(  If you hear the Stephen Meyer tapes, he things that most tincklers just get part of it. Not completely understanding the whole picture. He thinks that his work is superior to Stan's. So shouldn't we go study his patents a bit closer then?
If his 'Hydroxyl' Filling Station patent is anything to go by, I wouldn't bother. Superior to Stan's? That's a bit rich considering we don't see him driving around in a water-fuelled car... unless that is, he knows something we do not! :-/

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #103, on September 25th, 2013, 12:03 PM »Last edited on September 25th, 2013, 12:07 PM by FaradayEZ
Quote from Farrah Day on September 25th, 2013, 10:50 AM
If his 'Hydroxyl' Filling Station patent is anything to go by, I wouldn't bother. Superior to Stan's? That's a bit rich considering we don't see him driving around in a water-fuelled car... unless that is, he knows something we do not! :-/
If he has an oxigen removing patent too, he can play it smart as to how to store the stuff, maybe HO stores better then H2  (due to the long arm bonding between O and H ?)
But hearing the interviews HMS provided, if you haven't i recommend them, Stephen has worked a good 9 years after Stan and has build a lot from the ground up on his own understanding. And he has a resume of understanding a lot :) I'm sure he knows stuff we don't, he is very methodical and has solved a lot of efficiency problems.

I mean, hear it and then tell me he is silly...  ;)



HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #104, on September 25th, 2013, 12:50 PM »Last edited on September 26th, 2013, 10:29 AM by HMS-776
Those interviews are worth listening to.

I think Stephen knows a lot, and it's good to hear things from his point of view.
One thing that really stood out to me was that he said Stan was looking to the future and seeing what was possible with the technology.  I don't think he did everything he explains in his papers and lectures, but he learned enough to say that they were possible.

Also keep in mind, Stan died right in front of him during a meeting with investors. ..That would put a lot of fear in someone.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #105, on September 25th, 2013, 03:08 PM »
Quote from bussi04 on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM
Quote from Farrah Day on September 25th, 2013, 06:39 AM
Quote
of course the winding sequence and direction must be correct.

but also the spacing between the slices must fit. they are responsible for capacitive reactance between the windings and they protect the isolation against over-voltage.

all aspects are discussed in depth at hereticalbuilders.com.
So, let me ask again, what does a VIC do that a pulse transformer will not do? What exactly are you looking to see across the electrodes of a cell, and how are you proposing that what you see there works to dissociate the water molecule?
Farrah,

asking that question simply needs your definition of pulse transformer optimization. of course optimization depends on the application.

Obviously the VIC is optimized towards maximum capacitive reactance. each transformer is optimized some way (at least for voltage and amps ... but there are some more properties ...).

the bifilar windings add some different magnetic flux effects to the transformer dynamics compared to a pulse transformer.

now you can see the  difference to pulse transformers.

nevertheless that VIC can´t be calculated yet :-(
Say Bussi, I need to ask. Have you or did you have full permission from h20power to post his document?
If not, please, it needs to be taken down.

Gunther Rattay

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #106, on September 25th, 2013, 04:32 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 25th, 2013, 12:50 PM
Those interviews are worth listening to.

I think Stephen knows a lot, and it's good to hear things from his point of view.
One thing that really stood out to me was that he said Stan was looking to the future and seeing what was possible with the technology.  I don't think Stan did everything he explains in his papers and lectures, but he learned enough from his experiments and observations to say that they were possible.

Also keep in mind, Stan died right in front of him during a meeting with investors. ..That would put a lot of fear in someone.
an interesting correlation shows steven´s patent explicitely focussing on gas generation maximizing ringing. those oscillations are similar to stans oscillations by alternator and by VIC.
RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #107, on September 26th, 2013, 01:30 AM »Last edited on September 26th, 2013, 01:34 AM by bussi04
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 25th, 2013, 03:08 PM
Say Bussi, I need to ask. Have you or did you have full permission from h20power to post his document?
If not, please, it needs to be taken down.
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=8246&postcount=28

disscussion there also goes into detail for water ionization.


Yes, I have full permission.


lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #108, on September 26th, 2013, 02:07 AM »
Quote from Lynx on September 25th, 2013, 06:10 AM
Quote from lamare on September 25th, 2013, 05:59 AM
Another aspect is to make sure you are working with Brown's gas and not H2/O2 gas alone. This can be tested by igniting a bubble formed on a soap water solution or by running a torch on the output of the electrolyser and see what this does to concrete, tungsten, etc. If it can melt concrete or tungsten, you can be sure you got Brown's gas.

From what I heard from the friend mentioned, he pulses his electrolyser with about 1.8V per individual cell instead of 2V, so slightly less than normal. According to him, that's when you get Brown's gas and not much H2/O2 gas. Yet another claim which needs to be tested and confirmed, BUT gives you something to test and ponder about...
Is it at any specific pulsing frequency he gets Brown's gas or is it "only" depending on the voltage applied to the cell?
Thanks.
Quote from Matt Watts on September 25th, 2013, 08:32 AM
So the electrolyzer I built is a 59 (4 x 6 in) plate dry cell, running from 117 volts (about 128 volt DC bridge rectified) with NaOH.  This cell would not run my 305cc engine at full output (approx 13 LpM), but when using it to drive a torch head, it will:
  • weld brass to concrete

  • vaporize 1/4" titanium rod
  • burn a hole through ceramic plate
  • explode glass on contact
  • set off every car alarm in the neighborhood when igniting a one gallon milk jug full of it.
[/list]

So what is it producing Hydroxy or Brown's gas?
There's an article out in Dutch now about the guy I referred to. His name is Frank Collaris, but there are quite a lot of people involved within and around his company:

http://www.wanttoknow.nl/nieuws/doorbraak-op-het-gebied-van-watergas/

His website is: http://evomotion.nl/

Google translation of the article:
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wanttoknow.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fdoorbraak-op-het-gebied-van-watergas%2F

I hand edited some of the more interesting parts:
Quote
In our laboratory we have been able to develop an improved cell which not only uses less energy, but also produces a higher quality gas. You heard it right. There are differences in the quality of the gas. These differences are even very large. Thus, it is not only important to look at the amount of gas, but also to the quality and to what you want to do with it. So we have learned how to make the gas do what we want it to do. We can make the gas more or less explosive this way. It is also possible to optimize the flame temperature by smart controlling and informing [measuring, data acquisition I guess].

We know the cells which have been around for many years in the trade [industry] which have holes in the plates. These holes have disappeared in our new cell. The water is brought into the cell in a different way and the gas is quickly discharged. As a result, there is no short-circuit current in the cell anymore. The result is that the cell is less hot and consumes less [energy]. Herewith, the explosive force has also increased sharply. Where we needed 30 liters of gas per minute before to run a motor 100%, this now only consumes 20 liters. That's a nice difference. We have never tested this higher quality on saving systems, but only at 100%. In addition, these new cells can be put under pressure and no longer have bolts going through them. The result is a cell that remains completely closed and causes no problems with possibly leaking rubbers. Also, an endurance test shows that there is no wear on the plates.

[...]

The Cawa engine
This is a so-called CHP-installation. This stands for cogeneration or combined heat and power. There is a petrol engine which is lightly adjusted for water gas, which is powering a dynamo [generator]. The heat from the engine can optionally be used to heat a home or a business premises. The electricity can be supplied back to the network, or can be used as a stand-alone system. The only thing the Cawa engine needs for this is tap water! The first Cawa engine is almost ready. It is a fully computerized system with unique solutions. The Cawa engine is calculated on 8500 operating hours. Various capacities can be realized from 50 to 6000 kWh. The system generating 50 kW electrical power costs € 85.000, - and has a payback period of about 1.5 to 2 years. The first model has an electrical capacity of 50 kWh and a thermal capacity of 65kWh.

The Cawa engine is the breakthrough which has been worked on very hard within EvoMotion. The market will be turned quite upside down, since because of this abundance is created in a world dominated by scarcity. Not only do we do that with an adequate capacity, but the Cawa engine is also technically the most ingenious what can be offered in the CHP technology.
As is stated in the article, the first commercial system is not yet ready. Frank has done a lot of research on this stuff. He started with a small generator, which I have seen running on water gas two years ago in april 2012 at a free energy gathering in France, where we both attended and spent a couple of days together, although there was no closed loop or any demonstration of excess energy at the time.

In May 2012, they were to demonstrate their stuff, but quite a lot of things went wrong and the demonstration was, well, a disaster:

http://kloptdatwel.nl/2012/05/28/skepsis-en-niburu-op-windesheim-over-watergas/

The original critics site appears to be down, but I have a mirror:
http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/skepsis_discussie_html/Skepsis%20en%20Niburu%20op%20Windesheim%20over%20watergas.html

Needless to say, Frank became a bit more careful with his communications with the outside world, as was also mentioned in the article above:
Quote
So, a lot of experience has been gathered in the course of time. Experience those who want to can draw from, because we believe in openness. We know that there are several manufacturers of watergascels which will run into the same problems. They will not communicate about this, however, because their starting position is to make a profit. This is of course everyone's right, but we have a difficulty with that when it comes at the expense of the customer. HHO is an alternative to fossil fuels and should be brought to the market with the utmost care, in order o avoid people not taking this alternative seriously because of unpleasant experiences. In our opinion, HHO deserves all the positive attention it can get. This has been a very important reason for us to stop the communication to the outside world for the time being until the moment that many questions are answered.
To come back to the question: What Frank and his team did was to make an existing (old) generator with a Mercedes engine completely computer controlled. Not only the ignition timing, but also the control of the electrolyser and water fog system. This enabled them to do a lot of experiments on-the-fly with a running system and also allowed them to tune the system to the application.

When we are talking about these kinds of "brute force" electrolysers, both the voltage and pulse frequency applied influence the kind of gas being produced. While we do not yet fully understand the exact physics involved, we do have enough evidence to support the hypothesis that HHO or Brown's gas is a phenomenon whereby water is transformed into a form consisting of crystalised sheets with a honeycomb structure, very similar to ice BUT without the H+ ions which bind the crystal sheets together as in ice. We also have reason to believe that the formation of gas bubbles somehow containing this particular shape of water involves the formation of a Pollack "EZ" zone, characterized by a negatively charged region forming the interface between the positive plate and the "bulk" water within the electrolyte.

The voltage across this "EZ" region appears to be a very important parameter controlling the thickness of this layer, because of the electric fields involved. It also appears that when the voltage across this interface is suddenly removed, we are left with an EZ layer which is unstable because the negatively charged crystal sheets repell one another. It appears that pulsed D.C. across this interface at the anode is the main mechanism for creating this "Brown's gas" which has a number of very strange properties, while acoustic resonance of the fluid column in the electrolyser adds additional instability to this EZ layer and thus appears to also influence the amount of Brown's gas being produced.

Besides this phenomenon, there is a considerable current being driven trough the electrolyte, which appears to be responsible for the creation of H2 / O2 gas along the normal electrolysis process.

So, you end up with a system that has a number of parameters which can be used to control the type of gas being produced:

1) Voltage across the plates. Higher voltages than 2V appear to increase the amount of H2/O2 gas formed along normal electrolysis, while voltages around 1.8V per cell appear to result in mostly Brown's gas being formed.

2) Total current trough the system. More net current trough the system  appears to  increase the amount of H2/O2 gas being formed along normal electrolysis.

3) Pulsed D.C. appears to enable the production of Brown's gas. The pulse width, on/off timing and frequency appears to control the thicnkess and instability of the EZ layer and thus influences the amount of Brown's gas being produced.

4) The frequency of the pulses also appears to connect to acoustic resonance of the fluid column in between the electrolyser plates and thus appears to influence the amount of Brown's gas being produced indirectly.

So, controlling and tuning all these parameters make it possible to control the quality of the gas being produced by the electrolyser and adapt this to the application, which is also what Frank has done.

And these are only the parameters related to the gas production. Other parameters which also need to be controlled are:

1) ignition timing (and "waste spark" suppression when applicable)

2) amount and quality of "cold water fog" injected into the air stream.

There appears to be a difference between "fog" and "mist". I haven't looked at this in detail, but the size of the droplets being injected appears to be yet another parameter which influences the result.

To cut a long story short: just about every parameter you can think of has to be made adjustable and then one can tune the system to find the "hot spots" which give the desired results. For each of these parameters there appears to be an optimal setting. Get one or two of these too far from their optimum in your particular system and you can forget about getting a working system.



Amsy

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #109, on September 26th, 2013, 02:27 AM »Last edited on September 26th, 2013, 03:05 AM by Amsy
Quote from HMS-776 on September 24th, 2013, 12:38 PM
What you are describing is a flyback transformer.
There are at least two problems I see with using a flyback transformer.
1. With a flyback transformer you do not produce a continuous output current.  This allows the cell to discharge between pulses (unless you provide more current to the cell than will leak off during that time).
2. The flyback transformer provides a small current at a high voltage.
You cannot charge a leaky capacitor with a high voltage low current pulse.  You must give more current to the cell than it can leak off.

Look at the waveforms from I posted here
http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=646&page=6
At post 104 you can see what happens when there exists an off time between pulses. The cell discharges between pulses which hinders the charging proces

Another way to look at it is by comparing current to water and the cell as a bucket with a hole in the bottom of it.

To charge the bucket full of water it does not matter what the pressure (voltage) the water is.  What is important is that you provide more water (higher current) to the bucket than what leaks out of the hole. That is how you charge (fill) the bucket.
Indeed it is a modified flyback.
I thought in the last posts not about loading the water fuell capacitor, because this will not work, like you said. I agree to this.
But it works to load the magnetic core and the air gap to a maximum energy storage. When pulsing is turend off completely (gate), the magnetic field collaps and induces a high voltage to the WFC.
Yes you are right, there has to be at least some amount of energy stored because of the leak current. Normally this water explosions/dielectric breakdown are made with capacitors like graneau did with some µF. But they are very expensive and rare. http://open-source-energy.org/rwg42985/russ/Patents/Electrically_Induced_Explosions_in_Water.pdf
Graneau did the experiment with ~100J (capacity 2µF and 10kV).
The air gap on the pictures of meyer VIC give the impression that there was a lot of energy stored in it, the size is very unusal. When pulsing stops (gate), the magnetic field collaps and initiated a high voltage puls. As higher the energy stored in the core, as higher the voltage will be depending on the current flow.
Normally in this way of processing, the leakcurrent is very important. Deionized water (pure) should work better.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer#Leakage_flux

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #110, on September 26th, 2013, 03:09 AM »
Quote from lamare on September 26th, 2013, 02:07 AM
So, you end up with a system that has a number of parameters which can be used to control the type of gas being produced:

1) Voltage across the plates. Higher voltages than 2V appear to increase the amount of H2/O2 gas formed along normal electrolysis, while voltages around 1.8V per cell appear to result in mostly Brown's gas being formed.

2) Total current trough the system. More net current trough the system  appears to  increase the amount of H2/O2 gas being formed along normal electrolysis.

3) Pulsed D.C. appears to enable the production of Brown's gas. The pulse width, on/off timing and frequency appears to control the thicnkess and instability of the EZ layer and thus influences the amount of Brown's gas being produced.

4) The frequency of the pulses also appears to connect to acoustic resonance of the fluid column in between the electrolyser plates and thus appears to influence the amount of Brown's gas being produced indirectly.

So, controlling and tuning all these parameters make it possible to control the quality of the gas being produced by the electrolyser and adapt this to the application, which is also what Frank has done.

And these are only the parameters related to the gas production. Other parameters which also need to be controlled are:

1) ignition timing (and "waste spark" suppression when applicable)

2) amount and quality of "cold water fog" injected into the air stream.

...................To cut a long story short: just about every parameter you can think of has to be made adjustable and then one can tune the system to find the "hot spots" which give the desired results. For each of these parameters there appears to be an optimal setting. Get one or two of these too far from their optimum in your particular system and you can forget about getting a working system.
Thanks, most interesting

freethisone

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #111, on September 26th, 2013, 02:34 PM »
Quote from Lynx on September 26th, 2013, 03:09 AM
Quote from lamare on September 26th, 2013, 02:07 AM
So, you end up with a system that has a number of parameters which can be used to control the type of gas being produced:

1) Voltage across the plates. Higher voltages than 2V appear to increase the amount of H2/O2 gas formed along normal electrolysis, while voltages around 1.8V per cell appear to result in mostly Brown's gas being formed.

2) Total current trough the system. More net current trough the system  appears to  increase the amount of H2/O2 gas being formed along normal electrolysis.

3) Pulsed D.C. appears to enable the production of Brown's gas. The pulse width, on/off timing and frequency appears to control the thicnkess and instability of the EZ layer and thus influences the amount of Brown's gas being produced.

4) The frequency of the pulses also appears to connect to acoustic resonance of the fluid column in between the electrolyser plates and thus appears to influence the amount of Brown's gas being produced indirectly.

So, controlling and tuning all these parameters make it possible to control the quality of the gas being produced by the electrolyser and adapt this to the application, which is also what Frank has done.

And these are only the parameters related to the gas production. Other parameters which also need to be controlled are:

1) ignition timing (and "waste spark" suppression when applicable)

2) amount and quality of "cold water fog" injected into the air stream.

...................To cut a long story short: just about every parameter you can think of has to be made adjustable and then one can tune the system to find the "hot spots" which give the desired results. For each of these parameters there appears to be an optimal setting. Get one or two of these too far from their optimum in your particular system and you can forget about getting a working system.
Thanks, most interesting
hi, this may seem like a rather large favor to ask, but perhaps you can do an experiment for me with the cold fog?

or someone who has a cold fog machine. I would like to see a pvc pipe, and induction coil introduce along the fog stream. also because its pvc it may be negatively charged. adds ions. heat positive ions.  


im an advocate of the vaporized method. or in this case a high potential is added to the atom by some sort of expansion.  
i would like to see some testing along these line. have you considered it?

cheers..


Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #112, on September 26th, 2013, 02:35 PM »
Quote from bussi04 on September 26th, 2013, 01:30 AM
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 25th, 2013, 03:08 PM
Say Bussi, I need to ask. Have you or did you have full permission from h20power to post his document?
If not, please, it needs to be taken down.
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/showpost.php?p=8246&postcount=28

disscussion there also goes into detail for water ionization.


Yes, I have full permission.
Thanks Bussi.:D

Lynx

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #113, on September 26th, 2013, 03:53 PM »
Quote from freethisone on September 26th, 2013, 02:34 PM
hi, this may seem like a rather large favor to ask, but perhaps you can do an experiment for me with the cold fog?

or someone who has a cold fog machine. I would like to see a pvc pipe, and induction coil introduce along the fog stream. also because its pvc it may be negatively charged. adds ions. heat positive ions.  


im an advocate of the vaporized method. or in this case a high potential is added to the atom by some sort of expansion.  
i would like to see some testing along these line. have you considered it?

cheers..
Sorry, were you asking me?
If you were then no, I have not.

HMS-776

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #114, on September 26th, 2013, 04:06 PM »Last edited on September 26th, 2013, 04:09 PM by HMS-776
Amsy,

From all the research I have done I would say the vic is a pulse transformer, with chokes added to provide a continuous but restricted output current.

Yes that picture does show a gap in the core.  However,  if you look at the measurements you will see that each core leg length is identical.  Not only that but the coil former has no way to keep that gap in place.  Any vibration will change the inductance drastically and throw off the whole circuit.

Also, every inductor stores energy in its magnetic field.  The gap is not required.
I know irondmax states the core had a gap and it must have one to work.  The fact is that he never explains why.  It's not because the gap causes the coil to act as a flyback transformer.  It's because the gap reduces the inductance of the coils.  The reduced inductance acts as a smaller impedance and allows more current to flow to charge the cell. The equation V=L*di/dt  proves that out.

The problem with adding the gap to the core is that it adds leakage inductance.  In a pulse transformer this leads to an increased leading edge rise time and a reduced efficiency. If the leakage inductance is too high it can cause excessive backswing (which will cause the cell to discharge or partially discharge) and can even cause the coil to output AC.

It would be much better to design a coil without the core gap. If you want a unipolar square wave output from the coil you have to minimize the parasitic elements. If not all your doing is giving up efficiency.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #115, on September 26th, 2013, 08:14 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on September 26th, 2013, 04:06 PM
Amsy,

From all the research I have done I would say the vic is a pulse transformer, with chokes added to provide a continuous but restricted output current.

Yes that picture does show a gap in the core.  However,  if you look at the measurements you will see that each core leg length is identical.  Not only that but the coil former has no way to keep that gap in place.  Any vibration will change the inductance drastically and throw off the whole circuit.

Also, every inductor stores energy in its magnetic field.  The gap is not required.
I know irondmax states the core had a gap and it must have one to work.  The fact is that he never explains why.  It's not because the gap causes the coil to act as a flyback transformer.  It's because the gap reduces the inductance of the coils.  The reduced inductance acts as a smaller impedance and allows more current to flow to charge the cell. The equation V=L*di/dt  proves that out.

The problem with adding the gap to the core is that it adds leakage inductance.  In a pulse transformer this leads to an increased leading edge rise time and a reduced efficiency. If the leakage inductance is too high it can cause excessive backswing (which will cause the cell to discharge or partially discharge) and can even cause the coil to output AC.

It would be much better to design a coil without the core gap. If you want a unipolar square wave output from the coil you have to minimize the parasitic elements. If not all your doing is giving up efficiency.
I have to agree with this HMS, from my simple experiments with the core, I as well concluded there would be no gap.  

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #116, on September 27th, 2013, 12:11 AM »
Quote from freethisone on September 26th, 2013, 02:34 PM
Quote from Lynx on September 26th, 2013, 03:09 AM
Quote from lamare on September 26th, 2013, 02:07 AM
So, you end up with a system that has a number of parameters which can be used to control the type of gas being produced:

1) Voltage across the plates. Higher voltages than 2V appear to increase the amount of H2/O2 gas formed along normal electrolysis, while voltages around 1.8V per cell appear to result in mostly Brown's gas being formed.

2) Total current trough the system. More net current trough the system  appears to  increase the amount of H2/O2 gas being formed along normal electrolysis.

3) Pulsed D.C. appears to enable the production of Brown's gas. The pulse width, on/off timing and frequency appears to control the thicnkess and instability of the EZ layer and thus influences the amount of Brown's gas being produced.

4) The frequency of the pulses also appears to connect to acoustic resonance of the fluid column in between the electrolyser plates and thus appears to influence the amount of Brown's gas being produced indirectly.

So, controlling and tuning all these parameters make it possible to control the quality of the gas being produced by the electrolyser and adapt this to the application, which is also what Frank has done.

And these are only the parameters related to the gas production. Other parameters which also need to be controlled are:

1) ignition timing (and "waste spark" suppression when applicable)

2) amount and quality of "cold water fog" injected into the air stream.

...................To cut a long story short: just about every parameter you can think of has to be made adjustable and then one can tune the system to find the "hot spots" which give the desired results. For each of these parameters there appears to be an optimal setting. Get one or two of these too far from their optimum in your particular system and you can forget about getting a working system.
Thanks, most interesting
hi, this may seem like a rather large favor to ask, but perhaps you can do an experiment for me with the cold fog?

or someone who has a cold fog machine. I would like to see a pvc pipe, and induction coil introduce along the fog stream. also because its pvc it may be negatively charged. adds ions. heat positive ions.  


im an advocate of the vaporized method. or in this case a high potential is added to the atom by some sort of expansion.  
i would like to see some testing along these line. have you considered it?

cheers..
I am currently working on building a Cramton cell replication with an electropolished anode, where I plan to use a carburetor with adjustable  nozzle for creating the cold water fog:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/MeyerWFCReplicationProject#ColdFogWithCarburetor

As far as I could find out, a carburator actually vaporizes the fuel:

http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2012/08/01/hmn_feature14.html
Quote
For gasoline to be burned in an engine, three things need to occur. It must be atomized (broken into small particles); emulsified (mixed with air); and vaporized (changed into a rarefied form). Only then is gasoline a suitable fuel for an internal combustion engine. The carburetor's job is to prepare the gasoline to make that phase change from a liquid to a vapor. If the fuel is not atomized sufficiently, then the other steps cannot take place properly. So first and foremost, the gasoline needs to be broken into small particles.

When discussing atomization, we have to remember that the gasoline is still in liquid form--only instead of being one mass, it is in tiny droplets. An easy way to think about this is with an analogy: It's like putting steak into a meat grinder. It's still a solid, but now it's in small pieces. An atomized liquid is still a liquid, but one that's "ground" into droplets.
http://www.quickfueltechnology.com/technical-info/carb-class-basic-principals-of-carburetor-operation
Quote
Another phenomenon a carburetor requires is something we refer to as draw. Draw is essentially what the engine wants from the carburetor in terms of air and fuel. When an engine starts going through the RPM range, draw will increase (naturally as engine speed increases air and fuel demand will as well). As draw increases a carburetor must react to properly mix the air and fuel together. Air and fuel mixture is very important and varies depending on the type of fuel you use as well the elevation you are racing at. The word carburetor gurus use for the process of mixing air with fuel is “atomization”. Atomization is where things get tricky and some black magic comes to play; carburetor manufacturers, modifiers and other fuel system related companies are always searching for more efficient ways to atomize fuel and air.

So how does the atomized fuel get to where it needs to be? This is a question that many might know the answer to - the Venturi effect - named after the Italian physicist Giovanni Venturi, the Venturi effect is a phenomenon where pressure is reduced after air flows through a constricted area. The constricted area in questions is easy to spot as it is the skinniest part of the “barrel” on a carburetor. To explain a little further, air rushes past the area with the smallest circumference causing it to speed up and form an area of low pressure right below the venturi, this low pressure will in turn pull (remember our term draw) atomized fuel from the booster venturi and send it along to the intake runners. One thing nearly all carburetors have in common no matter how many barrels is the venturi.
http://www.autoracing1.com/DaveC/010703Carburetors.asp
Quote
If we try to send gasoline to the combustion chamber in a liquid state the engine will not burn it all, we then have a condition known as “flooding”. We must first atomize the fuel, just like the atomizer nozzle on top of a bottle of Windex glass cleaner. The first real float-type carburetor was invented around 1896 in Germany. Prior to this invention carburetors used very primitive means of delivering fuel, like wicking the fuel into the air stream.

The Maybach carburetor, named after its inventor, was very similar in principle to the carburetors that followed for many years known as updraft carburetors. Even sidedraft and downdraft carburetors use the same basic principles of fuel bowl, float and mixing chamber. Around the turn of the century the venturi was integrated into the carburetor to help atomize the fuel before sending it to the engine. By reducing the diameter of the air inlet (venturi) in the carburetor the speed of the airflow increases, just like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose. The increase in airspeed siphons the fuel from the fuel bowl and breaks it into small particles (atomization). This basic principle remains today on any gas engine utilizing a carburetor, pretty much limited to lawn tractors and NASCAR.
So, a carburetor is essentially a professionally constructed and optimized version of the Venturi system described by Kelly which has accordingly been used by an Selwyn Harris of Australia successfully:

http://free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapt10.html



Once I get to the point of getting something built with which I can at least make an attempt to get it running, I might be able to experiment with a coil around the tube connecting the carburetor to the engine. But there's still a long way to go before we get to that point.

First problem to solve is to get rid of the waste spark. The engine I intended to use turns out to be a flathead engine. I had no idea these were still being built, but they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flathead_engine
Quote
Flathead designs are still commonly built new for many small engine applications of one and two cylinders, such as lawnmowers, rotary tillers, and two-wheel tractors.
In a flathead engine, the valves are placed at the side of the cylinder, so there are no rocker arms which one could glue a magnet to. :(

Here's a pdf with drawings of the engine I intended to use:
http://www.tuks.nl/WFCProject/img/Engine_Carburator/BS_100700-100799_illustrated_parts_list.pdf

It may still be possible to use this engine, but getting rid of the waste spark is pretty challenging. One possibility is to use gears, as has been done before:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Self-Looped_Anton_HHO_Cell_System

Quote
These 2 plastic gears were used to make their own ignition system to control the sparking at an adjusted phase angle versus rotor position from top dead center.

With it they could varify the degree from TDC to have thee spark ignite and suppress the waste spark as it occurs in normal ignition systems.
With this they can control the ignition timing of the motor for optimum mechanical and thus electrical output from the motor-generator.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #117, on September 27th, 2013, 03:37 PM »Last edited on September 27th, 2013, 03:44 PM by Jeff Nading
Hi lamare,
 What you are really talking about here with a venturi is  Bernoulli's principle, examples of this and how it is possible for an airplane to fly [wings, propeller thrust, jet engine thrust] , a sailboat to move on the water and  rocket propulsion. The key being Bernoulli's principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

Venturi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

Just thought it to be pertinent to the discussion.:D

FaradayEZ

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #118, on September 27th, 2013, 03:43 PM »
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 03:37 PM
Hi lamare,
 What you are really talking about here with a venturi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect
 is  Bernoulli's principle, examples of this and how it is possible for an airplane to fly [wings, propeller thrust, jet engine thrust] , a sailboat to move on the water and  rocket propulsion. the key being Bernoulli's principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

Just thought it to be pertinent to the discussion.:D
Bananamooss!!  LOL  ;)

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #119, on September 27th, 2013, 05:00 PM »
Quote from FaradayEZ on September 27th, 2013, 03:43 PM
Quote from Jeff Nading on September 27th, 2013, 03:37 PM
Hi lamare,
 What you are really talking about here with a venturi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect
 is  Bernoulli's principle, examples of this and how it is possible for an airplane to fly [wings, propeller thrust, jet engine thrust] , a sailboat to move on the water and  rocket propulsion. the key being Bernoulli's principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

Just thought it to be pertinent to the discussion.:D
Bananamooss!!  LOL  ;)
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

phil

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #120, on September 28th, 2013, 03:42 AM »
"So, a carburetor is essentially a professionally constructed and optimized version of the Venturi system described by Kelly which has accordingly been used by an Selwyn Harris of Australia successfully: "

I have been in contact with Selwyn for a while now, and have been working on a replication of his hogg system. Its been slow going due to lack of funds and time but heres the story so far

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=305



"With it they could varify the degree from TDC to have thee spark ignite and suppress the waste spark as it occurs in normal ignition systems.
With this they can control the ignition timing of the motor for optimum mechanical and thus electrical output from the motor-generator.[/quote]"

I was thinking of some kind of sensor on the flywheel with a flip-flop (pulse on/pulse off) circuit to cut the power to the ignition.

1st Sensor pulse - circuit flips - ignition on
2nd sensor pulse - circuit flops - ignition off
...and so on.

 With a manual overide button when starting in case the sensor is out of sync for the first firing pulse. (maybe one of the electronics gurus could comment? Is this viable?)

Matt Watts

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #121, on September 28th, 2013, 05:42 AM »Last edited on September 28th, 2013, 05:46 AM by Matt Watts
Quote from phil on September 28th, 2013, 03:42 AM
I was thinking of some kind of sensor on the flywheel with a flip-flop (pulse on/pulse off) circuit to cut the power to the ignition.

1st Sensor pulse - circuit flips - ignition on
2nd sensor pulse - circuit flops - ignition off
...and so on.

 With a manual overide button when starting in case the sensor is out of sync for the first firing pulse. (maybe one of the electronics gurus could comment? Is this viable?)
A simple divide by two (flip-flop) circuit will do that if you want.
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/counter/count_1.html

The trick is to always keep the ignition circuit powered, so you only have to hit the sync (override) button once.  If you know the engine should run, try to start it and if it fails, toggle with the override.  If you don't know whether the engine should start or not, look at the intake or exhaust valve to see which stroke you are on and toggle accordingly.  It's typically easier to find the waste spark and do a reset to the flip-flop there--that's the point where the exhaust valve closes and the the intake immediately opens.

And yes, this method does indeed work, I've successfully used it.  You just want to be real sure your hall effect (or whatever) sensor never misses a pulse.  Where you typically get missed up is starting.  If the piston bounces from compression slightly backwards, sometimes you'll register two pulses when there should have only been one, then you're out of sync.  If it's a pull-start engine, slowly pull through the strokes, you'll feel the compression stroke; right at the top of that you should trigger a spark, if not, toggle the flip-flop.

HTH,

M@

lamare

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #122, on September 30th, 2013, 03:34 AM »Last edited on September 30th, 2013, 03:39 AM by lamare
Quote from phil on September 28th, 2013, 03:42 AM
"So, a carburetor is essentially a professionally constructed and optimized version of the Venturi system described by Kelly which has accordingly been used by an Selwyn Harris of Australia successfully: "

I have been in contact with Selwyn for a while now, and have been working on a replication of his hogg system. Its been slow going due to lack of funds and time but heres the story so far

http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=305



"With it they could varify the degree from TDC to have thee spark ignite and suppress the waste spark as it occurs in normal ignition systems.
With this they can control the ignition timing of the motor for optimum mechanical and thus electrical output from the motor-generator."

I was thinking of some kind of sensor on the flywheel with a flip-flop (pulse on/pulse off) circuit to cut the power to the ignition.

1st Sensor pulse - circuit flips - ignition on
2nd sensor pulse - circuit flops - ignition off
...and so on.

 With a manual overide button when starting in case the sensor is out of sync for the first firing pulse. (maybe one of the electronics gurus could comment? Is this viable?)
If you have an engine with overhead valves (OHV), then one can glue a magnet onto one of the valve mechanisms and trigger a hall sensor with that, which can give you a signal:



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

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


I bought a generator powered by a Honda GX 160 with overhead valves for that reason. I am thinking of placing two hall sensors on the system, one on the fly wheel and one on the valve mechanism and then use an Arduino to calculate a delay and fire the ignition.

I ordered a couple of TLE 4905L and TLE 4945L hall sensor IC's for that purpose. Don't know yet if these work for these purposes and, if yes, which one works best for what.

phil

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #123, on September 30th, 2013, 05:08 PM »
Ive got a 50cc moped engine. The camshaft rotates at half engine speed, i can fit a magnet to the cam sprocket but couldnt find a hall sensor that could take more than 150 degrees C. Dont know  about a magnet or glue than can take rocker cover temps either.

Jeff Nading

RE: Meyer's WFC - the real science behind it?
« Reply #124, on September 30th, 2013, 05:13 PM »
Quote from phil on September 30th, 2013, 05:08 PM
Ive got a 50cc moped engine. The camshaft rotates at half engine speed, i can fit a magnet to the cam sprocket but couldnt find a hall sensor that could take more than 150 degrees C. Dont know  about a magnet or glue than can take rocker cover temps either.
Hey Phil, JB Weld two part glue you mix together will handle 500 degrees, just make sure it say's it on the back of the package, because they also make a lower temp glue as well.:D