Quote from HMS-776 on October 2nd, 2013, 03:47 PM

Lynx, I have achieved frequency doubling (so you know I'm not just talking nonsense).

See my thread here: http://www.open-source-energy.org/?tid=646&page=7 (see posts 126, 128, 135, & 138)

When you get frequency doubling you will not see 2 pulses. You will see a single pulse that is 2x the length of the pulse you put into the primary coil.

To get the effect you must have the coils connected so that they are series-aiding.
Also,  I had the best results when my chokes were on a separate core from the pulse transformer.

Btw, if you want to get the same current waveform that the vic produces, use a full wave rectified ac signal. Just like Meyers early design using an autotransformer.

Thanks HMS, appreciate it
For now it's a really open question regarding how I should go about experimenting here and now I have atleast 3 options to choose from so I'm thinking I'll just check them all out and see where they'll take me.
Getting a step charge going should be really indicative to that you've got some pretty interesting stuff going on in your cell, well worth looking further into.

Abstractly speaking of course...

Having pained my way through the many Meyer's threads, I'd like to propose none of us know exactly how Stan's stuff works.  No matter, we have brains and can figure stuff out.  So suppose we think about what it is we want to build and come up with an engineering embodiment of how one might actually accomplish the goal of building a highly efficient electrolysis process.

So here is the meat of what I think we need to engineer:

We need a device that will electromagnetically create, then maintain the conditions within an electrolysis cell to promote the exchange of liquid water to its composite gases.  The idea here is to use electrical energy to initialize the reaction and then use some fraction of that same energy source to sustain the reaction.  So in lay-terms, we pay full price to get things started, then we pulse or otherwise reduce input power once things are cook'n.  The end effect appears as normal DC electrolysis, but the power assumed to be present, is cut by some factor.

So when we pulse, we have by-definition an on-time and an off-time.  During the on-time, what we do not want is to push in the energy required for both the on-time AND that of the off-time.  During the off-time, we want the reaction to sustain itself.  So in the case of steady DC, you pay for energy during every nanosecond.  For this design, we pay that same instantaneous quantity of energy, but only during the on-time.  In both this and the DC case, the gas production remains the same.

Everyone good so far?

So now, we need some sort of component that when you pop it with a voltage potential, it draws no amperage.  It only draws amperage if you leave the voltage potential connected too long and we won't do that.  What component does this?  Yes, an inductor.  Some are asking, why the crap do we need one of those?  What good would it do us?  Well, I'll tell you.  It would allow us to place a charge on something--an electrolysis cell.  We can take this voltage potential and place it across the cell.  But we don't want to leave it there too long or the cell will dissipate that potential.  If we pop the inductor with a voltage, then pop the cell with the voltage in the inductor, then disconnect it fast enough, we never once had current flow.  Why?  Because inductors don't like changes in potential and will resist them.  How do the resist?  They delay current flow.  That's why they call them chokes.

Your eyes getting big yet?

So what do we have so far?  What does the cell see?  The cell keeps seeing a voltage potential across its plates but as soon as it tries to let current flow through the water, the voltage potential goes away (gets switched off).  Almost immediately after it sees the voltage potential go away, it sees it again and so on and so on.  Now the 64 thousand dollar question is:  Does the water break down with this repeating voltage potential even though there is no current flow?  I'm sorry to say, I don't know.  No one has ever done that before while I looked over their shoulder.

Now some might be wondering, if we pop the inductor, then pop the cell with no current flow, when we go to pop the inductor again, it's still mostly energized.  What do we do?  My answer would be to drain that charge off from the input side, not the output side and reuse it.  Every so often, dump the inductor across a capacitor, then take that juice from the capacitor and push it right back on the next cycle.  As long as we don't saturate the core of the inductor, we can pop it with a potential and it doesn't smack us back with current flow.

Can we engineer such a device?  I think so, we have some really fast, cheap and accurate components to choose from.  And the best part of all is that my concept I'm presenting here might have been successfully used before.  There's a company named Flyback Energy that does a very similar thing in their inverter products.

So what I'd really like is for y'all to poke big holes in this little brainstorm of mine and lets refine the concept and see if we can build it.

Quote from Matt Watts on October 2nd, 2013, 10:23 PM

Abstractly speaking of course...


Does the water break down with this repeating voltage potential even though there is no current flow?

Could one check this part of it with just a glass of water and some electronics?

After such POC, the willingness to invest time/money/effort etc. should increase even more..

(Just a question, if it can't it can't)

Thanks Matt, that's exactly what I'm out to get here, one way or the other.
IDK if we can set it in stone, but high voltage do seem to be one of the prereqs for a true to the word Meyer WFC.
Maybe even low current, that is the current going to the cell.
IMHO what we can set in stone is max output of gas and no heat, atleast compared Watt for Watt with traditional brute force water electrolysis.
Let's for arguments sake say then that high voltage and low current to the cell is part of it all.
In that case we could stick to that, regardless of how much of a wild goose chase it is, in the end we can say that we atleast gave it a shot and that it's time to re-eveluate what we have and come up with something new.
While we're at it, let's also keep an open mind regarding such things as electropolished tubes/plates, double layers, various dielectric breakdowns etc etc as I also think one or several of these will help explaining what it is we're supposed to be looking for.

Finally got a simulator up and running, now I atleast have means to simulate what I think a true to the word Meyer VIC should be all about.
If it's the right way or not, well I guess that will just show itself in time.
AAMOF I'm already seeing tendencies to step charging at about 91 kHz, gonna see where that takes me.
Hopefully I'll be able to reverse engineer a VIC that which feeds the cell the way I'd like it to.
It's a start anyway

Quote from Lynx on October 15th, 2013, 02:27 PM

Finally got a simulator up and running, now I atleast have means to simulate what I think a true to the word Meyer VIC should be all about.
If it's the right way or not, well I guess that will just show itself in time.
AAMOF I'm already seeing tendencies to step charging at about 91 kHz, gonna see where that takes me.
Hopefully I'll be able to reverse engineer a VIC that which feeds the cell the way I'd like it to.
It's a start anyway

Nice work Lynx. :D:P

Quote from Jeff Nading on October 15th, 2013, 06:24 PM

Quote from Lynx on October 15th, 2013, 02:27 PM

Finally got a simulator up and running, now I atleast have means to simulate what I think a true to the word Meyer VIC should be all about.
If it's the right way or not, well I guess that will just show itself in time.

Nice work Lynx. :D:P

Looks stunning, do i understand it right, that you can run this schematic on the computer and it tells you what outcome at what input etc. And if necessary debug it?

Nice tools nowadays i would say.

 

Quote from FaradayEZ on October 16th, 2013, 02:38 PM

Quote from Jeff Nading on October 15th, 2013, 06:24 PM

Quote from Lynx on October 15th, 2013, 02:27 PM

Finally got a simulator up and running, now I atleast have means to simulate what I think a true to the word Meyer VIC should be all about.
If it's the right way or not, well I guess that will just show itself in time.

Nice work Lynx. :D:P

Looks stunning, do i understand it right, that you can run this schematic on the computer and it tells you what outcome at what input etc. And if necessary debug it?

Nice tools nowadays i would say.

This was done in Express SCH, http://www.expresspcb.com/expresspcbhtm/Download.htm
Debugging was done the hard way using components.

Lynx and Everyone

[attachment=4454]

I have had a successful replication in multisim for a while, posted it on my thread VIC testing (Findings and notes).

in the circuit R1 can be adjusted to simulate leakage current, C1 can be adjusted to change the capacitance. If the current is too small in relation to the leakage current then the capacitor will not step charge. The value of R1 also effects the maximum voltage the capacitor will charge to.

The circuit does not have to be at the Fres to achieve step charging, although in real life it should be at Fres for maximum power transfer. The value of R1 is constant, in real life this value changes with the applied voltage.

[attachment=4455]

Since there are not current-time plotting instruments in multisim (that I know of) I used the 2nd channel on the scope to show what the current does in the circuit. The capacitor voltage is Red while the current is Blue. You'll notice as the capacitor voltage rises that the current falls. At a certain point (when the capacitor reaches max voltage) the current will flatten off (it does not go completely to zero). The flat current is merely the leakage current after the cap is charged.  Basic capacitor charging info but it might be news to some.

In reality the current waveform does not really look like what the blue waveform shows, but it still shows what the current does as the capacitor voltage rises. In the real circuit the current resembles a full-wave rectified AC signal that decreases in amplitude with each pulse as Cv rises.

If anyone wants feel free to copy this into your multisim. I would upload the file but it has some personal info on it I do not wish to share. Just make sure you use the exact values at first, the circuit it touchy. But it can teach us a lot. Enjoy!

Update: Using this setup I have found that it's quite easy actually to get a "step charge" going, I honestly fail to see that it's a a deeply hidden secret somewhere, OTOH "all" I'm missing during the step charge is a "miraculous" increase of gas production, but I'm working on it

The variables I have at my disposal here is the voltage feeding the inductors, the switching frequency for the transistors, the gating frequency including duty cycle for pausing the transistor switching pulse train and also the pulse width of the pulses that which ultimately fires the transistors, thus enabling me to determine for how long the inductors will be charged by the transistors for every switching pulse, which in turn then enables me to indirectly vary the output voltage to the cell from the inductors.

The switching action of the inductors practically makes this a step up (boost) converter which I hope will show me some interesting properties regarding reaching ripe conditions on the cell with regards to high voltage, low current, the water not becoming hot in the process, etc etc.

Anyway, now I have a nice basic setup up and running, so.............to be continued

Quote from Lynx on October 31st, 2013, 11:02 AM

The switching action of the inductors practically makes this a step up (boost) converter which I hope will show me some interesting properties regarding reaching ripe conditions on the cell with regards to high voltage, low current, the water not becoming hot in the process, etc etc.

Anyway, now I have a nice basic setup up and running, so.............to be continued

And are you using electropolished stainless steel?

Quote from FaradayEZ on November 2nd, 2013, 05:00 AM

And are you using electropolished stainless steel?

The inner tube, the cathode, has been treated somehow from what I can tell as it's far glossier compared to the anode.
For now I'm trying to see how the transistors should be switched for getting max output of voltage from the inductors to the cell.
Once there it's time to try things such as electropolished tubes, pressurizing the cell, adding ultrasonic transducers, trying different kinds of water etc etc.
But first things first.

[rant] I'm more and more leaning towards adding a basic DC brute force voltage to the cell which will produce a gas barrier on the cell walls, thus enabling the high voltage pulsetrain to more easily step charge the cell and through the push-pull action of the ever increasing (and between pulses slightly decreasing) voltage at a "resonant" frequency push-pull the hydrogen away from the oxygen, as per Meyer patents and tech briefs.
By providing a DC brute force voltage the impedance of the cell increases in that the gases forms an isolating barrier so the high voltage spikes won't simply just drown in Faradic brute force electrolysis.
I also don't think high voltage alone will do the trick, there has to be some form of push-pull action involved here somehow, prefeably at a specfic frequency, otherwise the high voltage would have to be quite high to do the same job with it's static high voltage brute force action.
[/rant]

Love the rant Lynx.  I think you're starting to see why my Meyer cell is sitting in a box in the corner of the garage.  There is some form of magic there we simply don't understand well enough to control.

How we would modulate a high current DC single with a pulsed high voltage signal is a bit beyond what I know how to build.  I have always thought that somehow the cell has to be initiated with brute force and then switched over to a pulsed signal after it stabilizes.  I just don't know how to make a circuit that will do it.

Quote from Matt Watts on November 9th, 2013, 10:59 AM

Love the rant Lynx.  I think you're starting to see why my Meyer cell is sitting in a box in the corner of the garage.  There is some form of magic there we simply don't understand well enough to control.

How we would modulate a high current DC single with a pulsed high voltage signal is a bit beyond what I know how to build.  I have always thought that somehow the cell has to be initiated with brute force and then switched over to a pulsed signal after it stabilizes.  I just don't know how to make a circuit that will do it.

Wonder if a push-pull circuit from a siren would do the trick. Also I have found with low amps and 12 volts pulsed DC will coat the inner tubes with a white layer of something using a Lawton circuit. :D

This is what I had in mind,

[rant]
What is the sweetspot all about anyway?
There's a few leads to go on: Max voltage, min current, cold process and max gasflow for the applied power and I'd like to say that max voltage and min current  means the voltage/current applied on/to the cell.

I remember the first time I read about Meyer and his work and saw those very terms, low current/high voltage/cold water and thinking 'who would come up with such elaborate conditions if they were nothing more than unsubstantiated made up stories, surely these conditions must have been impossible to come up with unless you actually had seen them in action in a WFC, producing gases this very way?'

The (extreme) opposites regarding electric physical properties of the cell can be found in part when the cavity is completely filled with water and in part when it's completely filled with gas.
The first condition says that the resistance between the electrodes anode/cathode) is at it's minimum and that the cell takes max current for any given applied voltage.
The second condition is of course quite the opposite, the current going through the cell is at a minimum for the same applied voltage as in the first case.
The sweetspot should then be found somewhere in between these 2 extremes IMO.

Min current would mean that as there's only gas in the cavity the process comes to a halt, which means that water has to start filling up the cavity in order for the process to come back up again.
OTOH if too much water enters the cavity there's a chance for the voltage to drop too much and sort of give in to standard Faradic brute force electrolysis, something we don't want to happen.
I do believe that the applied voltage has to be pulsed to the cell in order for it to be able to stepcharge-see-saw apart the water into it's gases H2 & O2, otherwise it's merely standard brute force electrolysis we're talking, which we of course don't want to happen.

The frequency of the pulsed voltage should be somewhere between 5-50 KHz and the voltage should be dependent upon the gap between the electrodes, using the simple rule 'the bigger the gap the higher the voltage'.
As such there's no 'magic' frequency to be used here, I believe that Meyer saw that smaller sized cells, which doesn't produce all that big a gasflow, doesn't really need any higher frequencies, as opposed to larger cells where the gasflow is potentially much bigger, hence the need for higher frequencies in these cells in order for the 'more fast' high voltage pulses to be able to keep an optimum level of gas & water in the cavity, all for the sake of maintaining the sweetspot and producing waterfuelgases the 'Meyer' way.

A simple test cell using 2 small plates, say in the order of 1/4 square inch area each which are incapsulated in a closed environment, which has small holes in the bottom for the water to slowly enter/fill the cavity and also having one of the plates adjustable with regards to closing the gap between the plates could then possibly be used to test this theory for flaws etc.
The voltage to be pulsed to the cell should be in the order of say 500-1000 Volt, the pulsing  frequency should be fixed at say 10 KHz and from the start the plates should be quite far apart. The initial current is then duly noted and as the gap narrows between the plates the current should gradually increase, only to start dropping as the sweetspot is found, indicating that the gases forms the insulating barrier which in part enables higher voltages and in part restricts the current and as the current is fairly low the temperature should not increase, which indicates that something other than Faradic brute force electrolysis is taking place turning the water in to H2 and O2.
The parameters to be observed should, besides the cell voltage, of course also be the current, the water temperature and last but not least also the outgoing gasflow.

I could go on ranting about this for hours, but there's no beating actual experiments, so I guess I'll have to resort to actually get busy putting together such a test cell and find out the flaws myself.
OR indeed have the theory confirmed, that would be the really sweet outcome of it all.

[/rant]

Lynx,

Take a look into L-Network Impedance Matching. (Just my 2 Cents.)
It might give you another idea or two. :D :cool: :p

Well, given that the thread 'Tesla's recipe' was deleted I'll just take this opportunity to re-post this here then.

Quote from Lynx on January 9th, 2014, 09:09 AM

I wonder if electromagnets would behave the same way, I.E opposing poles would fall more slowly down and attracting poles would fall faster........?
In that case, here's an idea:
Imagine a band of ferrite rods where each rod has 2 coils wrapped around them and the band as a whole is suspended around 2 pulleys.
Attached to all coil ends are spring loaded sliding rods, which are in constant contact with a set of metal bands which when energized turns the coils into electromagnets.
Now, on one side of this arrangement the coils are energized to make electromagnets which are facing eachother in a 'opposing pole' configuration, only to have one of the coils switching poles on the other side of it all, thus making those coils facing eachother in a 'attracting pole' configuration instead.
Here's the catch: On one of the pulleys there's an alternator attached which provides for all the electric energy used to energize the coils as described.
From start the band is of course at standstill.
What would happen then if you were to give it a gentle spin?
Would the 'opposing poles' side of the band want to fall more slowly down to Earth and the 'attracting poles' side would want to fall more faster downwards?
The really interesting question would of course be if this was the case, that 'opposing poles' electromagnets falls more slowly and 'attracting poles' falls faster, would the whole thing once started then start to pick up speed and sort of accelerate itself to yet higher and higher speeds?

[rant]
This just keeps bugging me, I can't seem to be able to let this go.
Do repelling magnets weigh less compared to weighing them when they're attracting eachother instead?
If not, does that mean that the repelling magnets cancels the force of Gravity only when they're accelerating, as in falling down to Earth?
Or in other words, do the repelling magnets also cancel the force of Gravity while keeping a constant speed, or do they have to be accelerating to do this?
If Gravity canceling also occurs during constant speed, do they cancel the force of Gravity more and more the greater the speed?
It would be nice to be able to move from permanent magnets to electromagnets such as in a 'repelling electromagnets falling test', just to see what gives.
If you were to experience the same anomaly during such a test, I.E to see that the repelling electromagnets indeed falls more slowly down to Earth compared to attracting dittos, would that then mean that there's a physical connection between Gravity, permanent magnets and electromagnets?
How would that physical connection manifest itself then?
The image that comes to mind is of course of the Vaimanika Shastra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana and what enabled those to fly a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away......or maybe it even was in our very own galaxy for that matter......perhaps even not too long ago......?
[/rant]

Quote from Lynx on January 11th, 2014, 05:59 PM

[rant]
This just keeps bugging me, I can't seem to be able to let this go.
Do repelling magnets weigh less compared to weighing them when they're attracting eachother instead?
If not, does that mean that the repelling magnets cancels the force of Gravity only when they're accelerating, as in falling down to Earth?
Or in other words, do the repelling magnets also cancel the force of Gravity while keeping a constant speed, or do they have to be accelerating to do this?
If Gravity canceling also occurs during constant speed, do they cancel the force of Gravity more and more the greater the speed?
It would be nice to be able to move from permanent magnets to electromagnets such as in a 'repelling electromagnets falling test', just to see what gives.
If you were to experience the same anomaly during such a test, I.E to see that the repelling electromagnets indeed falls more slowly down to Earth compared to attracting dittos, would that then mean that there's a physical connection between Gravity, permanent magnets and electromagnets?
How would that physical connection manifest itself then?
The image that comes to mind is of course of the Vaimanika Shastra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimana and what enabled those to fly a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away......or maybe it even was in our very own galaxy for that matter......perhaps even not too long ago......?
[/rant]

I think if the repelling magnets resisting gravity theory is true, it would have to have the correct pole repelling depending on where you are on earth.  I think that it would be in theory measurable sitting still, on a non magnetic scale.  The only evidence I see that could make this possible, is Ed Leedskalnin's simple experiment of a balance beam with small magnetized wires on each end.  At the balancing point, the distance from one wire to the pivot point is longer than the other, meaning lighter than the other wire with the same mass.  

Quote from firepinto on January 11th, 2014, 07:45 PM

I think if the repelling magnets resisting gravity theory is true, it would have to have the correct pole repelling depending on where you are on earth.  I think that it would be in theory measurable sitting still, on a non magnetic scale.  The only evidence I see that could make this possible, is Ed Leedskalnin's simple experiment of a balance beam with small magnetized wires on each end.  At the balancing point, the distance from one wire to the pivot point is longer than the other, meaning lighter than the other wire with the same mass.

Thanks Nate, more food for thought