research information sharing

Gunther Rattay

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #25, on May 15th, 2014, 01:00 AM »
It´s a good idea to go that direction. charged water droplets will continue to split until ??? happens. that´s one part perfectly fitting in meyer´s technology.

ok, now that theory has been approached next logical step is experiments. if you can get that running with components from the shelf - gratulation!
in any case you will get some results and maybe you have to optimize your test configuration.

after these first results and analysis you will be able to decide if you need special parts.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #26, on May 15th, 2014, 01:05 AM »Last edited on May 15th, 2014, 01:09 AM
Quote from Matt Watts on December 18th, 2013, 10:59 PM
I would say it's honing in on the frequency at which the container attracts other electromagnetic signals.  Could easily have nothing to do with water.  That circuit has no ability to discriminate the vast number of signals zooming around and the container could be acting as nothing more than an antenna.

I would be curious if he tried different liquids and see if there is any correlation between the container size versus the liquid content.  I would also be curious what happens when he moves the test apparatus around to different physical locations.

Also, I don't understand the reasoning whereby water could have different resonant frequencies depending upon the size container it is in.  If the opinion is that water has a resonant frequency, certainly it wouldn't change by being placed in different containers.

Guess I would have to know what "the resonant frequency" is first.  If it is "the resonant frequency" your are interested in, then sure, it could be used as a signal generator.  Again, that frequency could just be the natural harmonic of the beaker with that exact amount of fluid in it; doesn't mean it has anything to do with the resonant frequency of water.  All objects have some natural frequency.  This has been explored by Dale Pond and his Sympathetic Vibratory Physics.  When I think about liquid water though, I don't consider that an object so to speak, since it takes the shape of the container, which likely just modifies the resonant frequency of that container.  But even so, you would still have to convince me all external signals have been eliminated--maybe put the whole thing in a Faraday cage.
I think using distilled water at different temperatures would give an answer to the question if the water itself or environmental conditions influence that oscillation. as our experiments showed cold water holds more charge than hot water. Maybe water pressure also makes a difference or water density.

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #27, on May 20th, 2014, 05:38 AM »
thanks for reply
I will do some experiments over time.
The other thing I want to mention is that when the water mist self sparks under compression ( assuming can achieve this) at that point if it sparks the whole volume it maybe be possible to add at that time, a high voltage spark with suitable frequencies to add energy to the mix.
I doubt if the whole volume sparks simultaneously there will be enough energy to convert into h and o, but it may give a type of plasma state where additional energy can be added, additional electrical energy will follow path of least resistance, but if whole volume of gas/mist self sparks it might be possible to add energy to the entire volume.
There is plenty of info available on charging water, inductive charging via a metal ring similar to kelvin water dropper, or alternatively via voltage bias on a metal hollow needle might work.
As with any experimentation it takes alot of time and effort to see if the theory will work.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #28, on May 20th, 2014, 05:51 AM »
just some notes on interesting videos ( sorry I haven't kept the video links)
1. silent spark: one youtube video showed a spark plug sparking with a high volt current restricted circuit,
the spark is silent!
 My theory is there wasn't enough energy to split air moisture into h and o,
so no explosion its its recombination.
I also have thought for some time that the noise from lightning ( thunder) is possibly caused by air moisture splitting into h and o, the quickly recombining to make a loud explosion.
The silent spark experiment might support that theory.

2. video showed a metal tray sprayed with non-stick paint, filled with water, then a cheap air ioniser voltage connected to the metal tray ( 10kv in ma range), dry ice pieces placed on the water,
the gas from dry ice shows up patterns of interference from any object places above the surface. ( looks similar to a cloud chamber showing cosmic rays)
Uploader suggests ions travelling quickly from object above the gas, metal objects worked best.
Interesting because it shows "visibly" charge interactions. An air ioniser might be possibly be useable for charging water mist.

~Russ

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #30, on May 20th, 2014, 10:34 AM »
that's a cool demo. and strange as well. good stuff. i have seen a lot of his videos but not that one :)

~Russ

securesupplies

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #31, on May 21st, 2014, 01:12 AM »

QUESTION FOR GROUP>

CAN WE USE THAT FOR IONIZING THE O IN THE AMBIENT AIR ON CAR INTAKES?

Let try to make ways to  IMPLEMENT IT for tests.

LOVE THE VIDEO


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLG8gKb-lyk#

DAN

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #32, on May 21st, 2014, 03:45 AM »
the guy who did the video has more info on this page
http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/airthred.html
links at bottom are interesting also, he shows how to use the air ioniser.

Another interesting bit of info from this paper:
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/3992/3/chapter_2.pdf
It relates to electrospray techniques:
one finding was that water drops below approx 500microns dia, wont undergo coloumb fission ( form taylor cones or split into smaller droplets) under high efields at atmos pressure.
reason being the electric field needed to achieve this is higher than airs ionisation breakdown voltage, the air will spark basically.
I'm assuming water fogger mist is much smaller than 500microns ( from memory 10 to 100micron range??), so for my theory it would mean the droplets should remain intact after charging and not split into smaller droplets, it will be the air breakdown voltage which will limit max volts for charging water droplets ( for air 3,000,000V/m is breakdown volt at atmos pressure ), I'm guessing same problem meyer had not wanting to have sparking across the sparkplug splitting zone.


Re: research information sharing
« Reply #33, on May 21st, 2014, 03:57 AM »
the video above he had no success using water fogger to get same effect.

I might just mention also that when water drops hit water repelling surfaces ( such as teflon) they gain a positive charge, so a teflon coating inside the combustion chamber would add positive charge to the drops ( I was thinking of going for negative charged water) so it might be necessary to go for pos charged water drops if using teflon, but it might be better than charge being lost on metal surfaces in combustion chamber.
I'm not sure if there is a simple way to teflon coat a combustion chamber.

One more thought: platinum coated sparkplugs might be useful for igniting hho gas in chamber without requiring a spark.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #34, on May 25th, 2014, 09:13 AM »
water foggers are said to run at 1.6mhz, I remember meyer saying that he used khz frequencies because going into mhz at the time was too complex, so 1.6mhz is resonant with water in terms of mechanical vibration to form water droplets efficiently.
I wonder if an electrical frequency of 1.6mhz might also work, it appears there are boost converters that operate on 1.6mhz, does anyone know any sellers of boost converters that use 1.6mhz?

Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #35, on May 26th, 2014, 02:15 PM »
Quote from brettly on May 25th, 2014, 09:13 AM
water foggers are said to run at 1.6mhz, I remember meyer saying that he used khz frequencies because going into mhz at the time was too complex, so 1.6mhz is resonant with water in terms of mechanical vibration to form water droplets efficiently.
They may have some high frequency harmonics, but I think they are called ultrasonic for a reason.  I also think the frequency used has to do with the droplet size intended for the device.  For many liquid disseminations in the form of vapor droplets, 30 microns is considered ideal.

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #36, on May 27th, 2014, 12:57 AM »Last edited on May 27th, 2014, 01:20 AM
i think your correct that droplet size influenced by frequency of piezo, found an interesting paper
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02786829008959440
that analyzes droplet size : they found one fogger( nebuliser) had 1.6mhz on a 120hz carrier wave, droplet median size was around 2microns ( smaller than I had thought)
they are give an equations to determine droplet size using freq and surface tension of water.
 
Found something very interesting also:
a device that adds onto a car fuel injector and gives capability of adding electric field to the liquid, also it has input hole for water/air, its designed I think to add water to petrol and then charge the droplets. I'm not sure if its commercially available but its called " storm injector'
link is
http://energy21x.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/economical-storm-fuel-injector-for-any-kind-of-fuel-enjection-system/


I'll contact the guy see if its available might be an alternative to meyer injector
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #38, on May 27th, 2014, 05:32 AM »
I found some more info on the fuel injector adaptors, unfortunately they are not what I expected,
they use simple vortex to influence the fuel, they dont support electric field, the inventor suggested use air ioniser with it, so its not what I was expecting and probably not useful for meyer type system, though it does show that you can put a suitably machined adapter at the end of the injector

Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #39, on May 27th, 2014, 09:20 AM »Last edited on May 28th, 2014, 12:10 PM
Once upon a time I recall seeing what was only termed a "vapor carb".  It used high velocity jets similar to the Gadget Man Groove but it also had insulated plates energized by what I would call an Air Ionizer circuit.  The idea was to create the proper size vapor droplets, then electrically charge them in such a way they repel against the metal engine parts so they don't try to condense on the walls of the intake manifold or cylinder head.  These droplets also repel against each other so they spread out nice and uniform within the cylinder.  This was the theory at least; whether it actually worked this way, I'm not sure.  What I do know is you could lean the fuel mixture way out beyond a normal stoichiometric mix and the engine would run fine--plenty of power and the exhaust temperatures were quite normal.  Fuel mileage was noticeably better even on old worn-out engines.

This was at least 20 years ago when I saw it.  Whether it would still work today with the highly engineered/modified fuels, I really doubt it.  Ever since the petroleum industry started putting polymers into the fuel, a lot these rather simple technologies ceased to function--which I'm sure was the purpose behind it.  It's all about selling more fuel at higher prices and making a ton of money as well as unnecessary pollution.  On the pollution and efficiency side, them buggers can ding you again once all this carbon-credit crap gets enforced.  The whole system is optimized for cash flow, not for economy and efficiency.  I would bet if you had access to all the technology General Motors has in their R&D facility (which I have been in, there in Pontiac, MI), one could easily produce a four cylinder motor, capable of 400 HP and 150 MPG.  I have no doubt whatsoever about that.  While I was there, I even saw their microwave ignition system which appeared to work so well on the dyno, I'm not surprised you don't see any cars using it.

brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #40, on May 28th, 2014, 02:32 AM »
that is very interesting a method to stop condensation on metal parts using electrostatic charging,
it may be useful in my future experiments with charging water mist. I had assumed it will loose it charge once it touches the metal surfaces, but if its possible for it to be repelled from metal surfaces that would be advantageous to the water mist holding its charge on the way into combustion chamber and once in the combustion chamber.
Apparently once the water mist is charged it undergoes coulomb repulsion and the mist spreads out repelling from itself, it might be one way to visually see if the water is being charged ( similar to electrospray liquids fanning out).
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #41, on May 29th, 2014, 04:36 AM »

The last two pages of this paper

http://www.indiana.edu/~nano/publications/2008/Charge%20Separation%20in%20the%20Aerodynamic%20Breakup%20of%20Micrometer-Sized%20Water%20Droplets.pdf

The section called "charge separation during aerodynamic breakup" deals with breaking up water droplets into smaller droplets in a high velocity air flow in a narrow tube.
Its looking at the charges found on the droplets.
I think this is relevant to a meyer plug style hho gen, say for example you enter acoustic made water droplets into a fuel injector, they can break into smaller drops going through a high velocity capillary tube, so you could reduce the droplet size further ( if thats necessary).
It also shows a theory on why droplets when they split into smaller droplets they acquire a charge.

On a lighter note:
the simple experiment of diverting a water stream with a charged balloon shows that these surface charge forces are quite large. Meyer is using electric fields very similar to electrostatic charges ( except his is pulsing them) I think its a relevant area to research.
It would be nice to see if there is any physical evidence in meyers estate that shows he had
a sparkplug style hho working.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #42, on June 4th, 2014, 07:30 AM »
idea:
a hydrogen flame burning in air will give off em spectra ( although at a high temperature)
A quick google search showed the spectra produced in visible light region are easy to find.
I wonder if there maybe some studies showing the mhz and khz spectra produced.
This might be a way to find suitable frequencies that will split the hydrogen and covalent bonds.
I'm assuming the mhz and khz frequencies produced will also be the same ones that the water will absorb. The temperature issue may complicate it though.
I wonder if an am radio would be sensitive enough to pick up some of the frequencies?
can anyone try an am radio near to a h2 02 flame? I doubt the am radio would pick them up but you never know.
( there will be some irrelevant noise in there also NOx etc)
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #43, on June 15th, 2014, 08:31 AM »
an interesting article here:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcpl.iphy.ac.cn%2FEN%2Farticle%2FdownloadArticleFile.do%3FattachType%3DPDF%26id%3D54454&ei=mLCdU7DCDMankwWT2IHQCw&usg=AFQjCNElhYYYwRNLdmHmQ_NyOBie25opMQ&bvm=bv.68911936,d.dGI&cad=rja

It shows hydrogen and oxygen from water vapour using microwave oven magnetron and waveguide.
Although this is no air involved. Quite a technical paper. It does mention 5eV is the min energy required to split water vapour ( the experiment was done at low pressure not atmos pressure).


Re: research information sharing
« Reply #44, on June 19th, 2014, 08:58 PM »
seems aluminium plates in a cell acts as a strong diode according to this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCF1L6u4imA#
maybe related to the aluminium oxide layer, maybe of some use to know.

I have tried to charge up water mist from foggers, seems to work, this is how:
(based on kelvins method of measuring atmospheric voltage gradients)
Plastic drink bottle is used, ultrasonic fogger in base, bottle sealed with selastic, two output wires from a jacobs ladder circuit are also put into the bottle.
One wire is under the water level, the other wire is above the water level.
As the water splits into droplets it absorbs charge from surrounding air, if there is a high voltage gradient from water to air, droplets should get highly charged.
Some issues encountered:
1. the fogger may turn off, when jacobs ladder circuit turned on, seems hard to tell if it will turn off or work sometimes.
One time the fogger went off at about 5 sec intervals.
I suspect the water level device is causing this, the high voltage might be causing this.
2. I had a high voltage spark occured at a point no where near the device, it arced across the base of the battery powering the fogger, I then put foam under the battery problem solved.
I suspect the piezo in the fogger might be involved in that.

Once the water charges the fog only lies below the jacobs ladder wire that is above the water,
The water mist is a good insulator, the fog droplets have air in between them, so arcing within the plastic bottle is not an issue.

Next step: work out some way to compress the charged mist to simulate compression in an engine and see if any mass release of charge occurs under compression i.e reduce the distance bewteen charged water molecules.
Re: research information sharing
« Reply #45, on June 27th, 2014, 05:00 AM »
On meyers fuel injector:
During some experimenting with water foggers inside a plastic bottle under pressure, I found that water mist will still exit via an eye dropper ( small dia hole) but will not exit a hypodermic needle as a mist ( insulin needle in this case)( much smaller diameter hole than eyedropper)
Meyers sparkplug voltage zone has gap of 0.01" ( very small gap), a quick search showed hypodermic needle I have is most likely larger hole diameter than 0.01"
Since under pressure water mist will not exit a needle as a mist, it is forced back into a large droplet that exits the needle.
So I think that meyers sparkplug is still using water as a liquid inbetween the plates. Introducing the water ( as mist)/air/inert exhaust gas into a mixing chamber is doing just what it says, mixing these components together. The high pressure he uses is because the exit voltage zone is a very very small space, so it performs two functions:
1. it compresses the water mist back into liquid form ( not droplet form)
2. to push the now mixed liquid through the orifice will take significant pressure.

The important part of this is, it means he is still using bulk water between two plates ( in this case conical in shape), so the water is still liquid ( not droplets with air inbetween them).
The gases will be absorbed by the water under pressure.
This might seem obvious to some, but I was thinking the water would still be in droplet form in between the plates, but I'm quite sure now it is in bulk liquid form exact same as in his cell but on a minituarised scale.
So his circuitry should be overall the same except designed for a very very very small gap between the plates.



Matt Watts

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #46, on June 27th, 2014, 06:02 AM »Last edited on June 27th, 2014, 06:10 AM
brettly, have you come across any videos of one of these injectors blowing up a balloon or something that would indicate the approximate amount of gas being produced?

If this "water sparkplug" was ever going to work, I would think it would need to produce a pretty significant amount of Hydroxy per each engine cycle.  I just don't see how a little sputter of gas would get the job done otherwise.

If we have exhaust gas recirculation in-place it's conceivable to run the injector non-stop and simply arc at the peak of the compression stroke.  Basically we inject during intake, compression, power and exhaust strokes around the full cycle.  We still need to get enough fuel in the cylinder though and be able to increase the delivery for more engine output power--throttle.

I've always thought the Stan Meyer Water Sparkplug was a cool idea, but engineering-wise, I've never understood how it could deliver enough fuel quickly enough to run the motor.  I've got to imagine there is some sort of phase-change taking place where the water is charged and then quite literally explodes into Hydroxy gas at the right moment.  If this is true, the only way to test one of these injectors is to have it installed on an engine, otherwise you will never subject it to the massive pressure changes it needs to operate.

Bottom line, I think we need to test using a real engine, probably using a setup where we have a motor turning the engine and we tweak and tune until the engine begins to produce power on its own.  The injector, electronics and the engine all must work together as a system.  Testing these parts individually probably isn't going to produce any interesting results.

~Russ

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #47, on June 27th, 2014, 09:52 AM »
Quote from brettly on June 27th, 2014, 05:00 AM
On meyers fuel injector:
During some experimenting with water foggers inside a plastic bottle under pressure, I found that water mist will still exit via an eye dropper ( small dia hole) but will not exit a hypodermic needle as a mist ( insulin needle in this case)( much smaller diameter hole than eyedropper)
Meyers sparkplug voltage zone has gap of 0.01" ( very small gap), a quick search showed hypodermic needle I have is most likely larger hole diameter than 0.01"
Since under pressure water mist will not exit a needle as a mist, it is forced back into a large droplet that exits the needle.
So I think that meyers sparkplug is still using water as a liquid inbetween the plates. Introducing the water ( as mist)/air/inert exhaust gas into a mixing chamber is doing just what it says, mixing these components together. The high pressure he uses is because the exit voltage zone is a very very small space, so it performs two functions:
1. it compresses the water mist back into liquid form ( not droplet form)
2. to push the now mixed liquid through the orifice will take significant pressure.

The important part of this is, it means he is still using bulk water between two plates ( in this case conical in shape), so the water is still liquid ( not droplets with air inbetween them).
The gases will be absorbed by the water under pressure.
This might seem obvious to some, but I was thinking the water would still be in droplet form in between the plates, but I'm quite sure now it is in bulk liquid form exact same as in his cell but on a minituarised scale.
So his circuitry should be overall the same except designed for a very very very small gap between the plates.
something to think about is that the small gap also dose not allow the gasses between the "plates" to ignite. this is the quenching .

so what happens between the plates is that the water gets exposed to this extreme voltage potential. and if correct the atoms will be under extreme conditions.  also the water is forced through the injector at high PSI. say 15 or so. ( if i remember correctly)

all the reactions with theses extreme conditions  makes a very unstable gas/water mixture.

so if we make an atom more unstable it will have a bigger reaction when it tries to go back to neutral.

this is Stan's entire concept.

I'm going to mention something here that may seem kinda interesting but... here it goes:

 the HGG or "hydrogen gas gun" was deigned for the hydrogen... not the Oxygen...

what happens when you try to remove the only electron from an hydrogen atom?

food for thought.

PS. ceramic is done for the injector... now i need to get some more end mills for the tip...

~Russ


brettly

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #48, on June 28th, 2014, 02:14 AM »Last edited on June 28th, 2014, 02:17 AM
thnx for replys
 have only seen videos showing small explosion with high volt sparks usually on end of standard sparkplugs, with water mist sprayed on the plug.
Meyer gave a figure of 7.5 microlitres required for each cylinder ( thats the volume of water ) but it is an ideal figure he created assuming water has 2.5times explosive energy of petrol. So the figure will be significantly larger. It shouldn't be a problem to push whatever needed amount of water through the voltage zone of his sparkplug, his figure was 150psi required. So you would have a given volume traversing the voltage zone, not just sitting in there, it will be traversing at a given flow rate ( I gave a value for the volume of the voltage zone earlier in the thread which could be used to work out required volume). The of course it needs to be split apart as its traversing the voltage zone.
I think the most important part is to work out his circuit and how it differs to the wfc circuit.
In Stans wfc tech brief memo 426 goes into great detail. I like how aaron murakami went into great detail on the wfc circuit according to stan, and posted detailed drawings, an analysis like that would be most useful on memo426 ( memo 425 also useful).
You could use a cars already fitted petrol injector to meter water into the sparkplug but would have to increase the pressure I'm guessing with some sort of 12v water pump if available.
I would think alot of work necessary on solving the circuit and hardware side first, would be relatively simple to just have two small plates spaced 0.01" or slightly wider for testing purposes.
What is the electrode spacing on the rwg replicas? 0.01" ?
Water would need to be filtered etc as that small a gap would likely get sediment in it over time.

Re: research information sharing
« Reply #49, on June 28th, 2014, 04:00 AM »
just a note on the check valve in sparkplug, meyer says 150psi, that may be to suit the engine he was using ( does anyone know what type of engine it was?). For my car compresion max is 210-215psi, so after compression stroke at some point the water pressure will be higher value than the cylinder pressure and water will flow into the voltage zone.
I'm not sure what min. pressure is on a car engine but it might be necessary to adjust water pressure to suit a particular engine to ensure valve opens at appropriate time.