Thanks Russ, Rav. I see where I made my mistake. I took a revised version of the equation from an old post. It was basically giving you the gap area not the total surface area. I will re-write the equation in my notes. Helpful info.

Jamie
 

After reading through some of the S.Meyer documents published here I beleive that there is an clearly missed statement;
the WFC is a resonant cavity.
What did S.Meyer mean?
I suspect that it is acoustically resonant ... the cavity needs to operate at multiple (1,2,3.....) half wavelengths
if 2 or more then a high pressure node will be present in the bulk of the water, if 1 then only at the cavity walls.
(the effect may be related to sonoluminescence)

If this is true then two systems need to have the same resonant frequency, the acoustic cavity and the electrical L.C circuit.
The chances of hitting this situation by chance are small, which may explain lack of success.

There is a similar situation with Tesla Coil construction where N.Tesla found that
the L.C circuit resonance frequency and the quarter-wavelength frequency should be the same for maximum terminal voltage.
and the primary resonant frequency also needs to be tuned to the secondary frequency.

e.g. speed of sound in water is approximately 1500 m/s
suppose the gap between electrodes is 7.5mm giving a wavelength of 15mm for half-wavelength operation,
so the acoustic resonant frequency would be 1500/0.015 = 100 kHz
ideally the L.C resonance should also be at this frequency
and the electronic pulsing frequency should also be at 100 kHz although if the electronic pulsing is impulsive it will have some energy in harmonics which would work but at much lower efficacy.

So, if my guess is true then the inductance needs to resonate with the cell capacitance at the cell accoustic resonant frequency
and the electronic pulses should be at the same frequency or (less efficiently) at an odd sub-harmonic.

I am not ready to start physical experimentation in this area yet as I am presently suffering severe back problems
(unable to sit/stand for more than a few minutes) and i have several other projects occupying my time
so I am restricted to mental experimentation only.
but maybe this idea may help some of you who are doing physical research.   

afterthoughts;
1) the dielectric relaxation time of water is about 15 us so I guess that electrical polarisation times significantly less than this would subject the water molecules to significant stress, implying a desired frequecy much greater than 33 kHz
For this reason, if you measure the capacitance of a WFC below about 100 kHz there will be a significant loss tangent which most LCR meters will struggle with.
requiring a WFC gap even smaller than 7.5mm
2) the inductance of S.Meyer's choke coils seems too large for this mode of operation BUT the WFC capacitance may be resonating with the leakage inductance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leakage_inductance ) and not the bulk inductance.
Unfortunately it is almost impossible to design the leakage inductance of such transformers
so a very low leakage transformer with some external/additional inductance would be required for scientific/methodical research.
3) to more easily achieve the higher resonant frequencies low capacitance is required, which may be one reason why S.Meyer used multiple series cells

Sorry to add so many interacting variables !

Thanks for sharing Sulaiman, most interesting :thumbsup:
Best of health to your back, take care :-)

Quote from Sulaiman on January 18th, 2015, 04:26 AM

After reading through some of the S.Meyer documents published here I beleive that there is an clearly missed statement;
the WFC is a resonant cavity.
What did S.Meyer mean?
I suspect that it is acoustically resonant ... the cavity needs to operate at multiple (1,2,3.....) half wavelengths
if 2 or more then a high pressure node will be present in the bulk of the water, if 1 then only at the cavity walls.
(the effect may be related to sonoluminescence)

If this is true then two systems need to have the same resonant frequency, the acoustic cavity and the electrical L.C circuit.
The chances of hitting this situation by chance are small, which may explain lack of success.

There is a similar situation with Tesla Coil construction where N.Tesla found that
the L.C circuit resonance frequency and the quarter-wavelength frequency should be the same for maximum terminal voltage.
and the primary resonant frequency also needs to be tuned to the secondary frequency.

e.g. speed of sound in water is approximately 1500 m/s
suppose the gap between electrodes is 7.5mm giving a wavelength of 15mm for half-wavelength operation,
so the acoustic resonant frequency would be 1500/0.015 = 100 kHz
ideally the L.C resonance should also be at this frequency
and the electronic pulsing frequency should also be at 100 kHz although if the electronic pulsing is impulsive it will have some energy in harmonics which would work but at much lower efficacy.

So, if my guess is true then the inductance needs to resonate with the cell capacitance at the cell accoustic resonant frequency
and the electronic pulses should be at the same frequency or (less efficiently) at an odd sub-harmonic.

I am not ready to start physical experimentation in this area yet as I am presently suffering severe back problems
(unable to sit/stand for more than a few minutes) and i have several other projects occupying my time
so I am restricted to mental experimentation only.
but maybe this idea may help some of you who are doing physical research.   

afterthoughts;
1) the dielectric relaxation time of water is about 15 us so I guess that electrical polarisation times significantly less than this would subject the water molecules to significant stress, implying a desired frequecy much greater than 33 kHz
For this reason, if you measure the capacitance of a WFC below about 100 kHz there will be a significant loss tangent which most LCR meters will struggle with.
requiring a WFC gap even smaller than 7.5mm
2) the inductance of S.Meyer's choke coils seems too large for this mode of operation BUT the WFC capacitance may be resonating with the leakage inductance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leakage_inductance ) and not the bulk inductance.
Unfortunately it is almost impossible to design the leakage inductance of such transformers
so a very low leakage transformer with some external/additional inductance would be required for scientific/methodical research.
3) to more easily achieve the higher resonant frequencies low capacitance is required, which may be one reason why S.Meyer used multiple series cells

Sorry to add so many interacting variables !

Stan's equipment on the drive side is less than 1.2Khz. He is driving the primary in most cases with rectified voltage which is 120hz but the self resonance of the cell/chokes is much higher depending on how you build them. LC networks will self resonate if the conditions are correct with resonance and impedance. See my signature.
The electrical length of the tubes is important and also the wires that drive them because they are part of resonance. For the LC network to be viable, the choke inductance and the cells capacitance must be compatible therefore we need to know where voltage is highest towards the termination of a transmission line. Capacitance is strongest at less than a quarter wave, also between half and 3/4 wave. After a quarter wave the line becomes inductive and after a 3/4 wave it also becomes inductive so we know transmission line termination cannot be an even number of quarter waves, it has to be an odd number of quarter waves for it to be capacitive otherwise there is no LC network with the tubes.
You mentioned acoustic resonance. Picture below is Stan's tube array and how it is mounted. Picture below that is my spring loaded tempered mounts. You cannot avoid acoustic resonance in the tubes just the same as you cannot avoid acoustic resonance in an inductor. If you try to stop acoustic resonance you will effectively interupt electrical resonance hence Stan allows it to happen and so am I.
But lets just straighten one thing up: He is not trying to shake water apart with acoustic resonance at 100Khz. His cell plates are only a couple of millimeters apart, he is attracting the Hydrogen atom with one high voltage plate and the Oxygen with the other. Possibly up to 30Kv and more without no current passing across the dielectric layer.
The reason there is no current is because Stan does not allow series current reactance to follow voltage series reactance on the cell. There is no heat in the water at all from any series current because there simply is no current.

Quote from nav on January 21st, 2015, 07:43 AM

The reason there is no current is because Stan does not allow series current reactance to follow voltage series reactance on the cell. There is no heat in the water at all from any series current because there simply is no current.

Just for clarification:

There is no current?
  or
The current is 90 degrees out of phase from the induced voltage?

I ask this because in a typical transformer we say that an EMF (voltage) is induced in the secondary.  And to be painfully anal here, Lenz Law does not come into play until a current flows in the secondary.  So with an open secondary, there is voltage based on the turns ratio, but until a current flows, there is no Lenz flux generated by the secondary.  On the other hand, if we do have a current flowing, but this current is either leading or lagging voltage by 90 degrees, we will have Lenz flux generated, but we will not have at any point, measurable power in the secondary.  And with no measurable power, there can be no heat dissipation.

Quote from Matt Watts on January 21st, 2015, 08:55 AM

Just for clarification:

There is no current?
  or
The current is 90 degrees out of phase from the induced voltage?

I ask this because in a typical transformer we say that an EMF (voltage) is induced in the secondary.  And to be painfully anal here, Lenz Law does not come into play until a current flows in the secondary.  So with an open secondary, there is voltage based on the turns ratio, but until a current flows, there is no Lenz flux generated by the secondary.  On the other hand, if we do have a current flowing, but this current is either leading or lagging voltage by 90 degrees, we will have Lenz flux generated, but we will not have at any point, measurable power in the secondary.  And with no measurable power, there can be no heat dissipation.

I knew this question would be asked so I prepared in advance lol.
Two pictures below, the fist one shows the charging stage of both a single wire transformer and a bifilar transformer.
The second picture shows the moment of collapse of the same respective transformers.
During charging, the current mode is as marked on the picture and both the single coil and the bifilar charge in that direction because the core see's an infinite impedance in both cases. At the moment of collapse on the second picture the single wire coil still follows the current charge mode direction but the bifilar encounters a problem. The problem is the core no longer see's an infinite impedance in the bifilar because Q+ has arrived on a cap plate. Series voltage reactance takes place because as a result of Q+ we will get Q-. The natural thing to happen is that series current follows that reaction but there is a problem. Because the diode forces voltage to go in both directions on the bifilar wires, it is collapsing one bifilar coil in one direction and one the other direction and because of the left to right rule that we all know about, the current tries to do the same. This causes opposing magnetic field nodes that cancel current reactance and it gets trapped in the core. The last picture shows how Stan pictures it in 8XA.
So, although you have voltage reactance at the Q value, the current cannot possibly respond because the bi-directional current reactance has a cancelling effect. When the primary is switched back on in phase, it finds the current is still in the bifilar where it left it.

Once the primary voltage is at V- or zero you will see an LC circuit take place and the cell will step charge at resonance ex-potentially to a high voltage. When the voltage reaches the value where it can do work in the water it will take a steepish drop back down to base level voltage and then the primary phases back in. It all works because of one fact and one fact alone:
VOLTAGE HAS A LICENCE TO MOVE FREELY IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION IN A CONDUCTOR IF YOU ALLOW THE CIRCUIT TO DO SO, CURRENT DRAGS A MENACE AROUND THE CIRCUITRY WITH IT CALLED A MAGNETIC FIELD. IF MAGNETIC POLES EVER MEET FACE TO FACE, NORTH TO NORTH AND SOUTH TO SOUTH, THE CURRENT STOPS AND THE VOLTAGE WILL TAKE OFF ON ITS OWN. Tesla knew it, Meyer knew it, Beardon knew it and Maxwell knew it but he lied because he sold his soul to the Devil.

Quote from nav on January 21st, 2015, 10:19 AM

IF MAGNETIC POLES EVER MEET FACE TO FACE, NORTH TO NORTH AND SOUTH TO SOUTH, THE CURRENT STOPS AND THE VOLTAGE WILL TAKE OFF ON ITS OWN.

That may be true about the current in certain circumstances; really a full analysis is needed.

Keep in mind something that is non-intuitive and must be thought through carefully:

When opposing fluxes meet head-on, they don't actually cancel.  Instead they pass right through each other and continue on around the magnetic circuit provided the reluctance is low enough to do so.  If these two fluxes are equal and opposite, they will both attempt to induce a voltage in any winding around them.  The EMF reading you see on an instrument connected to this winding is now a matter of the phase offset between these two fluxes at the point where they penetrate the surface created by the winding, which can be zero degrees and would show up as zero volts.  These fluxes will continue to circulate through the magnetic circuit until the reluctance reduces their magnitude to undetectable levels.  This much is for the voltage.  For the amperage we now need to apply the voltage we measure to the electrical portion of the circuit and see how it responds.  If it indeed generates a current, Lenz is there to add more magnetic flux to the equation and the complexity increases with each cycle.

When you add a diode to the electrical portion of this circuit, it becomes apparent the Lenz flux you generate from the windings is always in one direction.  If again the reluctance is low enough, eventually you will saturate the core; when this happens the change in flux needed to induce an EMF is gone, voltage drops and current diminishes.  However, we still have one option left, we change the flux by reducing it.  This also gives us an EMF and unclogs the flux path.  Without physically flopping around the diode, I'm not clear how this happens on its own.

Quote from Matt Watts on January 21st, 2015, 03:08 PM

That may be true about the current in certain circumstances; really a full analysis is needed.

Keep in mind something that is non-intuitive and must be thought through carefully:

When opposing fluxes meet head-on, they don't actually cancel.  Instead they pass right through each other and continue on around the magnetic circuit provided the reluctance is low enough to do so.  If these two fluxes are equal and opposite, they will both attempt to induce a voltage in any winding around them.  The EMF reading you see on an instrument connected to this winding is now a matter of the phase offset between these two fluxes at the point where they penetrate the surface created by the winding, which can be zero degrees and would show up as zero volts.  These fluxes will continue to circulate through the magnetic circuit until the reluctance reduces their magnitude to undetectable levels.  This much is for the voltage.  For the amperage we now need to apply the voltage we measure to the electrical portion of the circuit and see how it responds.  If it indeed generates a current, Lenz is there to add more magnetic flux to the equation and the complexity increases with each cycle.

So are you saying that on a permanent magnet where two poles oppose each other there is still room for current to run in series during that reaction?
Last year when I tested the bucking coils and this year during the bifilar tests, I found that opposing fields leave very little room for series current to play in a core. The voltage in both cases still exits the coils and in some circumstances reaches ridiculous heights while the current remains minimal. I don't know the exact workings of the core during these processes and I wouldn't make up some kind of pseudo explanation to describe it but I do know this: You can make voltage leave an inductor and leave the current behind.

I'm not clear about what your physical setup here looks like:

Quote from nav on January 21st, 2015, 03:20 PM

So are you saying that on a permanent magnet where two poles oppose each other there is still room for current to run in series during that reaction?

What I am clear about is that a change in magnetic flux through a medium will induce an EMF in a winding around that medium.  I'm also clear that when you let a current flow in that winding, Lenz Law suggests this winding now creates another flux that is in the opposite direction to the flux that induced the EMF in the first place.  When I use the term "flux", the direction is from South to North.  So increasing means coming from South, going to North; decreasing is the opposite.

When I say "current", I'm talking about the electrical amperage calculated as I = V/R.  So I get a little confused when you relate permanent magnets with series currents.  PM's have constant flux.  If you move the PM in the vicinity of a coil, you induce a voltage in the coil; only a voltage and only while the PM is in motion.  There is no current (and hence no Lenz effect) until you make a closed circuit with the coil, at which point you have a measurable resistance.  From the induced voltage and this resistance, we now know how much current is flowing.  We also know we have created a Lenz flux in response to this current, but we know little about where it actually goes.  All we know is that the majority of it is somewhere within the closed-loop of the coil.  We can calculate the MMF in amp-turns though.

Now if we take a coil and place it between two like pole fixed PMs and move this coil back-n-forth between the PMs, the coil will be induced, not nearly so much as it would if the two facing poles were opposite.  Why?  Lets suppose the poles are South facing each other.  Somewhere in between these poles is a point of more North than South, so movement of the coil will see this change in flux.  There is a gradient there, the flux is not uniform.  Now if you place a hunk of silicon steel between these two like poles and move the coil over that, the flux change will be far smaller.  Make the thickness of this steel small enough and the magnets will no longer be both attracted to it.  This is magnetic reluctance in full view and is what determines the path of a magnetic circuit.

I'll read your post through tomorrow and reply. I was listening to Stans lecture where he talks about current restricting and distributed capacitance/inductance in the chokes. I also read the pdf that Alan linked yesterday about the bucking coils. It seems to me, that this phenomena isn't as complex as what people might first imagine. I think there are some simple rules or guidelines that have never been written because of obvious reasons and once they get established, I think it will be a walk in the park.

Quote from nav on January 21st, 2015, 04:31 PM

It seems to me, that this phenomena isn't as complex as what people might first imagine. I think there are some simple rules or guidelines that have never been written because of obvious reasons and once they get established, I think it will be a walk in the park.

The complexity is there, but we have the ability to nail down certain parameters to a point where we can abstract from those complexities, that's when things will get easier.  And yes, there are gaping holes in the established physics we can take advantage of.  Here is a perfect example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit

Quote from Wikipedia

Electric currents represent the flow of particles (electrons) and carry power, which is dissipated as heat in resistances. Magnetic fields don't represent the "flow" of anything, and no power is dissipated in reluctances.

My answer to that quote is, maybe, maybe not, we simply don't know or comprehend what the Aether really is to a point we can definitively respond to that statement.

There is also a lot of work we can use right now without having to re-invent the wheel, no need to pitch out the baby with the bath water yet.  In that same web page above, there are tons of things that are still very useful and applicable to our research.  The trick is to use discernment--know when and where to pick the good fruit and leave the other stuff for the birds.

Quote from Matt Watts on January 21st, 2015, 06:23 PM

The complexity is there, but we have the ability to nail down certain parameters to a point where we can abstract from those complexities, that's when things will get easier.  And yes, there are gaping holes in the established physics we can take advantage of.  Here is a perfect example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit
My answer to that quote is, maybe, maybe not, we simply don't know or comprehend what the Aether really is to a point we can definitively respond to that statement.

There is also a lot of work we can use right now without having to re-invent the wheel, no need to pitch out the baby with the bath water yet.  In that same web page above, there are tons of things that are still very useful and applicable to our research.  The trick is to use discernment--know when and where to pick the good fruit and leave the other stuff for the birds.

I agree. The one field that we can exploit is the loopholes in magnetic field theory. It is interesting that mainstream science has written itself a set of rules from which it refuses to budge from and on the whole Universities and colleges tend not to re-examine the basic principles too much otherwise they have their budgets cut. There are things they won't even go near.