Quote from Mechanic on August 22nd, 2013, 06:25 AM

Quote from Lynx on August 22nd, 2013, 03:49 AM

Is the clamp meter set on AC current?
It looks like the cable that the clamp meter is measuring goes straight to the tubeset, am I correct?
Thanks.

You're corret.....only amp function on my meter.....does it matter? It is DC going to tubes.....my messurements give me .22mA per tube?

I'm afraid you need a DC clamp meter as it's DC current, or a multimeter capable of measuring the DC current to the tubes, most universal meters usually have an upper limit of 10 amps.
Otherwise you could attach a shunt with a known resistance and measure it's DC voltage instead and calculate the current via the universal formula I=U/R, that works aswell.
The 22 mA you're measuring is probably the idle offset current.

Quote from Lynx on August 22nd, 2013, 06:48 AM

Quote from Mechanic on August 22nd, 2013, 06:25 AM

Quote from Lynx on August 22nd, 2013, 03:49 AM

Is the clamp meter set on AC current?
It looks like the cable that the clamp meter is measuring goes straight to the tubeset, am I correct?
Thanks.

You're corret.....only amp function on my meter.....does it matter? It is DC going to tubes.....my messurements give me .22mA per tube?

I'm afraid you need a DC clamp meter as it's DC current, or a multimeter capable of measuring the DC current to the tubes, most universal meters usually have an upper limit of 10 amps.
Otherwise you could attach a shunt with a known resistance and measure it's DC voltage instead and calculate the current via the universal formula I=U/R, that works aswell.
The 22 mA you're measuring is probably the idle offset current.

I'll get back to you with the excact volts but I think it was 11v......

Quote from Mechanic on August 22nd, 2013, 06:57 AM

Quote from Lynx on August 22nd, 2013, 06:48 AM

Quote from Mechanic on August 22nd, 2013, 06:25 AM

Quote from Lynx on August 22nd, 2013, 03:49 AM

Is the clamp meter set on AC current?
It looks like the cable that the clamp meter is measuring goes straight to the tubeset, am I correct?
Thanks.

You're corret.....only amp function on my meter.....does it matter? It is DC going to tubes.....my messurements give me .22mA per tube?

I'm afraid you need a DC clamp meter as it's DC current, or a multimeter capable of measuring the DC current to the tubes, most universal meters usually have an upper limit of 10 amps.
Otherwise you could attach a shunt with a known resistance and measure it's DC voltage instead and calculate the current via the universal formula I=U/R, that works aswell.
The 22 mA you're measuring is probably the idle offset current.

I'll get back to you with the excact volts but I think it was 11v......

What volts would that be?
The shunt I'm talking about is the one you attach in series with one if the cables going to the cell, like so:

If the shunt is rated 50mV @ 50A and you get a 10mV reading on it during operation then the current to the cell is 10A.
Shunts can look like this:





Sorry if I was unclear here.

Right.  A voltage drop across a known resistance using Ohm's Law will give you current flow through the circuit.  Best practice is to keep the shunt resistance at least ten times smaller than the total circuit resistance so as not to overly change the characteristics of the circuit.  On the other side, you don't want the shunt resistance too small or getting an accurate voltage reading may be problematic.

I've gotten a electrition and a electronic engineer to do separate mesure ments with their own meters and both got .345 mA.......the engineer asked if he could come back, brought his ossiloscope and again got to 0.345mA........ I got a video of with the one meter and wil post this later....
NB; Dog-One........true woords in your quote......

Quote from Dog-One on August 23rd, 2013, 07:04 AM

Right.  A voltage drop across a known resistance using Ohm's Law will give you current flow through the circuit.  Best practice is to keep the shunt resistance at least ten times smaller than the total circuit resistance so as not to overly change the characteristics of the circuit.  On the other side, you don't want the shunt resistance too small or getting an accurate voltage reading may be problematic.

With the shunt you can also see what the current looks like, get a sense for the characteristics of the current going to the cell, by probing it using an oscilloscope.
Mind you, you may have to separate protective earth for the oscilloscope from the rest of the circuit, otherwise you'll risk frying it or whatever else you have attached to/in your circuit. I found that out the hard way for my oscilloscope as the ground terminals on the BNC connectors for the channels are directly connected to protective earth, which also happens to be the case for my frequency generators. Thankfully enough I "only" had to replace a fuse and then I could carry on, after a little modification of the oscilloscope's power plug that is

Quote from Lynx on August 23rd, 2013, 09:15 AM

Mind you, you may have to separate protective earth for the oscilloscope from the rest of the circuit, otherwise you'll risk frying it or whatever else you have attached to/in your circuit. I found that out the hard way for my oscilloscope as the ground terminals on the BNC connectors for the channels are directly connected to protective earth, which also happens to be the case for my frequency generators. Thankfully enough I "only" had to replace a fuse and then I could carry on, after a little modification of the oscilloscope's power plug that is

If you have a dual-trace scope, most all of them allow for differential input where you use the probe tip on each channel and do not connect the ground terminal.  You should have a selector switch on the scope that puts the two channels in differential mode making your scope an isolated single channel measuring device.  I always use this mode unless I'm certain I have a truly common ground I can hook to.

Only thing I've got is soldering iron and that big amp meter in the video........the people I got to messure the .345mA does not want to help me anymore and says the stuff I'm into is something they don't want anything to do with anylonger??????? I'll save and get a scope.....thanks for the help so far......

Quote from Mechanic on August 23rd, 2013, 10:18 AM

the people I got to messure the .345mA does not want to help me anymore and says the stuff I'm into is something they don't want anything to do with anylonger???????

Are they your friends?
Do they work for the government or what?

They were private people one owning a electronic shop and the other working from his house as a electrition...... I moved all my stuff to a friends farm and will lay low for a month or three....... The math is now done and V=11, A=0.345mA, R=32,??? and W=3.72......or so I think....

Strange, one would think that people would be quite interested in these sort of things.
Do you use any electrolyte in the water?
That's some gasflow you get there, do you have any way of measuring the volumeflow versus acive power input to the whole circuit?

Normal tap water........only way I've got is a gauge on the cell and stopwatch......where do I get a flowmeter and flowmeter for what......can I build it?

It would be interesting to see the gasflow from the tubes versus the active electric power needed to sustain this flow.
If you were to build your own gas flow meter my tip would be to build a rotameter, that is, to me anyway, a really simple way of
getting a somewhat accurate measurement of just about any gasflow.
Of course, you'd need to attach it to a valid flowmeter in series to start with and then calibrate/adjust/grade your own scale according to the known flow.

Heck, even a one liter bottle filled to capacity with the gas and timed will give a ballpark reading that we could work with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpA_chrxe8w

Steve has a bit of a timid voice and with good reason.  If something were to go wrong (spark from a shorted wire), you would never see another YouTube from him again with that amount of gas flow and that big reservoir.

Now if we take his numbers as accurate, 7011 Watts, 37.5 liters per minute, then divide that out, we get 7011 / 37.5 or 186.96 Watts per Liter per minute.  That is clearly above the 140 Faraday limit so it tells us Steve's setup is brute force.  Actually, anything under 200 is pretty good.  If you can get your WFC to perform better than 140 Watts per LpM, you positively have it figured out OR you are getting a bad measurement someplace.

Quote from Dog-One on August 24th, 2013, 06:37 AM

If you can get your WFC to perform better than 140 Watts per LpM, you positively have it figured out OR you are getting a bad measurement someplace.

And to separate bad measurement from the real deal, close the loop.
Put it in your favourite vehicle of choice, equip the motor with all the required alternators for the process and feed the motor with the gas.
If you find that you actually have to reduce the current feeding the process whilst driving around, then you know that you're on to something.

I'll do a test when I get the chance and let you know.......with the stop watch I got 20psi in 8 min.....11v .340mA......

Quote from Mechanic on August 24th, 2013, 07:43 AM

I'll do a test when I get the chance and let you know.......with the stop watch I got 20psi in 8 min.....11v .340mA......

Do you know how many liters of gas at 0 psi (atmospheric pressure) those 20 psi's of compressed gas corresponds to?
If your measuresments are correct then the active power needed to keep your cell up and running is about 3.74 Watts for the gasflow you get in your video.
A more accurate reading of the active power input would be to feed all your equipment through an active power meter directly plugged into the wallsocket and then feed all the equipment that you use in your process through that meter.
As it seems to be a fairly low amount of power that it takes then let it run for like an hour or so, that would give you the (active) energy put into everything you need and use in your process, while at the same time measure the volume or flow of gas from your cell.
I hope you know what I mean when I want you to measure the gasflow from your cell and not the pressure that's being built up, unless of course you know the volume that the compressed gas occupies, that would of course also give a fairly accurate value on the atmospheric volume of the gas and divided by the number of seconds you had your cell up and running would then give you the volumeflow in say Liters per minute or so. What D1 says about the Faraday constant is the really interesting thing here, if you could divide the active power input to the cell with the volume flow as he suggests and you were to get a number lower than 140 then we're talking some really interesting things here
Mind you, see to it to evacuate the gas safely at regular intervals if you're to run it for any longer period of time. You don't want it to ignite on you, trust me.
http://open-source-energy.org/?tid=562&pid=14886#pid14886

You've said way to much but I'll try it later......and let you know......

Quote from Mechanic on August 24th, 2013, 08:19 AM

You've said way to much but I'll try it later......and let you know......

Stay safe

Quote from Lynx on August 24th, 2013, 08:27 AM

Stay safe

Yes, please don't pressurize the gas.  When you do that you lose track of just how explosive it is.  A one liter bottle of HHO at atmospheric pressure will rattle your cage if ignited.  You pressurize that up to 10 psi, it looks the same, but now it won't rattle your cage anymore, it will take your fingers off; 20 psi and it will take your whole damn arm off.

There was a dude in California that thought he could run HHO into an air compressor and store the stuff at 120 psi.  He's gone and all that is left is an eight foot deep crater where the air compressor use to be.

Ok, I did a LPM test with my other cell a month or so back and dug that figgers up.....running at 9v, 0.66mA and got 375ml p/m....hope you can do something with that info for now....... I also build a flashback flame burner for the cell and already burned a flame of the gass (ofcourse with lots of bublers and normal flashbacks for safety)......the flame heat adjustment is not to easy and so far I can asume the ports/nozle holes is verry tricky and will be verry small..........as soon as I'm sure "all is ok" I'll re-collect my stuff and continue.....I might be going way out now............but do you think that we can split water with a sound at the same freaquancy as that used in the electronics or even a laser like what meyer tried or probably almost got right....... I can't mesure my electronic's freaquancy yet and the resisters and caps on the circuit does not give me what they calculte to.......well let me (in time) mesure it before I say that for sure......... O' this cell has a 0.67mm clearance for the water to pass through

Quote from Mechanic on August 25th, 2013, 01:33 PM

Ok, I did a LPM test with my other cell a month or so back and dug that figgers up.....running at 9v, 0.66mA and got 375ml p/m....hope you can do something with that info for now....... I also build a flashback flame burner for the cell and already burned a flame of the gass (ofcourse with lots of bublers and normal flashbacks for safety)......the flame heat adjustment is not to easy and so far I can asume the ports/nozle holes is verry tricky and will be verry small..........as soon as I'm sure "all is ok" I'll re-collect my stuff and continue.....
I might be going way out now............but do you think that we can split water with a sound at the same freaquancy as that used in the electronics or even a laser like what meyer tried or probably almost got right....... I can't mesure my electronic's freaquancy yet and the resisters and caps on the circuit does not give me what they calculte to.......well let me (in time) mesure it before I say that for sure......... O' this cell has a 0.67mm clearance for the water to pass through

I have a gut feeling it's the cavitation aspect many of us have been overlooking.  Once we get that added to the formula, then I think we will start seeing a flurry of good results.

Now on to your measurements.  We are looking for 140 Watts per LpM or smaller.  Let's see what we got here:

9 Volts at 0.000660 Amps is:  0.00594 Watts.  Now I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you didn't mean 0.660 mA and instead meant 0.660 Amps or 660 mA.  That would give us:
9 Volts at 0.660 Amps or:  5.94 Watts

375 mL per Minute is:  0.375 Liters per Minute (which means it should have taken 160 Seconds to fill a 1 Liter bottle.)

Performance then is:  5.94 / 0.375  or  15.84 Watts per LpM  (Which is Outstanding)

Giving you a C.O.P.  of  140 / 15.84  =  8.838  Over Unity.



Seriously now, if those numbers are accurate or even in the ballpark, the next step is absolute complete documentation of what you built.  I know it sucks and isn't nearly as fun as building and playing with your prototype, but we all need to try our hand at replicating what you did to see if it's a fluke or if you have really mastered the so-called Stan Meyer Effect.

What is "cavitation"......and does the green print meen we're getting the meyer effect or close??

Quote from Dog-One on August 25th, 2013, 04:19 PM

Giving you a C.O.P.  of  140 / 15.84  =  8.838  Over Unity.

I hate to be the negative guy here...
Efficiency is the "measured" value over the "accepted" value.
I.E. ("measured"/"accepted")

You've got it... "accepted"/"measured"

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/volumetric_efficiency.htm
http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/fluidpowerformulas.htm
(Correct me if I'm wrong... But, that's the way I've always understood it.)

PM with your links/info I'd like to dig into this. :D

Quote from Ravenous Emu on August 26th, 2013, 06:18 PM

I hate to be the negative guy here...
Efficiency is the "measured" value over the "accepted" value.
I.E. ("measured"/"accepted")

You've got it... "accepted"/"measured"

Hmmm.  A smaller number is better (like a golf score), so I flipped it.  I know it needs to be a ratio of some sort.  I was thinking (1/x) / (1/y) is the same as y / x.  Who knows, my mind is going.