I'm attempting to replicate the example in this patent. 

I'm sure many have seen this and done the same.  So I'm just kind of putting it out here for anyone to add information about it.

From this patent here is what I can extract:

T-304 material
4 inch long cell
1/2 inch innner tube circle
3/4 inch outer tube circle
Spacing: 0.0625 inch

Primary coil of 200 turns 24 awg wire
Secondary of 600 turns 36 awg wire
50% duty cycle on primary

26 volts primary
0 khz referenced (10 khz identified in another patent)

First choke: 100 turns 24 awg wire

Diode: 1N1198:  Rating 600 volts, 40 amps.

Missing:
Core for chokes?
Second choke details?
Water distilled or tap?
Resistive wire on any?

Other:
Voltage rise to 1,000 volts +
No electrolyte
Second inductor has wiper arm to help limit amps (tune for contaminants)

Due to design secondary and chokes are not on single core yet (like 5 coil vic)

I'm looking for details on the missing information, prefer with a reference and not just wild guesses.

W.

just blurting out my brain farts here. Not being a chemist or anything really.

When you charge a cap you put a positive voltage&charge going towards the plate and I am told electrons escape the plate and you get positive voltage on it.

So why not just forget this 150y old process with electrolytes and gazillions of amps and just create a conductive surface inside water from an element, that will hold on to its electrons more dearly than water does? Then you pulse that surface/ball/metallic sphere with a positive DC pulse of high voltage.

You basically "ground" your circuit into the body of water. Now if water will give up electrons more easily than your "metallic water grounding sphere" then those electrons would leave the water molecules. Well if I am correct then that would mean the H2O would break down and that would leave us with some other substance right? Hydrogen and an ion maybe?

Maybe there is a need to experiment on positive/negative voltage and frequency, but am I totally wrong?

I mean people use the "hairpin" and then put light bulbs under water without any shorts and their hands also. Maybe they are just grounding the whole crap into water and with high freq you would not feel it anyway?

there are so many implications in the "hairpin" circuit that people lose focus what is the actual point the circuit showing. Just like people miss the most important parts of any Don Smith written or video material, because they only look for stuff they are familiar with. Like why put all this crap about transformers and fuses into this material? Like jesus just give us the real schematic!

People get hungup on "perpetual motion machines" that they overlook the fact, that atoms do it all the time. You don't slap your butt 24/7 to exist. They cry about creation/destruction of energy and the miss the fact that then it was already created in the Big Bang. If it can't be destroyed. Then it is already here. You don not need to worry about where it comes from. You abuse Nature's habits and nature will put it there. Like there is 0 energy in a battery. You connect the terminals with a wire and Nature's OCD kicks in and it needs those potentials at even level. That is when the energy appears.

Can't find the book now, but read a quote from a physics book, that "earth grounding" will supply ANY amount of electrons/energy to change a potential to ground level. Maybe not go too deep into it right now, but you can create potentials cheap and make it hard for the earth to make it all ground level. Make it hard and have your load in there somewhere in between.

The worst you can do for yourself is to believe that there are some laws written in stone, because Kirchhoff wanted to make a name for himself or that you absolutely must suffer Lorentz in all possible situations. So far only Faraday seems to hold, Maxwell and most of Heaviside's ideas.

when you ground you created dead short and amp draw , you kill static build up and kill the effect .
you stop the ability to harvest  electrons thus keeping gas implosive .  all of that equals not good bad not meyers 

Belfior,
You covered several areas in this and some are spot on and others just need more information.  So I’m just going to start typing and see where this ends up:

All of our electronics are based on electron movement and actually our world as well (lighting, chemistry, photosynthesis, etc).  Conductors will easily move electrons around.  Insulators will not.  They all can gain and loose electrons. 

Conductors when given excess electrons easily transmit the electron along.
Insulators, still gain electrons, but can’t move them and build up what we call static electricity.
The electrons are trapped on the surface.  As more and more electrons build up (higher voltage) they finally breakdown the insulator, or go sliding off the surface.

(Personal) Definitions:
Voltage: Actually called “Voltage Potential”  A charge separation between objects, the higher the ‘voltage indicated’ the more charge separation (electron clustering on one plate VS. the other).
Ampere:  Known commonly as “Amps”  The movement of electrons.

So trying to get on track:  When you charge a capacitor you need “voltage  potential” to start the process and  “amps” are a result.  So it takes energy, power (watts = volts * amps) to charge a capacitor, although relatively small for most capacitors.

“So why not just forget this 150y old process with electrolytes and gazillions of amps and just create a conductive surface inside water from an element, that will hold on to its electrons more dearly than water does? Then you pulse that surface/ball/metallic sphere with a positive DC pulse of high voltage.”

I’m not sure if you are saying a conductor holding its electrons more than water, or an element that will take the electrons from water because it holds on so much more.
Let’s go with the first situation.  Pick any metal except: Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Caesium, Francium.  If you look into the periodic table of elements you will see this is the far left side of elements.  Now, any other metal holds its electrons more than water.  Look at Iron for the electrode, as an example.  In water iron will last a very long time, however Oxygen (H2 and O2 released) will quickly turn Iron into rust (iron-oxide).
This is what leads us to metals that are not going to become oxidized (rusted). 

So we look into stainless steel as one solution. The Chromium in the stainless does oxide, but it remains conductive and very shiny (luster finish) VS. Iron oxide that is non-conductive and simply looks bad.  Stainless Steel in the 300 series is the least protective from oxidation.  As an example, SS-304 has the lowest Chromium content.  SS- 316 has more Chromium and will not exhibit spot rusting. SS-400 series has even more Chromium and is designed for salt water boats, ocean use.

Back on topic:
Since these metals hold electrons more than water, we need to add external voltage, current to make the reaction happen.

Now if I read your above statement as the second part we want to focus on the exclusion list above.
These elements will “rip” electrons out of the water and release Hydrogen.  Well actually what is going on is Oxygen meets these elements in water and kick Hydrogen to the curb and attacks these elements.  No voltage or external amps needed, but the elements are consumed and H2 is released.
In all the above either way we will consume something, either the elements into oxides releasing H2, or amps based on Faraday.

“Maybe there is a need to experiment on positive/negative voltage and frequency, but am I totally wrong?”

 Not totally wrong.  This is basically what we have been doing.  It just seems gas production is still limited to external amps in our systems.

We can even look into the Saltwater battery with magnesium and graphite.  These elements will become consumed, so it is again a limiting factor…but they create a voltage potential difference similar to a battery.  When shorted out the salt and water is consumed (salt at a higher rate) releasing H2 in the process.

Stanley Meyer wanted to create an environment, or device, that didn’t consume anything.
His goal was to use voltage potential to split water molecules.
Yes it takes some amps (power) to create the potential voltage and some amps “leak” into the water, therefor some power is consumed.   
As examples:
2,000 volts @ 0.200 amps = 400 watts consumed.
2,000 volts @ 0.020 amps =  40 watts consumed.
2,000 volts @ 0.002 amps =    4 wats consumed.

Moving back to the patent in topic reference, the goal is to see 600-1,000 volts across the cell with limited amp leak.
I say 600 because that is the limit of the blocking diode.
I know others have tried this and failed, so my first attempt is to replicate, then change any variable I see fit to produce a meter reading of 600+ volts across the water plates, with limited amps and H2 O2 production

W.

Quote from securesupplies on July 7th, 2019, 04:08 AM

when you ground you created dead short and amp draw , you kill static build up and kill the effect .
you stop the ability to harvest  electrons thus keeping gas implosive .  all of that equals not god bad not meyers

Well it all depends if you ground your PSU to earth (the most common idea) or ground something that does not affect your PSU.

All the inventors that might have found something different use most of their patent to hide what they found. Then people build these like the patent shows and claim "no OU".

That is why I focus less on Kirchhoff or any other "Laws of Nature" and try my ideas on the bench.

My current focus is a 3 way system to try to find a solution for getting more out than in.

1.    Create a cheap HV DC pulse. Use this without degrading your PSU meaning that is no return wire to the PSU.
2.    Amplify that to get even more voltage and store that in a cap.
3.    Use the gained energy without degrading your PSU or destroying the amplification in step 2.

There must be gazillion reasons why this is not going to work, but how many of them have you actually tested? People use come backs they have learned in school and they have not actually tried ever. Or if they have, they try it the way it was shown in some book and who writes&pays for these books?

But now I'm ranting and stealing this thread. Sorry warj1190! My point was just that we need to find new ways and not necessarily replicate 150y old stuff or some patent that never tells you the truth anyway,

I will only post again, if I got something that comes up in my own "wrong method of doing things".

it works but you have to read the patents