I was talking with komtek and realized I was kind of going on a rant. I think it would be best if I stuck to a specific area in efforts to keep the confusion at a minimal. I think I may have an idea for an easy and cheap test that may shed more light on the subject.
Let's take a closer look at a WFC injector. It's design is basic and similar to other inventions in that it is tubular. Some of you may be familiar with some experiments on other forums with spark plugs and water. If I remember correctly, this train of thought was started by a video posted by s1r9a9m9 along with a story that had been circulating the net. Well, the idea was a good one, but I didn't keep an eye on the progress long enough to see if any one would ever figure out the electrodes of the spark plug was not the best idea. To look at a WFC injector in a new way, it is basically an air ionizer in a tube form. instead of the plate being out in the open air, we are isolating the device and only putting through our special blend. Water, exhaust, and ionized air. You shouldn't have to make an injector to get the same results in a way to see the process work. We just have to be creative. We have a few options with electrode design and we have some options for the driver circuitry... What ideas do you guys have?
oops I forgot the blend also has the ionized HHO... that would sort of make a big difference.
Resonance... Not to be confused with "Resonant Action". These are totally two different things happening in the same device but different locations in the device working in tandem, sort of... Every coil has self resonant frequencies. The resonance we are looking for is a parallel type resonance where our voltage rises to infinity and the current drops very low. I mentioned earlier about visualizing a coil as a magnet. each coil has a north and south pole. What happens when we resonate both wires in our coil but each coils polarity is reversed from each other? We have an electrical tension. In a perfect world, a non-inductive coil like ours has the electromagnetic field canceled due to the direction of the current in each wire being opposite of each other. Well, this clearly is not a perfect world and not all of the magnetic field is canceled out. Small compressed rays of electromagnetic energy is radiating out the sides of the coil where the wires do not touch. Some call these scalar waves, or a type of interference pattern. Being that there is some EM energy, a core can store this energy more efficiently and be used, somehow.
The beauty of this coil, when properly tuned to how it's used, it can act like a large capacitor where you step charge it till the threshold voltage is reached and it discharges the energy it stored. Not only that, remember that a coil is resistant to rapid changes in current so it can't release a lot of current quickly like a capacitor does. It's rather hard to explain. So, once it reaches that snap, it starts over. All the energy is kept bundled up in the chokes and keeping the voltage high at the same time, making the water look like just another resistive medium. We tune an ionizer for the dielectric of the air, we tune the WFC for the dielectric of the water. I also mentioned earlier about how each turn of a coil can increase in voltage as you progress down the coil. Each coil is inducing it's opposite field into each other creating more tension in this particular bifilar setup. Some call it a tensor coil.
I am sorry but my thoughts are jumping back and forth and my writing is fragmented. I hope I'm not confusing anyone. The chokes are where some of the magic is at and I find it hard to explain it in a sensible way. I'm going to end here with the chokes by saying, though the chokes are needed for many purposes, they are not really contributing to the resonant action in the cell. Having resonant chokes in the system does not ensure gas production. If not done right you won't see anything and have really no clue why?
When we look at a VIC diagram and take out the chokes, you can see all we have here is a step-up transformer and two plates. Compare this to a "Bipolar Tesla Coil". With Tesla coils we can easily reach extremely high voltages with ease. Each turn in succession towards the positive end of the secondary rises in voltage where the potential at the very end on the last turn can be millions of volts. Imagine the Tesla Coil secondary as an electromagnet, where the positive end is north with a extremely high potential, as the south end is 0V. Does this make sense? You can do easy experiments with coils and see this effect where the potential rises in a linear fashion as you measure down the coil. This is important to remember.
A long time ago, I was playing around with an ignition coil and some ignition wire from the junk yard. I soon understood that they make ignition wire with a really high resistance. My experiment wasn't working right for the fact the wires were way to resistive to get a small spark easily. I was perplexed as to why they do this. It seemed a waste to impede current to create a spark. I was told it is to keep the ignition wires from shorting to the block. Aha, this made sense to me. I have seen this happen with other high voltage experiments where a primary will short to the secondary if the insulation was inadequate. Well, we can do this too with our VIC or ionizer circuit, but resistance is a waste of energy. It works, but your just wasting the energy your trying to save. Like trying to fill a bucket with a hose full of holes. Resistance also adds to the voltage drop and we don't need any more of that than what we already have.
We have to some how choke the current off just before the plates like a valve. As with an Ionizer, the same with a VIC, if we have a dead short condition, the current will rise and the voltage will drop to 0v for an instant of time. If you think about it. The large part of resistance in the ionizer is the air between the plates and the circuit mainly sees it as a resistance. Remember we can change the resistance by changing the gap space or we can adjust the voltage to the gap space to the point of coronal discharge. A sort of sweet spot between dead short and off. When we add water to the circuit, it's like adding a wire in between the plate making a dead short. Enter the "Resonant Charging Chokes".
Inductors have an array of uses such as ballasts, filters, resonators, and so on. They have many qualities we can utilize in our circuits. One of the inherent properties of an inductor coil is it's resistance to fast rising current. This quality helps us to keep a runaway current draw as a ballast is designed to do, allowing us to have many dead shorts without harm. It acts much like resistive wires without the resistance. Or like a valve holding back the current. In our case though we have a bifilar coil which allows us to keep the qualities of the single coil and some added benefits when we have two in parallel with the direction of the current running opposite of each other. At first this coil resembles a non-inductive series bifilar coil which is used in the industry for a type of wire wound resistor, but this is not what we have when we do what we do with it. Here is where the resonance comes in...
I need to take a break for some family matters... I'll start resonance in a few hours.
Quite the contrary my friend! The WFC and the GEET are very much one in the same. Please allow me to explain... The differences being Meyers used electrical based devices compared to Pantone using a more mechanical means to do the same processes. Both ionize the incoming fuel mixture before combustion and both utilize the exhaust gas recirculation system. It is very feasible to design a GEET system to run on 100% water if one just uses an educated imagination. What I mean by educated imagination is using the knowledge you have gained with water electrolysis and apply it to a GEET type system and you may have a working yet inexpensive model. Don't expect fantastic results right away, tuning takes time for things like this. The Beautiful thing about the GEET system is not only the simplicity but the ease, of building and seeing results right away with a variety of fuel sources.
A parallel reason for bringing the GEET in to the discussion was to instill design creativity and open new up new possibilities to a rather fascinating puzzle. It is one thing to understand the WFC and it is another to make it real. I didn't come to my conclusions from thought experiments or doing math equations trying to explain to the world how it works. I did it in reverse and built first guessed later. Reviewing and refining what I had learned.
A hypothetical question for you. If I were to be able to convince any one of you by either demonstration or whatever means it takes showing any ICE based system running on 100% water, what would you do with that information? Would you be willing to keep my name out of it and keep my privacy? What would be the best way to make sure this technology is made out in the open ensuring a world wide change for the better? I can tell you from experience there is a great resistance to this tech and we need an alternative to the current business model that plagues this world from true human creativity. I can only see an underground revolution of a network of people building devices for mass roll-out at the ripe old price of buying the parts and building it. If we could get 10,000 people to demonstrate 10,000 identical working prototypes all in one day around the world by surprise. What would happen to the world on that day with a paradigm shift such as this? You think any one will notice?
I have been thinking a bit about how air ionizers work and finding some rather peculiar similarities to how Stan describes his inventions. Often, Stan spoke of high voltages but never really stood on a specific range. I assume from reading his works, 5Kv on up to 40Kv(depending on the device) were the most mentioned numbers. And as usual, very low current is consumed. I also believe it has been established by the general public, the gases produced from the first process are ionized for several reasons unaddressed in this writing.
The first patented Air Ionizer or Ozone Generator was invented by none other than Nikola Tesla. US Patent #568177. Review closely the drawings illustrated in the patent and see how closely the apparatus resembles the inventions of Stan Meyer. There is one major difference, though, with these two in comparison, a detail which is mostly overlooked or not yet understood. The "Polarity" of the circuit...
Air Ionizers have a polarity. Just by switching the polarity from positive to negative or vice versa, we change the polarity of the ions produced. An ozone generator produces negative ions, while, the reverse will produce super-oxides or unstable atoms of oxygen. Let it be known that these resulted positive ions or super-oxides are not the healthiest elements to be mishandled or consumed by the human body. Super-oxides are destructive when they encounter living cells. Household cleaners like "Oxyclean" use super-oxides for the reason being the atom will accept just about any particle it can get to try to reach equilibrium. Super-oxides may even aid in splitting water. My local water treatment plant uses ozone to treat our water, why not super-oxides?
So, now I have to re-look at my WFC replication and wonder if my setup is polarity positive or negative. Should this small detail make the bit of difference from a working and non-working replication? Is the VIC nothing more than a liquid water to gas ionizer? I had mentioned a little bit of why I think it is a good thing for the trapped bubbles to recirculate back through the tubular array in such a way as to possibly ionize the hydrogen gases therein. Steve had commented and asked about it, which I did not reply. If I may, I wish to address that question with this thread as a whole. I apologize for not replying in a mannerly fashion, for, I had none at the time.
When an atom loses electrons it becomes "electronegative" or also known as unstable because of it's inherent attraction to negative particles, trying to become stable. The more electrons stripped away, the greater the electronegativity. A quote from the Wiki... Electronegativity, symbol ?, is a chemical property that describes the ability of an atom (or, more rarely, a functional group) to attract electrons (or electron density) towards itself.[1] An atom's electronegativity is affected by both its atomic weight and the distance that its valence electrons reside from the charged nucleus. The higher the associated electronegativity number, the more an element or compound attracts electrons towards it. First proposed by Linus Pauling in 1932 as a development of valence bond theory,[2] it has been shown to correlate with a number of other chemical properties. Electronegativity cannot be directly measured and must be calculated from other atomic or molecular properties. Several methods of calculation have been proposed and, although there may be small differences in the numerical values of the electronegativity, all methods show the same periodic trends between elements.
The most commonly used method of calculation is that originally proposed by Pauling. This gives a dimensionless quantity, commonly referred to as the Pauling scale, on a relative scale running from 0.7 to 4.0 (hydrogen = 2.2). When other methods of calculation are used, it is conventional (although not obligatory) to quote the results on a scale that covers the same range of numerical values: this is known as an electronegativity in Pauling units.
Electronegativity, as it is usually calculated, is not strictly an atomic property, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule:[3] the equivalent property of a free atom is its electron affinity. It is to be expected that the electronegativity of an element will vary with its chemical environment,[4] but it is usually considered to be a transferable property, that is to say that similar values will be valid in a variety of situations. The opposite of electronegativity is electropositivity: a measure of an element's ability to donate electrons.
I can only imagine that when highly unstable oxygen atoms are introduced to a certain amount of water and voltage potential , the water will not only disassociate, but may even combust with very little input to the system in an optimally design device.
I am short on time once again, but, I would like to go over the different gas ionizer topologies and there history to related inventions of others. I have found a wealth of information that I would like to share to anyone venturing into the realm of Stan Meyer.
You're right, Sterling is a good guy, but, I wouldn't recommend his archives as serious reading.
It's funny how NASA always seems to pop up in WFC folklore. Herman P. Anderson is another NASA scientist who had built a water powered car. They called him the "Ionization King" if I remember correctly.
Freddy's design is rather archaic and there is little control over ratios and metering, but it works. Here is a link to a video with a similar design but without the cell. In the video, he uses a 50/50 ratio of water and gas. Notice also, later in the video, he blows through the reactor pipe, demonstrating how a resonant cavity works.
I'm not sure if I would call it a resistor, per se. A hybrid capacitor or a diode of some sort would be more fitting. Capacitors generally block DC current which is what we want to do. Sort of like step charging a super capacitor, only with much higher volt levels.
kickbackemf, I found an article you might like. I was skimming another forum and found a topic called "Relaxation Time & Semiconductors", which lead me to this page.
Didn't Stan use some kind of lens to "cohere" the diffused light of the high powered 5V LED's? He would often use the term "Laser" signifying a focused beam or something along those lines.
Great find Steve! Thank you! I tried to read the full article but was asked for money. Although, they added a paragraph on the page...
Quote
Another method was also tried, using an iron tube as an electrode. It is known that nascent hydrogen diffuses through metals like iron even at ordinary temperatures.
Dave, I'm assuming the reason the glowing tube of water vapor was used, was to ultimately show how to find which gases were present by looking at the frequencies of light radiated from the tube. Correct? In other words, a simple demonstration of a spectroscopy test?