UncleFester

Thanks Tad for writing some answers here.
You know as well as I that there are many people proclaiming stuff that isnt true.
I ll guess that Dankie had a bad feeling because of those people.
 I understand from your email and your posting that you are not the biggest
fan of that HV setup.
But, many here are willing to find that out too.

Thanks for telling about the need for resistance.
I read you telling that you did that experiment 12 years ago and that details are difficult to remember.

Am i right, if i resume your details here:

Pulsing 1200v DC or higher
some coils
a resistor in line with wfc
Resonance between coils and WFC? Or is it resonance in the coils?

About JNL, he said he used insulated tubes. Did you use insulated tubes?

br
steve

Ps.

I also do not always listen the mrs...

My tubes were not insulated but that would help greatly in power consumption and capacitance would not float all over the place.

It's not that I am not a fan of HV electrolysis, it's that like Meyer I understand why it is not best to use a submerged in water type of scheme. It is a very poor way to get engine running on water. It requires cumbersome tanks and filtered water, and complex electronic setups which can cause many headaches.  A much much better process is to use a water vapor and break it up using less than the energy of a submerged cell and yet without any constant tuning required. Do you see my point here? Does anyone see my point on this aspect?

The details you mentioned are what I used, which is almost identical to the JLN setup although I had little control over current and frequency since I had no way to vary duty cycle of the input signal driving the transistor. I also did not use a bifilar wound choke, I used off the shelf variable chokes which also had limited range of changing inductance, it was a real pain. I calculated resonance based on the secondary inductance, the chokes, and the cell capacitance, but even then it took alot of tuning to find the right frequency for this cell and the calculations ended up being off by over 5Khz. I would venture to say that you could not pay me enough money to reproduce that original experiment without allowing a processor controlled scheme, it was truly a nightmare of tuning and going over and over all the calculations. It's obvious why Stan went with a different scheme in the latest patents.

Tad

tad part numbers and values would be  helpfull   

according to your blueprint you ran a 1/4 gap with a 1 inch od tube and a 3/8 bar am i correct in what i read

That must have been the wrong drawing. I used 1mm gap as per Stan's instructions.

1. Secondary inductance needs to be taken into account also when looking for resonance.

2. Bifilar wound choke like JLN's is best because they are magnetically coupled.

3. Power supply must be capable of enough current to get the process started. Mine only gave a few milliamperes and it was tough to overcome the loss of the cell leaking down after every pulse. It may be possible to add a few picofarad cap in parallel with the cell in order to store up a small charge to keep the cell from leaking down to zero after each pulse. Small inverters like I used are very low on current and will make major headaches.

4. Probably better to use a flyback core (ferrite) and wind it with the appropriate number of turns in order to maximize current and have a wide frequency capabilty. Mine only had a narrow range and thus was difficult to tune to the frequency given by the resonance calc. Snubbers may be needed in order to not fry your mosfets or which ever transistor you are using. Once the effect is established, the pulse width can be narrowed in order to reduce current and thereby increase efficiency.

5. True Meyer process requires at least 500 to 600 volts to see the real effect. Don't try running a high current 12VDC system and then call it Meyer process, it is NOT.

6. Visual output can be deceiving, use a jug filled with water upside down in a 5 gallon can and measure using that method at least. I used a Cole Parmer gas flow meter on my experiments since it was the most accurate way I could measure real output.

7. When temperature changes, you can expect the cell to stop making gas since it will change the capacitance of the cell and throw off your resonance calculations. A processor is the only way I can find to easily control this tuning issue.

8. Cell can use many different types of water according to Stan, but I only used distilled water. No chemicals (sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, etc) in the cell! No electrolyte!

9. Don't attach your scope probes to the cell directly, it will be seeing wide voltage swings due to resonance. In later experiments I built a 100 Megaohm resistor to use in series with my probes in order to not fry my Tektronics scope.

I will try and dig up the original components and take pictures of them. Although they are all available from common electronics stores and the HV inverters are cheap over at Information unlimited's site. Although you will have very limited control over frequency when you use these types of power supplies. Best to use the power supplies I have been building for my plasma experiments I have been contracted to perform (already posted this video). These use a PIC16F876 processor and use two of the PWM outputs (CCP1 and CCP2) for pulsing high voltage step up transformers. It also uses a snubber network since the 600 volt mosfets I am using will not handle the transients on the primary.

Tad



http://www.amazing1.com/hv-hf-power-supplies.htm

ted your description is very vauge

what was you approimate

choke size
wire size
core material
tube size  Length,Height,Diameter
and number of tubes

also using that small sine wave generator with the laminated transformer at 42.8khz was their alot of distortion in the output signal

choke size - don't remember, it's been 12 years you need to use an LC resonance calc to find it for your cell
wire size - don't remember it's been 12 years
core material - pre-made inverter, so it was probably a ferrox cube (high frequency ferrite) as usual
tube size  Length,Height,Diameter - attaching picture, it's all I have
and number of tubes - see attached picture

(http://i34.tinypic.com/2la6crp.jpg)
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2ut59g6.jpg)
(http://i37.tinypic.com/161c9aq.jpg)

This experiment was a few pieces cobbled together since I had very little electronics skills back then, and minimal machining capability. It took 6 months to see any results, and over a year before I ended up with 13.33 Liters per watt/per hour, and that was with Stan Meyers help (asking questions through my friend John Weider). There have been three different experiments that are current and could be followed. If you want to cobble a bunch of junk together like I did, that's ok, I will pull out all the parts and give you the part numbers and values, but JLN and others have much much better setups. Although this process alone is not worth playing with if you are trying to get a small engine to run solely on water. It requires processor controls like I have built many times now for different processes, Processor setup and even then it's not the right process for running vehicles solely on water. Folks, this is why Meyer dropped the process. Do you want a model A or a modern mustang GT? 

Tell me if you need anything else. I will devote hours to this if it will help you, although I could show you much better setups to follow, including JLN's:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/index.htm

P.S. Don't even think about attempting this experiment without at least a few years electronics experience and a good scope, LCR meter, DVM's, and lots of time.

Tad