I'll take you up on that

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Farlander, Nov 4, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Ok Sgt. Wookie, here's what you said:

    "Additionally, if you attempt to experiment with high voltage without proper safety precautions ... your life will most certainly be cut short.

    If you really want to try this stuff, send it to me, and I'll test it for you.

    At least I have the knowledge and training to survive these kinds of tests."


    I'm ready for you to test 'this'. Uses a dual 555 timer circuit shown here. (link soon). It generates variable width pulsed dc packets from 1 to 500kHz.

    Use a high speed driver to power a trench FET; 12V control signal (or cmos), 150V max gating.

    Pass the 100V pulsed DC into a LARGE capacitor, say 8800uF 250V, about 8" tall 4" diam.

    Pass the cap output into step up transorfmer(s).

    Apply the signal to a bifilar wound choke coil.

    Apply the high voltage output (40kV needed at
    2 mm spacing) to a pair of insulated electrodes submerged in water in close parallel alignment.
    I'm using a pair of 304 grade stainless steel plates separated and held together by rubber bands. I've sanded the opposing faces to facilitate the build up and adhesion of a dielectric oxide layer. This is crucial. The layer must be built up gradually using low amperage at first and gradually increased over a month or so. Once amps severely drop off, you have a conditioned plate. The resistive layer will curtail amp flow, spike voltage, and cause major gas production.


    Ok on second thought, I don't feel like mailing all that stuff, why don't you just send me your oscope, ammeter, and guitar tuner and I'll adjust the frequency myself. RESONANCE BABY
     
  2. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    LOL!

    Do you have any idea how much it costs to ship just an oscilloscope nowadays?

    I bought a 2nd one for a backup on an auction site last year. $5 won the auction. :cool:

    It cost another $45 to get it shipped to me. :eek:

    Actually, I need to stop spending so much time on the forums, and finish my 8-digit frequency counter. :rolleyes:

    But, sounds like you're talking about a Meyers-like circuit.

    Something odd about the schematics I've seen floating around is that some sort of resonance was claimed; when this resonance was struck, the claim was that the current was greatly decreased.

    Trouble is, the best that circuit could hope for was series LC resonance, which means that it would pass maximum, not minimum current at the resonant frequency.

    In other miscellaneous fiddlings, calculations, and observations, none of the dimensions I've found so far come even close to a resonant frequency or subharmonic thereof when Boyce or Meyer's "magic frequencies" are mentioned.

    Not beam resonance, nor accoustic resonance, using either the speed of sound in air or in water.

    BTW, I think you'll find that rubber bands don't make for very good insulators when high voltage is involved.

    There's something else; the dielectric strength of water and the gasses being generated. I simply can't find a reference to what the dielectric strength of pure water is. I did find this PDF:
    http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1772/article_26953.pdf
    but it's difficult to read when you're as tired as I am at the moment. :rolleyes:

    However, air has a dielectric strength of 3kv/mm, as does both hydrogen and oxygen. So, if your plates spaced 2mm apart start generating hydrogen and oxygen, and there is a 40kV potential between the plates, there will most certainly be arcing going on, right through these explosive gas bubbles. This does not sound like an idea that would be very healthy to try.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2008
  3. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I'll give you $100 for it, if it's not a piece of junk.

    You never said whether the setup of step up coil, choke coil, capacitor, choke coil ---> was an LC tank or LCL.

    What auction site?

    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2008
  4. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    A bifilar choke coil should be interesting to work with. That method of arranging the coils of wire is meant to cancel inductance. Won't be much of a choke (assuming you want it to be inductive and limit current/produce some reactance).

    As the effect is supposed to take place with no conductance through the water - won't be a capacitor otherwise - why not use aluminum plates and coat them with paint or plastic? If you don't want it to conduct, insulate the plates. If it works with the plates insulated, why not just coat them? If the SS is insulated, why go to the expense and hassle of working with it? Insulation is insulation.

    Water isn't a particularly good dielectric if full of voids from gas production. Your plate spacing really ought to be enough to prevent arcing in moist air. 40 KV at any frequency wants to travel amazingly long distances.

    All those scratches make the problem of arcing worse. I blew a cuvette of water all over the ceiling while working with an electroporator prototype. That was only 450 volts discharging through the water. I'd really want to be at a safe distance because of the possibility of explosion - both from steam and an arc lighting off the gas.
     
  5. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    It's actually not for sale; I'd have to buy another to replace it. Besides, the scope has a blossom down in one corner; this is undoubtedly due to a partial screen collapse in the electron gun. It would not likely survive shipping, and a replacement tube would cost far more than it's worth. Someday when I'm feeling adventurous, I may attempt to repair it; but that would involve using a diamond saw to cut the neck off the tube, re-welding the grid, re-attaching the neck, evacuating and flooding the tube with a neutral gas such as argon, and then re-aligning everything. I'd probably just junk it before going through all that trouble.

    I don't have the numbers for those items. However, in general, a series LC circuit will conduct maximum AC current when at it's resonant frequency.

    Attempting to calculate the capacitance value of Meyers' cell is problematic, if only because the dielectric constant is in question. Water has a dielectric constant of around 78 at 25°C, where air (including oxygen and hydrogen) has a dielectric constant very slightly over 1 (something like 1.000000322454 or thereabouts - no, those are random numbers, but not too far off).

    So, no matter what the actual plate area and spacing is, the fact that the dielectric constant will be changing radically depending upon how much gas is being generated means that the capacitance will also vary radically; when no gas is being generated the capacitance will be relatively high, when maximum gas is being generated, the capacitance will be relatively low. In order to compensate for this change in capacitance, external capacitance in parallel would have to be increased. Alternatively, external inductance in series could be increased.

    However, this is a series LC circuit we're talking about.

    Were it a tank circuit (ie: LC in parallel) then maximum impedance would be at the resonant frequency.

    E-bay. I bought a couple of 60MHz O-scopes that were "pre-digital", one Tektronix 2215, one Hitachi V-660, both had problems and were advertised that way. The nice thing about the older 'scopes is that you can actually repair them, if you know what you're doing. I have a complete set of operation, repair and calibration manuals for both.

    With the newer digital 'scopes, you either have to pay through the nose to get them fixed or calibrated, or just throw them away and buy another one. They have lots of neat features that mine don't have, but I really don't mind. I would much rather have a $50 scope that works, than a $2,000 doorstop.
     
  6. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Note the bifilar winding of the choke, Wook. There's no L to go with the C.
     
  7. SgtWookie

    Expert

    Jul 17, 2007
    22,182
    1,728
    Yes, that's another thing I've been wondering about that. Why weren't ferrite toroids used? They would've been far more effective/efficient.

    Why not just use copper with mylar (or similar) insulation for that matter? Austenitic stainless steel (300 series) is as a group, a really poor conductor; roughly 53 times as much resistance as copper. Really, there are only two advantages I can see:
    1) Higher modulous of elasticity (if beam resonance is of concern).
    2) Corrosion resistance (but if it's insulated using a coating such as mylar, that concern goes away).

    I alluded to this in my prior post, but I think we basically simul-posted, and I edited it a few times. Dry air has a dielectric strength of about 3kv/mm.

    The suggested theory of scratching the plates in a crosshatch pattern is to increase the effective surface area. How effective this actually is, I don't know. However, it seems to me that the results could vary widely depending upon the grit size used, number of strokes in each direction, pressure applied, etc.

    Interesting about your cuvette blasting experience ;)
     
  8. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Yes indeed! Rule of thumb is 1mm per 3kV. Last time I checked, 40/3= more than half an inch! When (not if) the dielectric breaks down, this toy will explode!

    In 1913, Harry Brearley discovered what he called "rustless steel" - a chromium rich steel with a very thin & very stable layer of chromium oxide on the outer surface. Today, we call Brearley's invention "stainless" steel. The chromium oxide layer, called the "passive layer" prevents any additional oxidation. The passive layer is extremely effective at preventing any additional oxidation.

    One might well be able to build up a layer of residue from the electrolyte, but one will never build up any "oxide layer." The build-up of a thin layer of residue from the electrolyte will NOT suffice as a dielectric at the voltages suggested.

    Go with Beenthere's idea: coat some aluminum or copper plates in a real dielectric. Choose a dielectric with a nice high dielectric strength. I'd go with 2mm thick polystyrene or 1mm thick teflon.

    Farlander, I'm going to say it again: Learn what all these sexy words actually MEAN! You have a large number of misconceptions, and they'll take you no-where very fast. If you instead spend your effort on actually learning about physics and electronics, you may well go far in life.
     
  9. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Someone came by the Instrument Lab and sort of described how they worked. So I made one using an old B+ transformer and a variable charge on a filter cap. Think I figured a joule or two too many. It was slick - the water just wasn't there anymore.
     
  10. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I don't know why Meyers chose stainless unless it was easier than trying to coat copper or aluminum, or it has different acoustic resonating effects, or maybe he wanted a high resistance material. Not sure

    One company I contacted has a 2-4 micron thick carbon coating applied by chemical vapor with resistance of 10^9th but they can't get down in the inside of long tubes, another possible reason why stainless. Also, the oxide layer that forms on sanded stainless adheres better and is only 1-2 microns thick

    students.umw.edu/~jsera9mu/wfc%20site
     
  11. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    What is the chemical formula for this alleged oxide?

    And does it really and truly have a dielectric strength of a billion or two volts per meter?
     
  12. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I don't know the dielectric strength, I don't even know what said oxide layer is really made out of, but I have seen it form and I know that it has a VERY high resistance.

    I think it's chromium oxide... what else would form on a metal made of chromium, iron, and nickel underwater with electric current?

    With regards to the torroid, many others are leaning in this direction, could you elaborate? What is a torroid? In essence, the bifilar choke setup is an LCL because you have one coil on the positive side and one coil on the negative side they just happen to be wound on the same core to help limit amp flow. What is ferrite?
     
  13. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Resistance and dielectric strength are not well related. The ability to insulate against 40KV has nothing to do with resistance, but the insulating material will have to be a non-conductor.

    CrO2 isn't likely to be the film - http://en.scientificcommons.org/21751434. Notice the part that goes "thermal....resistivity". It can't insulate.

    Ferrite is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrite_(magnet).

    A toroid is a chunk of anything shaped like a donut. I buy transformers with ferrite toroidal cores.

    Your description of the coil doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate about a coil on "the positive side" and another "on the negative side". A sketch or something might help. Those aren't meaningful terms.

    Are you aware that 40KV is more than enough voltage to produce X-rays?
     
  14. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Thanks for the tidbits.

    The choke coil is actually 2 coils, aligned so as to have opposing polarity on a common core. One is connected to the positive submerged electrode, the other to the negative. It's all on The Plan! schematic on my web site.
     
  15. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Back in the days of core memory, two currents converged at a core to drive its magnetic state to write a "1". If the state should remain "0", then a third wire conducted a current opposing one of the drive lines and canceled the effect.

    Your opposing coil currents sound something like that.
     
  16. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Wookie,
    Why would a torroid be more effective/efficient than a bifilar wound cylindrical choke one positive and one negative coil wound in opposing directions.

    I think the difference may be it's easier to wind your own choke than to wind your own torroid.

    Assuming that resonance frequency is a function of the capacitance, inductance, and pulsing frequency, the inductance of the chokes and step up xformers should be as closely mathced to the capacitance of the cell as possible. In fact, if it were designed perfectly to where the resonance of the circuit matched the resonance of the acousic vibration of the electrodes, extraordinary gas production occuray?
     
  17. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Winding coils in opposing directions causes the magnetic fields to cancel each other out. Canceled magnetic fields means no induction. No induction means no reduction in current. If you want to reduce current, you need a regular old choke coil. Torroids are more effective at concentrating the magnetic field than are cylinders.

    There are uses for bifilar windings - but this application does not call for one.

    Why would that happen? What possible effect could acoustic resonance of some hunk of metal have on water molecules?
     
  18. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    I'm not sure how this works but there is a machine called a cable thumper, which sends a high voltage spike down a line and alerts the electrician to a break in the line with a loud thump.

    So basically, high voltage has the ability to move matter, create sound, etc. Parallel plate electrodes vibrating at *resonant* ultrasonic frequency may improve gas production.

    What do you mean by a regular old choke coil? I thought that was an oppositely wound bifilar?
     
  19. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    This discussion is not going to be productive. I went to the source material by Stanley Meyer, and found it nothing but bafflegab written by a flim-flam man.

    The link to Mr. Meyer's stuff can be reached through this link - http://www.theorionproject.org/en/hydroxy.html. The pertinent section to this thread is page 6-3, "Tri-Coil Construction".

    When going through the construction of the Voltage Intensifier Circuit (his language - anyone conversant with electronics would call it a step up transformer) we find some interesting requirements. The secondary and choke windings are specified to be wound of .004" stainless. That is just barely possible, although I hate to think of procuring it with insulation applied. The primary is specified as being wound with 30 ga copper.

    How interesting. The output voltage is to be 20KV or above (no limit given), with a current "in the milliampere range". Doing a bit of math shows us that 20KV at 5 ma is a power of 100 watts. Since the primary is sourced from 12 volts, that current for 100% efficiency, has to be 8.33 amps. A look at an ampacity table shows us that 30 ga wire has a limit of 860 ma. That and the non-inductive bifilar choke windings makes the attempt to reproduce his transformer an exersize in futility. Bluntly, he lied about it. Can't work, won't work.

    Mr. Meyer, in the vein of all the other flim-flam artists inhabiting the wonderful world of over unity electrolysis, has shown himself to be so ignorant of certain physical constraints that he just looks like a scammer. He has absolutely no idea of how his rather magical device produces the claimed result.

    By the way, the one patent that turns up on the U.S. Patent Office site with his name on it has only to do with a nebulous methodology of introducing so-called hydroxy gas into an IC engine such that it does not blow itself up. The reference he cites as a previous patent of his (9,936,931) actually belongs to another person. It has to do with an aqueous suspension of an explosive useful in blasting.

    It's pretty obvious that Mr. Meyer relied heavily on his adherents not doing any fact checking or actually making a serious effort to replicate his device. Recall that in my discussion of the infamous D9 pdf, one of the techniques used to insulate the proponent from claims of outright fraud was the specification of impossible conditions or manufacturing methods. Mr. Meyer has done the same thing.

    From a quick scan of the very long set of documents linked through the Orion Project site, Mr. Meyer uses confucing terminology, does not consistently follow hos oen device terminology, and contradicts himself in several areas. He was a scammer. His only interest was in separating the credulous from their money. There is no conspiracy to suppress his work - none of his gagets were even remotely about to work.

    Anyone who is interested in looking into his devices is advised to learn some electronics. It will be immediately obvious that a person as ingnorant of electronics as Mr. Meyer was could not have produced any significant results.
     
  20. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Hi guys,
    A bifilar coil is supposed to work when each coil is independently "fired." Even for a nanosecond. As the "trigger" coil is energised, sending power to the circuit, the secondary coil gets energised moments later, capturing the collapsing bemf field. How it is supposed to work, I don't know, but it does. If I'm just a nut job, okay.
    Dan
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.