I studied US Patent 3980053 vigorously years ago. I typed 2 pages of proof reading errors made by the Patent Examiners. Doing a recent review of my findings, the ratio of windings is lastly, still a problem. The main circuit is just a beefed up capacitor discharge ignition at 600watts, and used for electrolysis, instead of low wattage unit for running a common ignition coil.
There is an "inherent" built in lowered efficiency set up ,designed in by Horvath, on purpose. The schematic electrical hook up in the Patent is to be able to use heavy amps as a final , without using a heat/energy wasting rectifier at 200 pulse amps at 600 watts. This brilliant small section of circuit solves the energy waste problem, but the step down windings ratio was incorrectly stated in Patent. With 300 volts injected by the cap into primary inductance, there seems to be a 270v loss to get to 30volts , and then a 10: 1 ratio, for final 3 volts DC. I then assumed there was a mistake as it should be 100: 1 ratio. But then again, that CANNOT BE RIGHT SINCE THERE IS AN INHERENT EFFICIENCY LOSS BUILT IN. The beginning power supply Inverter is high frequency 10,000 cycles. The 1st transformer for the Inverter is FERRITE CORE, which is normally designed for that frequency. The second following transformer using the discharge cap and ratio has low grade, low frequency iron laminations core. This speciality is for the designed in output pulse called critical positive voltage damped wave form, as a degraded final signal. (No heat loss from a 200 amp diode.) The core produces heat which is used to heat the water.
The question being presented here is, is it true then, because of the larger winding core loss of low frequency laminations on high frequency, that the REAL final winding ratio would be changed to approx 70 : 1 to be able to still get the required 3 volts as final?? I understand that Patents don't reveal exacting details, and the typed Patent should say 100:1,- they said 10:1 and are both wrong.
Instructions for the small CDI units for car or small engine ignition say that the high frequency unit is hooked to the regular auto ignition coil. Ignition coils are all called autotransformers with 3 terminals. The interior CORES ARE ALL low frequency iron laminations. Maybe I am reading too much into this, as it is common for cdi to use the iron lamination cores. What we didn't know was, the output pulse is POSITIVE DC VOLTAGE.
In The Patent, Capacitor discharges 22 amps pulse at 300v DC into primary coil 185microhenries. The ratio primary to secondary side changes current to 200amps pulse at 10,000 times a second. This then creates sufficient hydrogen fuel along with the other increases in efficiency for water cell. The engines then, run on water from tank. That particular ratio was 1 to 10 for higher amps. to cell. The amount of current injected relates to quantity of fuel gases evolved. What about the voltage reduction ratio??? 300 to 3 is not 10 to 1 ratio. Is there really a 270v loss in the transfer?? maybe Something is going on here! If 300v changes to 3 volts at 100 to 1 ratio, then 22amps would chance to 2200amps.

(Or just maybe the LAST actual proof reading error in the US Patent, was the ORIGINALLY WRONG FINAL VOLTAGE, AS It should be 30 volts PULSE DC!) 10 to one Ratio for both voltage 300v down to 30v and current up from 22A to 200A. (The 200 amps sounds more reasonable.) Your comments needed!

 

The core loss affects a transformer's efficiency, it does not change the turns ratio. it can affect the output a great deal witout changing the number of turns at all.
And with all of those claims it seems that the authors were adding poison against patent trolls, which are a slimy parasitic life form infesting parts of the landscape.

 

That patent expired years ago. No point in beating it to death this late in the game.

 

The point to understand is that just because a patent is issued does not assure a good design, or even a workable design. Aside from an inverter oscillator, it is not at all clear what the device is supposed to do. If that collection of coils separate from the inverter has some purpose, it is not clear.
The actual inverter design is fairly similar to other inverters published in the early 1960's era, and may have been using an available transformer rather than a custom designed one.

 

The point to understand is that just because a patent is issued does not assure a good design, or even a workable design. Aside from an inverter oscillator, it is not at all clear what the device is supposed to do. If that collection of coils separate from the inverter has some purpose, it is not clear.
The actual inverter design is fairly similar to other inverters published in the early 1960's era, and may have been using an available transformer rather than a custom designed one.

It is also possible that the manuscript submitted to Patent office by Horvath was published as is. This would include the 2 pages of proofreading errors I had found, INCLUDED as designed in, to deter the commoners, from any duplication. Quality technicians and Engineers can follow the write-up and fully understand the flow of details. I said the device was used for improved efficiency of electrolysis of water to hydrogen. The Patent said so. The complete explanation STEP BY STEP is in the Patent write up with a parts list. The 2 transformers in circuit were hand assembled as pertinent only for that circuit. The Inverter is NOT similar to the old style methodology, due to the type of reversed rectification used. The DIRECTED magnetic field pulses SPEED UP the ions across the water gap of spoked electrodes. The PULSING METHOD of DC to the electrodes promotes the charged ions stuck to surfaces to be immediately released, and flow upward, better than straight DC. ( THE Archie Blue Patent uses small pumped in air that does a CLEAN SWEEP of ions off of the aluminum perforated stack of discs electrodes in vertical cell. His 3 cars ran on water with 40amp battery draw.) The heat from laminations heats the water to speed up electrolysis. Instant generation of fuel gases as H+H+ O-- ionized and not H2+O2, contains higher energy content If FIRED right away in engine. You did not read / study US Patent 3980053 for free Internet on line, to grasp the significance of this invention. A firm does not expend $5000 for attorney fees to process Patent application without substantial merit. Engineer Horvath's first 2 patents related were similar but differed as to final output of either low voltage or high voltage. His last Patent referred to Magnetron radiation tube in water cell center ALSO delivering sufficient hydrogen fuel. The final take on this overall, is that several special parts as described are not really necessary, and are there just to deter people from trying to duplicate the system. His self running car at 40 amps power draw, was public demonstrated several times and in local newspaper New Zealand.
Last edited: Yesterday at 9:46 PM

 

No, I did not read the patent text. I DID look at the circuit, though. As for rectification schemes, there is a center-tapped secondary with two rectifiers, and then an SCR that evidently discharges a capacitor into a second transformer's primary. That must be a major part of at least one claim. So possibly the sharp pulse of voltage is more effective at electrolysing water? I am not prepared to comment on that claim.
But no matter how the circuit operates, it can not exceed 100% efficiency.

 

A firm does not expend $5000 for attorney fees to process Patent application without substantial merit.

You'd be surprised. There's plenty of nonsense ideas that people have spent good money protecting with a patent.

 

I know there are over 114 EXPENSIVE US Patents on file for reducing the water usage of toilets, for those with water bill. LOTS of water is needed for full flush, or just flush twice. The Patented mechanisms are all different and on the sales market are overly expensive. People can just put their free plastic jug of water in back of toilet tank to take up space and be done with it.

 

It is nice that you care about such things, but apparently very few other people share your passion.

 

I know there are over 114 EXPENSIVE US Patents on file for reducing the water usage of toilets, for those with water bill. LOTS of water is needed for full flush, or just flush twice. The Patented mechanisms are all different and on the sales market are overly expensive. People can just put their free plastic jug of water in back of toilet tank to take up space and be done with it.

You need to understand that between even the greatest invention or design creation and the product being available for purchase on the market, there are a whole lot of steps that cost a lot of money. And that is all before item number one reaches the store shelves. Consider, for example, all of the battery "break-thru-game changing storage batteries that have been announced in the past five years. Many of them do not use any expensive or rare materials, they recharge in a very short time, and would deliver way over 500 miles per charge. We have seen none of them being touted as the next product by any battery company.

The problem is that after the design is made to work, then it needs to be turned into a product that is suitable for mass production, and then a production line to actually make the product that can be sold needs to be built, And after the line is built, and all of the issues that arise during the creation of a production process are solved, then those who would actually sell the product to the public need to be convinced to try to sell it.
Every one of those steps has to be paid for by groups that will only help if they see that they can get an adequate return on their investments. Generating that proof is a big deal and it costs also.
On top of those products that eventually DO MAKE IT TO MARKET, there are a lot of great creations that do not make it for many different reasons. Some processes do not scale up from a laboratory sized batch to a market scale batch, Some products are just not able to convince those who would invest, that they would sell for enough to make the desired profit. Some excellent products do not have a great enough demand, no matter the price. ( Consider the harness for walking your pet kangaroo) Or a non-stick automatic omelet fry pan.
One of my employers paid for the patent on my invention to sense that the injectors on a new diesel engine were all primed and working before it got to the end of the production line. It was a quite cool invention. But the market is quite limited because most people to not build diesel engines on production lines. And most diesel injector pumps are tested and primed before they ship out. AND, after you install such a detector on your production line, you do not need to buy more of the testers.

 

You need to understand that between even the greatest invention or design creation and the product being available for purchase on the market, there are a whole lot of steps that cost a lot of money. And that is all before item number one reaches the store shelves. Consider, for example, all of the battery "break-thru-game changing storage batteries that have been announced in the past five years. Many of them do not use any expensive or rare materials, they recharge in a very short time, and would deliver way over 500 miles per charge. We have seen none of them being touted as the next product by any battery company.

The problem is that after the design is made to work, then it needs to be turned into a product that is suitable for mass production, and then a production line to actually make the product that can be sold needs to be built, And after the line is built, and all of the issues that arise during the creation of a production process are solved, then those who would actually sell the product to the public need to be convinced to try to sell it.
Every one of those steps has to be paid for by groups that will only help if they see that they can get an adequate return on their investments. Generating that proof is a big deal and it costs also.
On top of those products that eventually DO MAKE IT TO MARKET, there are a lot of great creations that do not make it for many different reasons. Some processes do not scale up from a laboratory sized batch to a market scale batch, Some products are just not able to convince those who would invest, that they would sell for enough to make the desired profit. Some excellent products do not have a great enough demand, no matter the price. ( Consider the harness for walking your pet kangaroo) Or a non-stick automatic omelet fry pan.
One of my employers paid for the patent on my invention to sense that the injectors on a new diesel engine were all primed and working before it got to the end of the production line. It was a quite cool invention. But the market is quite limited because most people to not build diesel engines on production lines. And most diesel injector pumps are tested and primed before they ship out. AND, after you install such a detector on your production line, you do not need to buy more of the testers.

This is why ideas alone are worth less than a dime a bale in ten bale lots.

 

Actually, an idea that you can sell is worth a lot. I have sold a few of them, and then been paid to make them happen.