I haven't been following this thread much, but I have put some thought into what your talking about. The high voltages you are generating have no parallel resistance. The moment you try to use those voltages (or currents in the case of a parallel LC circuit) you destabalize the resonance, ruining the Q. In some cases you can use these enhancements even after their degraded, but the more you use the worse the degredation gets, until all your left with is resistance with some minor reactive elements.

Stan claimed a lot of things. I applaude you're work in verification, and wish you luck in finding something. If you succeed it will in spite of Mr. Mayer's work, not because of it.

The math for parallel and series resistance in resonant circuits is quite precise, and not that complicated (OK, some of it is pretty hairy). It can be calculated very exactly.

 

Bill,
Thanks for getting involved, the support is appreciated. I am at a critical stage in this project, because as you say, the next phase could be "hairy". I'll be hand winding coils, potentially with expensive stainless steel wire and expensive cores. Not to mention calculating the precise number of turns, etc. Before I invest the time and money, I want to verify all I can.

Up til now, the experiment has taught me a lot about electricity, and turned me on to many new people and places, and for that I am grateful.

Until later, I'll be researching all I can on transformers and digging for new Meyers material. Admittedly I kinda stopped reading his patents once discrepancies started showing up and focused more on people's interpretations of the correct method. Although, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

For a visual overview of the process, please refer to this page on my site. It's new and has most of the schematics I've collected from Meyers work. It contains the pulse generating circuit, the resonance lock circuit, and a diagram of the coils and how they are connected.

Thanks
http://thewaterfuelsite.com/page5.htm

 

Stan claims that voltage does the work. In his patent 4936961 he states:
"As resonance is achieved in any circuit, the amp flow is minimized and voltage is maximized."

The circuit in "Figure 1" of the document is a series resonant circuit, not a parallel resonant circuit.

Please see: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/5.html for comparison.

 

Yep, series resonant generates voltage (but the moment you touch it it goes away), while parallel has current. I've heard of parallel being tapped as a kind of "AC battery", but I'm pretty sure solid state and chemistry work better, much better.

I've I implied any different I apologize. When I refered to parallel resistance I was refering to the individual reactive components, as in a coil with a resistor parallel to it. After all, that is all a load is, a resistor.

 

Ok, now about using stainless steel wire for the bifilar choke coils... it has been suggested by myself and others that Meyers may have used this because the wire itself becomes part of the core, magnetizing if you will, but others have suggested that the 400 series ss wire does not magnetize.... instead, the purpose of the SS wire was to increase the resistance of the coils, thus reducing current flow. Per my readings, I believe that adding series resistance to an LC circuit really doesn't affect resonance properties. Or, ss wire may just be a ploy.

Wouldn't stainless wire draw MORE current from the secondary of the step up transformer? Is it possible that stainless wires hold more energy in the form of a magnetic field, thus creating stronger oscillations between the water capacitor and chokes? Thanks

 

Stainless wire is simply more resistive than a comparable gauge of copper wire. Any magnetic field around a coil depends on the current in that coil - less current due to resistance means less magnetic field.

 

Thanks I'll be investigating this a while until I get to the bottom

 

... it has been suggested by myself and others that Meyers may have used this because the wire itself becomes part of the core, magnetizing if you will, but others have suggested that the 400 series ss wire does not magnetize....

There seems indeed to be some confusion here. Perhaps I can be of assistance in clearing it up...

400 series stainless are martensitic or ferritic. Their room-temperature permeability ranges from about 600 to about 1100 (2000 in the case of "FloMet430L.") A magnet will stick to them at room temperature.

300 series stainless are austenitic. Their room-temperature permeability ranges from about 1.01 to about 1.02. Cold working these steels can, depending on composition, increase permeability to as much as 4. A magnet will not generally stick to 300 series stainless steels.

Wouldn't stainless wire draw MORE current from the secondary of the step up transformer?

No. Per Ohm's Law, more resistance means less current flowing. E=I*R, so I=E/R

Is it possible that stainless wires hold more energy in the form of a magnetic field, thus creating stronger oscillations between the water capacitor and chokes? Thanks

The term "stronger oscillations" is vague. Changing the rms energy ofthe magnetic field will change the inductance of the coil. The resonant frequency will therefore be changed. This will more easily and precicely be accomplished by changing the number of turns or changing the core material. Note well: power out of a transformer will always be less than power into a transformer. Increasing winding resistance will increase loss. Output power from a transformer with SS windings will always be less than an identical transformer with copper wires.

 

Ok thanks a lot for that information, it clears some things up. I understand now that a 400 stainless grade wire probably WAS used in the chokes, considering the following:
It was omitted in the early patents, maybe for secrecy, or because Meyers hadn't figured it out yet.
It increases the overall impedance of the chokes, reducing current flow.
It increases the overall resistance of the circuit, reducing current flow.

Question:
What would the effect be of using copper for the primary and 400 stainless wire for the secondary of the step up transformer?

As a refresher we are seeking high voltage and low amps at the cell. This should be true at resonance, when the amps and volts are exactly 90 degrees out of phase, as the energy swings only volts should hit the cell. I have a slight modification to the schematic shown here:

If it were me, which it is, to facilitate resonance, I would move the switching diode to the primary side of the coil, to protect the driver circuit, and keep the energy trapped in the secondary side. Every time the pulse to the primary is cut, energy might try to flow back through from the secondary to the primary, but if the diode is there it won't escape. The way it is set up now however, resonance can't really even occur, because the diode is on the secondary side preventing oscillations between the coils and the capacitor. I would want the flux field on the secondary side to build up massively, without being able to release any energy back into the primary.

 

Can you explain to me why is the TX2 coil connected in opposite phase to the TX5 coil, which makes it completely useless? Wouldn´t it be easier to just use less turns on TX5 instead of adding an anti-series coil?
And why not wind TX5 and TX4 as one coil?

Another thought, what are those "unipolar magnetic field couplings"? Does it just look like, or are they really just two short-rings around the core?

 

As for the rings, they don't really exist, they represent N and S, to show that the core is not receiving AC, only unipolar (DC) pulses.

As for the winding TX4 and TX5 together, this is likely how Meyers actually did it. However, the HV potential between the two coils is likely the reason why they might need to be wound separately, or in segments, to avoid arcing.

As for connecting TX2 and TX5 in "opposite phase" I'm not sure what you mean by that. TX4 and TX5 are choke coils, one positive, one negative, they are designed to restrict current flow by way of opposing magnetic field.

 

I would move the switching diode to the primary side of the coil, to protect the driver circuit, and keep the energy trapped in the secondary side. Every time the pulse to the primary is cut, energy might try to flow back through from the secondary to the primary, but if the diode is there it won't escape.

These phrases makes no sense. How does one "trap" energy? What do you mean by energy "flowing?" Electrical "energy" is power over a period of time. "Power" is the square of the current multiplied by the impedance. How would the square of current multiplied by the impedance multiplied by the time "escape?"

To understand how diodes work in the real world, have a look through here: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_3/index.html

To understand the relationship between energy, power, and current, look here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html

As for Meyer's transformer design... well... it's baloney. The so-called "switching diode" is just a rectifier. The secondaries are wired to interfere with each other. That's "secondaries" - plural. The "resonant charging chokes" function as "secondaries." I have re-drawn the transformer circuit for clarity:
This is why Kubeek observes the TX2 coil connected in opposite phase to the TX5 coil.

For a primer on how transformers actually do work, read here: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_9/index.html

 

However, the HV potential between the two coils is likely the reason why they might need to be wound separately, or in segments, to avoid arcing.

Arcing only takes place when the voltage per turn exceeds the dielectric breakdown of the insulator. How many megavolts per turn are you expecting?

 

Thanks all for your replies, I clearly have a lot more research to do, in fact I just learned that diode schematics are opposite what I thought this whole time, wow.

Arcing only takes place when the voltage per turn exceeds the dielectric breakdown of the insulator. How many megavolts per turn are you expecting?

How many KV will enamel coated copper magnet wire withstand? Bear in mind, the choke coils are oppositely wound, so is it true that the highest voltage difference occurs near either end?

Originally Posted by Farlander
I would move the switching diode to the primary side of the coil, to protect the driver circuit, and keep the energy trapped in the secondary side. Every time the pulse to the primary is cut, energy might try to flow back through from the secondary to the primary, but if the diode is there it won't escape.
These phrases makes no sense. How does one "trap" energy? What do you mean by energy "flowing?" Electrical "energy" is power over a period of time. "Power" is the square of the current multiplied by the impedance. How would the square of current multiplied by the impedance multiplied by the time "escape?"

What I am trying to say is that stainless steel wire, having about 1000x the permeability of austentic steel, generates a stronger magnetic field with equal input power; thus the circuit can handle higher power. Because the impedance created by said chokes is stronger, it will prevent large currents from running through the cell.
Now, when "power" bounces back and forth between the cap and coils, couldn't the secondary induce a back charge to the primary during an off pulse? To prevent energizing the primary, all you would need is a diode on the primary side, and suddenly the magnetic field has nowhere to go, it can't discharge backwards, so it just builds up more in the form of current, each subsequent pulse adding more 'charge' to the secondary side.

 

Just two more thoughts, how do you plan to isolate the stainless steel wire in the coils? I doubt anyone makes enamel coated stainless steel wire.

The other question is, what effect will the diode have on the L-C resonant circuit? I really don´t think it can resonate with diode in series..

It all starts to look like some poorly designed switch-mode power supply

 

You need to read the source material - http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=...iew+first+page. It's pretty evident that no knowledge of electronics was present in the author's head.

 

What I am trying to say is that stainless steel wire, having about 1000x the permeability of austentic steel, generates a stronger magnetic field with equal input power

I hope it was not me who gave you that impression. The magnetic field will be proportional to the number of turns, the smallness of the diameter of the coil, and the current through the wire. Only. The higher permeability will provide for more inductance, but not for a stronger magnetic field.

thus the circuit can handle higher power. Because the impedance created by said chokes is stronger, it will prevent large currents from running through the cell.

Power is proportional to the square of the current. Less current means less power. More power means more current.

Now, when "power" bounces back and forth between the cap and coils,

It is current that "bounces." Not "power." Have another look at the text to help clear up these related concepts.

couldn't the secondary induce a back charge to the primary during an off pulse?

Nope. Sorry. Have another look at the text.

 

@Kubeek-
The issue of finding suitable stainless magnet wire is a dubious one. One person online is currently selling quantities of 430FR. Another more innovative idea was presented, that of using stainless steel jewelry wire with nylon coating, available in many sizes and relatively cheap.
In regards to the diode, YES, the diode does seem like it would prevent resonance, which is why I suggest moving it to the primary side.


@Thingmaker:
Why is it that if I have an isolated transformer, and I energize the primary, subsequently energizing the secondary via magnetic flux,
that when I cut power to the primary the secondary does not discharge back through the primary? If the secondary has no connection to ground, and is simply storing charge, wouldn't we expect a back emf spike on the primary side?

 

@Thingmaker:
Why is it that if I have an isolated transformer, and I energize the primary, subsequently energizing the secondary via magnetic flux,
that when I cut power to the primary the secondary does not discharge back through the primary? If the secondary has no connection to ground, and is simply storing charge, wouldn't we expect a back emf spike on the primary side?

The secondary is not storing charge. If you want to store charge, you need a Leyden jar.

Current is induced in the secondary by the changing magnetic flux. The changing magnetic flux is created by changing current in the primary. http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_9/1.html



For your steel selection, you might be interested in this: http://cartech.ides.com/datasheet.aspx?i=103&e=63&c=TechArt

As for Flex-Rite, Tiger Tail, SoftFlex, or other jeweler's wire, I've no clue what the composition might be. My wife and I did confirm SoftFlex was more flexible than the others she tried, but neither of us looked into the electrical properties of the stuff. She wanted it for making jewelry. Go figure. If you like, I can steal a piece from her and find out how hard it is to strip the nylon off.

 

Hi guys,
I wish I had pictures of this to post but I'm still waiting for a camera cord I finally decided to order. I wound my first transformer yesterday on a spontaneous whim and the results were very interesting.

I had been thinking about this "ferrite" material and remembered I had all of these clamp style line filters, made of non permanently magnetic ferrite. I opened one up and wound 10 turns primary 20 turns secondary of 28guage? enamel coated copper, on opposite halves, so about 1.5 inches per turn. When I first hooked pulsed 12Vdc to it, I had to turn it off really quick because I heard this clack clack clack. I later realized that the ferrite core of the primary was magnetizing towards the other half of the clamp, and the clacking was hard plastic smacking together.

I put on the oscope... with this simple design I was getting 170V pulses, at 2x the input frequency! It took 5 minutes to make and cost about $1 in materials.

Oh yea the frequency range was about 30hz

So, what did I do next, well naturally I wanted to test the frequency adjust, so with probes attached, 170 volt spikes, and clack clack clacking, I started to crank it up. The pitch of the clack clacking changed noticeably, and began to speed up -- I thought whoa, surely we're going to hit the mechanical limit of this thing here, and sure enough, suddenly the clicking stopped and all power to the secondary quit. I think the FET toasted, because now it seems to be in a permanently "ON" position, and the 555s' outputs are ok. It may also be that the enamel coating failed... does anybody know it's voltage max?

YEEHEEHAW!!