PDA

View Full Version : Bedini, Meyer, capacitors, batteries and the electret effect


lamare
12-22-2009, 12:10 PM
I have recently posted quite a bit about the non-permanent electret or dielectric relaxation effect, which I think to be the Rosetta stone in order to understand the technologies of both John Bedini and Stanley Meyer, because the similarities between these technologies are striking, once one digs a bit deeper into the material.

The first thing to look at, is how electrolytic capacitors actually work:
Electrolytic capacitors (http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0136_ec/index.html)

The aluminium electrolytic capacitor consists of two foils interleaved with an absorbent paper, and wound tightly into a cylinder. The positive foil, or anode, is made from pure aluminium foil on the surface of which aluminium oxide dielectric has been formed electrolytically. The foil has been etched to increase the effective surface area, and the area of the anode is typically 30–100 times larger than the plan area of the foil.

The other plate is a combination of high-absorption paper impregnated with an electrolyte, in contact with a cathode foil. The electrolyte is there to make good contact with the anode, by permeating its etched structure, and also to repair any flaws in the oxide layer when the capacitor is polarised. The function of the aluminium cathode foil is to reduce the series resistance of the capacitor by making contact with the paper over a wide area.

The cathode foil itself has a thin oxide film, and is typically etched to increase the surface area slightly. You may have worked out this gives some capacitance between foil and electrolyte, so that the overall capacitance is that of the anode plus that of the cathode in series. You will be right to think that, but in practice the cathode film is very thin and its capacitance consequently very high.


One would think that both aluminium foils are to be considered as the capacitor plates and that all in between is the dielectric. However, this is wrong. One of the plates is oxidised, forming a very thin layer of dielectric material, typically about 2 um thick. The other plate should be electrically connected to the electrolyte fluid, which is a conductor. So, in fact, the charge of this other plate is allowed to move right up to the surface of the dielectricum. In other words: because of the electrolyte, we have a plate distanance of about 2 um.

Now consider Meyer's tubes. These must also be "conditioned", forming a white layer on the tubes:
http://www.free-energy-devices.com/fuelcostcutting/D14.pdf

This sounds strikingly similar to how an electrolytic capacitor is made:

Electrolytic capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor)
The principle of the electrolytic capacitor was discovered in 1886 by Charles Pollak, as part of his research into anodizing of aluminum and other metals. Pollack discovered that due to the thinness of the aluminum oxide layer produced, there was a very high capacitance between the aluminum and the electrolyte solution. A major problem was that most electrolytes tended to dissolve the oxide layer again when the power is removed, but he eventually found that sodium perborate (borax) would allow the layer to be formed and not attack it afterwards. He was granted a patent for the borax-solution aluminum electrolytic capacitor in 1897.

The first application of the technology was in making starting capacitors for single-phase alternating current (AC) motors. Although most electrolytic capacitors are polarized, that is, they can only be operated with direct current (DC), by separately anodizing aluminum plates and then interleaving them in a borax bath, it is possible to make a capacitor that can be used in AC systems.

Nineteenth and early twentieth century electrolytic capacitors bore little resemblance to modern types, their construction being more along the lines of a car battery. The borax electrolyte solution had to be periodically topped up with distilled water, again reminiscent of a lead acid battery.


Interestingly, electrolytic capacitors are operated at voltages very close to the point that the dielectric will break down:

Electrochemistry Encyclopedia -- Electrolytic capacitors (http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-c04-electr-cap.htm)


The reason that electrolytic capacitors have such uniform dielectric stress and can operate at such high field strength, within 80% of their breakdown strength, on the order of 1,000 volts/µm, is due to two reasons. First, the original anodization ("formation") process is performed at a fixed voltage, and the dielectric grows everywhere to whatever thickness is required to support that voltage. Second, once the foil is in a capacitor, the capacitor "fill" electrolyte continues the healing work of the original forming electrolyte, repairing and thickening the dielectric locally as required. This healing process is driven by the capacitor's dc leakage current, which is drawn whenever a dc voltage is applied to the capacitor, that is, whenever it is in operation. In fact, electrolytic capacitors often last longer when they are in continuous, mild use that when they are only charged up briefly every year or decade.


Then, looking at lead-acid batteries, we find further similarities:

Sulfuric acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid)


Anhydrous H2SO4 is a very polar liquid, having a dielectric constant of around 100. It has a high electrical conductivity, caused by dissociation through protonating itself, a process known as autoprotolysis.


And, remember Bedini/Lindemann saying things about "boiling batteries"?

John Bedini and Peter Lindemann's Medium and Large Motor-Energizer Project (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/SG/Feb2005/)
At the end of the charge cycle, these 1600 amp-hour batteries are boiling at 31.2 volts!

Now what is that boiling actually??

Practical considerations : BATTERIES AND POWER SYSTEMS (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_11/5.html)

With lead-acid cells in particular, overcharging leads to electrolysis of the water ("boiling" the water out of the battery) and shortened life.

Any battery containing water in the electrolyte is subject to the production of hydrogen gas due to electrolysis. This is especially true for overcharged lead-acid cells, but not exclusive to that type. Hydrogen is an extremely flammable gas (especially in the presence of free oxygen created by the same electrolysis process), odorless and colorless. Such batteries pose an explosion threat even under normal operating conditions, and must be treated with respect. The author has been a firsthand witness to a lead-acid battery explosion, where a spark created by the removal of a battery charger (small DC power supply) from an automotive battery ignited hydrogen gas within the battery case, blowing the top off the battery and splashing sulfuric acid everywhere.


VRLA battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRLA_battery)
At high currents, electrolysis of water occurs, expelling hydrogen and oxygen gas through the battery's valves.


So, basically we have both with Meyer and Bedini technology:

1) forming of thin, polarizable dielectric layers on the plates of either capacitors or battery plates, the latter essentially becoming capacitors, because the dielectric is non-conducting.

2) the use of high voltage "spikes" to form/maintain the polarization of the dielectric, boosting the "dielectric relaxation" effect, essentially turning the dielectricum into a non-permanent electret

3) COP > 1.

4) "boiling" effects, unwanted in Bedini's technology, while basically utilized by Meyer.

All in all, I think both are using the same energy source: the super-polarized dielectricum and that is which is apparantly able to provide excess energy.

This suggests that Meyer's tubes could be very interesting as capacitors, if you don't let them boil and that Bedini's batteries could be very interesting as electrolysis devices, if you let them intentionally boil and make use of the gas. :D

Inquorate
12-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Thanks Lamare,

I had come across this
Borax or Baking Soda Rectifier and the glow. (http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/borax.htm)
previously.. But thanks to your investigations above, I now know how to make home made electrolytic capacitors. I won't mind having to top them up occasionally :)

Borax here we come!

lamare
12-22-2009, 12:46 PM
Another thing I posted about recently, is the question of where the electrons go, when a capacitor is charged:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5112-problem-batteries-charged-bedini-technology.html#post78185


Even though I used some wrong assumptions there, basically assuming dielectric breakdown was constantly occuring, I was on the right path, I think. If electrolytic capacitors are indeed operated at about 80% of the breakdown voltage, it appears not far-fetched at all to assume that lots of electrons are able to drift trough the dielectric after all, given for example this figure:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/TownsendVI.png

This shows "Voltage-current relation before breakdown".
It appears that when operating at 80% of dielectric breakdown, one does get a considerable leakage current....

HairBear
12-22-2009, 01:04 PM
Now consider Meyer's tubes. These must also be "conditioned", forming a white layer on the tubes:
[url]http://www.free-energy-devices.com/fuelcostcutting/D14.pdf[/url

I love your posts Lamare, but, I disagree with the above comment and I think it should be noted to all that this is false. I have experimented quite extensively into this matter and have found that there was never any oxide layer on any of Stan Meyers devices. The devices still exist and have been examined for the oxide layer which is not present. The oxide layer is more of an indication of current leakage, which in turn, terminates the particle oscillation known as "Resonant Action". At best, an oxide layer should tell you that there is too much current passing from one plate to the other, where, there should be very little to none at all. This myth was perpetuated after Ravi had made the statement and the rest of the world took it and ran with it.

Good Day!

lamare
12-22-2009, 01:51 PM
I love your posts Lamare, but, I disagree with the above comment and I think it should be noted to all that this is false. I have experimented quite extensively into this matter and have found that there was never any oxide layer on any of Stan Meyers devices. The devices still exist and have been examined for the oxide layer which is not present. The oxide layer is more of an indication of current leakage, which in turn, terminates the particle oscillation known as "Resonant Action". At best, an oxide layer should tell you that there is too much current passing from one plate to the other, where, there should be very little to none at all. This myth was perpetuated after Ravi had made the statement and the rest of the world took it and ran with it.

Good Day!


Thanks for your interest in this, HairBear.

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not. I'm just trying to make as much sense as possible from what I read here and there.

I have taken a quick look at your previous post, and noticed this:

Another clue was a statement or rather a question posted by "RAVZZ" at overunity.com concerning an explanation of a glow coming from his cell tubes when viewed in complete darkness. I believe this to be "sonoluminescence" which is an effect of sonochemistry and cavitation. It would also explain the unusually large bubbles coming from his cell tubes. It would be nice to have Dave Lawton confirm this with his setup.



This may point right back to what I'm talking about, just take a look at what Inquorate pointed at:

Borax or Baking Soda Rectifier and the glow. (http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/borax.htm)
"How To Observe The Glow From A Borax Or Baking Soda Rectifier."


The rectifying layer then start to form on the aluminum plates until after a few minutes, the lamp brilliance dies down to nothing. At this time, both aluminum strips will be glowing.

Also see:
Baking Soda Variable Electrolytic Capacitor. (http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/varelec.htm)
The aluminum strip shown in the above picture was cut from a piece of aluminum pie plate. I also discovered, with either the borax or baking soda rectifier, that it acted like a large capacitor as well as a rectifier when biased in the reverse direction. I had built a homemade electrolytic capacitor. I decided to do some experimenting and measurements to see what capacitance values could be obtained. I found it easy to get large values up to 100 uf. Since the capacitance is based on a thin film of aluminum oxide that forms on the aluminum plate, the capacitance can be varied by sliding the plate in or out of the baking soda soda solution.


I would also be interested in some further references about wether or not there would be an oxide layer on Meyer's devices. After all, one should remember that the layers should be very thin, like 2 um, in order to form a capacitor with a decent capacitance. And, it is always a question in how far any devices (supposedly?) built by Meyer that are still existing are actually the real thing that worked.

lamare
12-22-2009, 08:24 PM
@h20power,

Thank you very much for your insightful remarks and your interest in this theory.

Here is a simple experiment that sheds some light on what I am talking about and I will go over it for those who need a hand in understanding the concepts taking place in this video:
YouTube - Walter Lewin Makes a Battery out of Cans and Water (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY1eyLEo8_A)


Yes, this is a very interesting experiment. It is known as Lord Kelvin's water-drop electrostatic generator:

High voltage device: Kelvin's Thunderstorm (http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/emotor/kelvin.html)

It shows that water contains charged particles, and that you can split these into two buckets that become charged, so you have a electro-static generator.

Kelvin water dropper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_water_dropper)

As with other forms of hydroelectric power, the energy here ultimately comes from the gravitational energy released by letting the water drops fall. Most of the energy is wasted as heat when the water drops land in the buckets.


Now the properties of water that make this possible are as follows; Water being a polar molecule, water being a dielectric liquid, water being a diamagnetic substance, and the most important of all, the self-ionization of water (also auto ionization of water, and auto dissociation of water) is the chemical reaction in which two water molecules react to produce a hydronium ion (H3O+) and a hydroxide ion (OH−): 2 H2O (l) H3O+ (aq) + OH− (aq).
Now you can repeat this experiment with any liquid on earth and if it doesn't have these characteristics it will not produce lightning. These characteristics are what make life possible, along with some other characteristics like cohesion and adhesion and others I didn't mention, and also it is how lightning storms truly work. Without water we have nothing no life as we know it would exist.
To the average person, water is an ordinary substance often taken for granted. Even though the cause of these unique and unusual properties is explainable at the atomic level, water is truly a remarkable substance.


I agree that water is a truly remarkable substance and that there are more interesting properties than there seem to be at first glance.





The self-ionization of water (also auto ionization of water, and auto dissociation of water) is the chemical reaction in which two water molecules react to produce a hydronium ion (H3O+) and a hydroxide ion (OH−): 2 H2O (l) H3O+ (aq) + OH− (aq). Now looking it to this with Meyer technology we see that the EEC takes the electron from the hydroxide ion(OH-) since it is very close to the positive electrode in the water bath of the WFC due to opposites attracts. This is also made possible due to waters being a dielectric liquid being able to store a charge with a relaxation time of є/σ< 10-6 seconds. What this does is give time for water to hold a charge for it(water) to complete the circuit of the EEC. This circuit completion upsets the natural equilibrium of water H3O+ (aq) + OH- -e(EEC) => H3O+ (aq) + O (gas) plus H (gas) -e light(EEC) ==> H2O (aq) + 2H (gas) + O (gas) -e Light(EEC) when the reaction reestablishes equilibrium. This is why it has to be an isolated circuit for if there is a ground or greater negative to complete the circuit of the EEC it will do so and not upset the balance of waters natural equilibrium.
This is the chemical reaction that is taking place inside of the WFC. And it all has to do with the self-ionization property of water.



The water fuel injectors(WFI) do not work this way. It uses some of waters other abilities, diamagnetic, dielectric, cohesion, relaxation time, and polar properties.


You are probably right and appear to know what you are talking about. However, I can't say much about this, since I haven't looked into this.

As for the WFC, you are probably right about the chemical reaction that takes place. However, the relaxation time, which you say is about 10^-6 seconds, is not really the same thing as "holding charge". It is more like holding an electric field for some time, in this case a very short time.

I can't say anything useful about how this might affect any property or equilibrium of water, but I do know that the electric field is a free energy source and it basically is this source that powers all electric circuits that exist on this entire world. This has been stated over and over by Tom Bearden when he talks about "killing the dipole".

Having said that, it is clear that any trick you can find that can utilize the electric field without killing the dipole that created it, you can extract excess energy from the vacuum. Now it may very well be that there are multiple tricks that work, I don't know and I don't want to rule anything out, especially not concerning the water fuel injectors.

However, when we are talking about the WFC, the idea that this might be extracting power out of the vacuum using the exact same principle that Bedini uses, and which can be explained pretty straightforward using not much more than 19th century principles, has a lot going for it, IMHO.

Now of course I may be wrong, but I may also be right. Either way, it would be important to know, because if I'm right, we now understand the working principle behind these technologies, so we can really start improving these things.

Aaron
12-23-2009, 12:15 AM
So, basically we have both with Meyer and Bedini technology:

1) forming of thin, polarizable dielectric layers on the plates of either capacitors or battery plates, the latter essentially becoming capacitors, because the dielectric is non-conducting.

2) the use of high voltage "spikes" to form/maintain the polarization of the dielectric, boosting the "dielectric relaxation" effect, essentially turning the dielectricum into a non-permanent electret

3) COP > 1.

4) "boiling" effects, unwanted in Bedini's technology, while basically utilized by Meyer.

All in all, I think both are using the same energy source: the super-polarized dielectricum and that is which is apparantly able to provide excess energy.

This suggests that Meyer's tubes could be very interesting as capacitors, if you don't let them boil and that Bedini's batteries could be very interesting as electrolysis devices, if you let them intentionally boil and make use of the gas. :D

Lamare,

I have showed this for years. Imhotep even mentioned it about a cap
that seems to not be able to die because it keeps itself charged up like
an electret - from a conditioning effect. Anyway, there is something to
it.

Listen to 1:10~1:20
YouTube - energeticforum's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/energeticforum#p/u/3/yDtXR_1Ubs8)
That is the second time I posted that video, originally it was removed
with the rest of my vids.

The "boiling" effect isn't necessarily unwanted when charging batteries
with the Bedini method. They will COLD boil, even up to an hour after
the charger is disconnected if using for example, high capacitance low
voltage discharges.

Also, a cap can be charged with pure radiant and no measurable
"electron" current. A charged cap doesn't need to have electrons
piling on plates, etc...

You may find this interesting.
Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/73155/Eric-Dollard-Notes-19861991)
See page 26 of the pdf.

Batteries are water electrolysis cells. A water molecule is either
created or destroyed depending on if it is powering or being charged
and that what all the complicated battery chemistry comes down to.

And the concentric tubes ARE capacitors.

I have seen batteries charged with radiant that get a white coating
on the plates...batteries with clear see through walls so you can see
the liquid and plates inside. Just like the conditioning that has been
observed on many of the Meyer experiments. This is the observation
I brought to the table a long time ago.

Inquorate
12-23-2009, 01:07 AM
I've got one of those, it goes up to 15 to 18v after a couple of days. It's 10000 uF.

I worked out how to easily test the theory re conditioned electrolytic capacitors showing the Electret effect;

Conditioned electrolytic capacitor Electret effect test - Vox (http://inquorate.vox.com/library/post/conditioned-electrolytic-capacitor-electret-effect-test.html)

It should show a net gain in joules if the caps are conditioned and the pulse width and frequency is correct for the air core coil, hopefully more than the capacitor losses, or we'll have to measure the losses and add those joules to the final score.

Capacitor Energy and Time Constant Calculator (http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Capacitor-Energy-Time-Constant-Calculator.phtml)

Of course, you may want to only pulse the coil while the top drive capacitor is relatively full, so you'd want a higher capacitance there.

I've got that image as my phone's background to remind me to do the test but I figured I'd put it out there.

Love and light

Aaron
12-23-2009, 01:08 AM
I have experimented quite extensively into this matter and have found that there was never any oxide layer on any of Stan Meyers devices. The devices still exist and have been examined for the oxide layer which is not present. The oxide layer is more of an indication of current leakage, which in turn, terminates the particle oscillation known as "Resonant Action". At best, an oxide layer should tell you that there is too much current passing from one plate to the other, where, there should be very little to none at all. This myth was perpetuated after Ravi had made the statement and the rest of the world took it and ran with it.

Good Day!

HairBear,

I'm not disputing that Meyers had no coating on his tubes.

First of all, Ravi got this conditioning idea and process from me and then
developed his own conditioning regimen. You can ask him youself.

And, it is not a myth, which implies it has been claimed that Meyer's
tubes did have a white powder coating. It must be kept in the proper
context. Myself or Ravi never claimed Meyer had this coating.

I may have speculated on that but have never claimed that
as I have never personally examined Meyer's tubes. But, apparently
both Ravi and I have seen a significant increase in gas production WITH
the coating for less input.

I originally posted this around 5 years ago, this is the 2nd or 3rd time I
posted it after it kept getting deleted:
YouTube - Stan Meyer concentric tube test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA)

Both the below vids are the 2nd or 3rd time I had to post them as well.

YouTube - Water Fuel Cell Conditioning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiag4h7H-TQ)
If I put a choke in series, the of course I can get higher voltaged
and lower current. I have built several variations of the vic for
straight up running the cells to produce gas and not for conditioning,
but haven't really posted anything on that. Anyway, I was the first
to point out the similarity of Meyer's circuits and Bedini's circuits way
back on icubenetwork before it got hacked and shut down.

YouTube - energeticforum's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/energeticforum#p/u/21/2VLYufVSJL8)

What I personally observed a long time ago was my inner tubes started
to get a pure white powder coating on them AND as this conditioning
process went on, which is a conditioning process even if
Meyer didn't have that same coating, the gas volume INCREASED consistently
as the white powder coating became more evenly spread across the
entire surface. This idea was based on actual experimental empirical
evidence.

So, it is not a myth that it allows for higher voltage with less current
with the benefit of increased gas production for less energy. It is a fact.
Again, I'm not disputing you about Meyer having no coating.

But if anyone is saying that there is a myth stating Meyer had this
coating...again, it was never claimed and my discovery has been taken
out of context severely.

It is a dielectric coating, restricts current and allows high electrostatic
pressure to be built up - as it does act as a capacitor. If there is no
coating and even if the top ridge of the tubes are bare, the tubes are
basically short circuited. I was able to measure up to hundreds of volts
in that tube, while most reports I saw were lucky to measure over 2
volts...2 volts because it was short circuited.

This coating I have seen in batteries, and it helps to restrict current while
allowing more voltage potential.

Obviously in the Meyer circuit the primary current restriction should be
the bifilar chokes, which I believe should be wired em coupled and not
in normal series.

It is also possible that Meyer's tubes have a thin layer of corona dope
or similar to restrict current, while being invisible. If there is no coating,
it is also possible only distilled water was used and no minerals were
available - even though Meyer apparently used both distilled and
tap water.

I have produced gas with distilled water, which indicates electrostatic
separation and not current electrolysis. I didn't use medically grade
triple distilled, just single distilled but there was still no conductivity.

I built the Tay Hee Han cell a while back and I used super corona
dope as the coating on the plates, which with the thickness I used can
hold up to 80,000 volts of electrostatic pressure and that is without
baking the dope, otherwise it would be closer to 100,000 volts.

Did you personally place Meyer's tubes in your hand and examine them
with your own eyes? You said you experimented quite extensively in
this area and found that..implying that you have first hand knowledge
of Meyer's tubes.

The entire Meyer hho world of experimenters should be completely aware
that the dune buggy still exists as well as other hardware. That has been
discussed quite a bit as well. Photos have been produced of the VIC, etc...
and I think some of that is posted in this forum or a couple others.

What is your definition of "particle oscillations"?

This coating in no way inhibits resonance for example in the batteries
that have developed this coating.

Aaron
12-23-2009, 01:16 AM
Electret capacitor...

Here is the basic thing to try with a capacitor that has been conditioned
and seems to keep it's voltage up even after shorted.

Charge another cap with it because you want that electret cap to charge
a cap or something with SUPER LOW IMPEDANCE. The cap will get charged
with the least amount of impact on the electret cap.

ELECTRET CAP > CHARGE OTHER CAP > DISCHARGE OTHER CAP TO BATTERY > repeat

So you can basically take a regular cap and switch it back and forth
between the electret cap and the battery back and forth.

Aaron
12-23-2009, 09:53 PM
H2O, I have only done very limited tests with the EEC. A while back I kept
point this out but just about everyone tried to say it only applied to the
upper stages where the gas could go to get more unbalanced. Anyway,
I had limited results. And yes, the power pulse and EEC are out of phase.

I thought it was common sense that it should work in the water bath since
in any kind of "electron cascade" environment, there would be a surplus
negative charge that should be able to be used to power a load.

I am aware that the water bath is the ground and that it has been right
there in Meyer's diagrams from the beginning. And I have used isolated
windings on the secondary side with the chokes. I have even run the cell
with variations of the Bedini coils.

With the slots in the tube, I think a distinction should be made. Some
appear to be cut out for tuning but in some diagrams, it appears very
clearly they are ports to inject red LED light. So, his diagrams show
two different kind of "slots".

Anyway, your explanation in that post is how I see Meyer's circuit working
as well.

sucahyo
12-24-2009, 04:16 AM
But, apparently
both Ravi and I have seen a significant increase in gas production WITH
the coating for less input.

I originally posted this around 5 years ago, this is the 2nd or 3rd time I
posted it after it kept getting deleted:
YouTube - Stan Meyer concentric tube test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA)I notice that you use 1 mm gap between tube. Have you ever experiencing white coating blob ?

Since this is off topic, I create another thread to answer here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5135-wfc-white-coating-vs-white-gunk.html

HairBear
12-24-2009, 04:46 AM
Hi Aaron! Thank you for clarifying that bit of information. I have no doubt about the properties of the resulting oxide layer, I have found all of the descriptions confirmed with my experiments except for increased gas output. I would even guess that the added resistance from the oxide layer acts very close to a certain application Meyer stated in one of his patents. The description shows he added a resistive material between the cathode and ground. This may have been used before the discovery of the chokes. Yes, it restricts current, but, how would it increase gas output in your opinion? I have not seen Stan's tubes yet in person, but, I have been reading about and seeing pics of what his cells look like inside and out. I trust this person and do believe all that I have seen and heard is true. I have no reason to doubt the validity of his statements with pictures to back up his story. I was told there was no coating on any plates or tubes that he has seen. As far as I know, the cells still work and can be operated.

"Particle oscillation" was the term used by Stan to describe the "Resonant Action" that occurs between the plates when the circuit was tuned to the dielectric/water. quote...

"Resonant Action (point of particle oscillation) occurs when applied pulse voltage frequency is adjusted to "tune-in" to the Dielectric Resonance of water via voltage Intensifier Circuit whereas. applied voltage amplitude which is independent of Resonance Frequency is adjusted to cause water bath atoms to momentarily enter into Liquid-to-gas ionization state .... ejecting negative charged electrons …forming positive charged atoms having missing electrons ... forming negative charged atoms by electrons capture."

Another reason I make the claim that an oxide layer is not present on Stan's cells, is my own replication. I can produce 15psi with 10 watts in a few minutes on a fresh first run. I have yet to see an oxide layer like the Ravi/Lawton version that I had built previously. Why condition your tubes when you don't have too? Besides, if there is no current leakage to begin with, you won't ever get an oxide layer.

I'm out of time, I'll check back later, time permitting. Thank you all for the discussion...

HairBear

Aaron
12-24-2009, 06:03 AM
I would even guess that the added resistance from the oxide layer acts very close to a certain application Meyer stated in one of his patents. The description shows he added a resistive material between the cathode and ground.

"Particle oscillation" was the term used by Stan to describe the "Resonant Action" that occurs between the plates when the circuit was tuned to the dielectric/water. quote...

Another reason I make the claim that an oxide layer is not present on Stan's cells, is my own replication. I can produce 15psi with 10 watts in a few minutes on a fresh first run. I have yet to see an oxide layer like the Ravi/Lawton version that I had built previously. Why condition your tubes when you don't have too? Besides, if there is no current leakage to begin with, you won't ever get an oxide layer.

I remember now about that dielectric layer and the particle oscillation
description...it has been a couple years since I read any of Meyer's
papers.

With my oxide layer, I had no choice. No matter what tap water I used,
it happened 100% of the time. I may just have a high calcium or magnesium
mineral content in my local water. It comes from the spokane aquafer.

How it increases output? I thought by simply allowing a higher electrostatic
voltage tugawar on the water molecules.

I agree to a point about if there is no current leakage but even with pure
electrostatic pressure, it can move ionic minerals without current to my
understanding.

What schematic are you using? Sounds like you're getting good results.

Have you seen Meyer's very first patent? Magnetic coils around everything.
It appears he was making a form of magnetic gas - magnetically bonded
molecules instead of "covalent". It is a canadian patent..have you seen it
and what do you think?

Allcanadian
12-24-2009, 10:11 AM
@Aaron
What I personally observed a long time ago was my inner tubes started to get a pure white powder coating on them AND as this conditioning
process went on, which is a conditioning process even if
Meyer didn't have that same coating, the gas volume INCREASED consistently
as the white powder coating became more evenly spread across the
entire surface. This idea was based on actual experimental empirical
evidence.

I would agree, about 15 years ago when I was into the HHO technologies I found the white coating on the reactor tubes did increase efficiency. At that time there were only a few references to this effect in some journals I read dating back to the 1940's so this effect is definately not new by any means. My experience was a little different than yours as I was not interested in gas production persay but increased efficiency. It was interesting to note that in a properly tuned high self-inductance circuit the coating produced capacitive effects in which a great deal of the input energy could be recovered while retaining moderate gas production.
Regards
AC

Aaron
12-24-2009, 11:04 AM
Very interesting AC!

One thing I remember reading about - was probably just speculation,
I don't know but interesting about a possibility of hydrogen loading into
one of plates and it would accumulate over time...like a some kind
of hydride or something. So during the "electrolysis" process, some of this
stored hydrogen in the metal would be released.

I don't know if any of that plays into any of this. Haven't thought about
that for a long time.

lamare
12-24-2009, 02:40 PM
Lamare,

I have showed this for years. Imhotep even mentioned it about a cap
that seems to not be able to die because it keeps itself charged up like
an electret - from a conditioning effect. Anyway, there is something to
it.


I think there is more than something to it. I think it is the key inventors like Bedini and Meyer have been been using all these years and therefore it is very important to try and understand what is actually happening.



The "boiling" effect isn't necessarily unwanted when charging batteries
with the Bedini method. They will COLD boil, even up to an hour after
the charger is disconnected if using for example, high capacitance low
voltage discharges.

Also, a cap can be charged with pure radiant and no measurable
"electron" current. A charged cap doesn't need to have electrons
piling on plates, etc...

You may find this interesting.
Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/73155/Eric-Dollard-Notes-19861991)
See page 26 of the pdf.

Batteries are water electrolysis cells. A water molecule is either
created or destroyed depending on if it is powering or being charged
and that what all the complicated battery chemistry comes down to.

And the concentric tubes ARE capacitors.

I have seen batteries charged with radiant that get a white coating
on the plates...batteries with clear see through walls so you can see
the liquid and plates inside. Just like the conditioning that has been
observed on many of the Meyer experiments. This is the observation
I brought to the table a long time ago.

I have studied this paper by Dollard recently, and I think he also makes some errors there. For example, he says: "Since no power is required to maintain a field, only current, the static or stationary field, represents stored energy" and "when voltage increases a reaction current flows into capacitance and thereby energy accumulates". With the last sentence, I made a note: "re-read Steinmetz, Eric!", because in the same paper, he quotes Steinmetz, who says it right: "There is obviously no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor [capacitor] with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor [inductance] with a quantity of magnetism."

I think it is a fundamental error to think of a capacitor in terms of a "charge accumulator", that makes that you can never understand what is really happening. A field does not represent stored energy, nor is it static. What it really represents is an energy flow, flowing from the positive side of the dipole to the negative side. This is an infinite flow of energy, which is continuously provided by the dipole, which somehow converts some energy flow right from the vacuum into this flow of energy we call the electric field.

Since a polarized dielectricum contains a dipole (or actually multiple ones), a polarized dielectricum provides an infinite energy flow in the form of an electric field, as long as it is polarized. And that is most likely the main source of any excess energy that can be observed in both Bedini's circuits as Meyers fuell cell.

That brings me to the question "how does an isolator isolate, really?"

The standard answer is that no electrons can freely flow trough it, because there are none, so therefore it isolates. However, a dielectric can break down and once you are near the break-down voltage, it does conduct to a certain extent. The figure I showed above in this thread suggests that at voltages between 50 and 90% of the break-down voltage, there can be a considerable current going trough the dielectric, the isolator.

So, I ask myself, how are these properties as "dielectric strength" and "resistance" measured?
I think there would be no other way to measure these, as by putting the dielectric in between conducting contacts. So, whatever you do, you always measure the properties trough the plates of a capacitor around the dielectric. That is interesting, because we know that a dielectric becomes polarized when put in between charged capacitor plates and that the direction of polarization is opposite to the field of the capacitor plates. So, it may very well be that electrons can actually drift pretty easy trough an insulator, were it not that its polarization opposes any electron that felt like drifting trough.

In other words: it may very well be that the insulating properties of insulators are not really "electron flow blocking" properties, but "electron flow opposing field" properties, or at least a combination of the two....

Since the polarization of a dielectric is dependent of the field and not of any currents or something, and the polarization has its limits, at some point it will no longer be able to oppose the field from the capacitor plates and the electrons can freely drift trough the dielectricum. The dielectricum "breaks down".

If this is indeed what is happening, then it is clear that a part of the "charging" electrons go right trough the dielectricum, a part is probably trapped inside the dielectricum and a part stays put on the plates. And then it is also clear where a part of the electrons come from during discharge, they are drifting from the opposite plate, right trough the dielectricum, because the field of the plates is now less than the field of the dielectricum, so the dielectricum is able to induce a drift current of electrons right trough itself.

In normal circumstances, the thickness of the dielectricum layer is such that the normal operating voltage of an electrolytic capacitor is at about 80% of the dielectricum break-down voltage. Apparently, during normal circumstances, the polarization of the dielectricum is relatively weak and it decays pretty rapidly when the capacitor is "discharged". Apparantly, electrons can drift pretty easily into the dielectricum, but not that easily all the way trough.

It appears that when you super-polarize the dielectricum, that the field created by the delectricum extends relatively far beyond the dielectricum, and can be so powerfull that it can split water into hydrogen and oxygen, either "cold boiling" a battery or generating useful fuel for running an engine.

Since "radiantly conditioned" capacitors do not charge themselves very rapidly, nor do conditioned batteries, it appears that under such conditions the electron flow trough the dielectricum is quite limited. The field between the "plates", and especially inside the electrolyte between the conducting plate and the dielectricum, however, can be very strong for a long time.

So, it may very well be that Meyers solution turns out to be one of the most optimal ways to exploit this phenomenon, beside the Tesla Switch, because that also appears to be able to utilize the field without the need for a substantial drift current trough the dielectricum, because it recycles the charge in a very smart way.

lamare
12-25-2009, 10:07 PM
I originally posted this around 5 years ago, this is the 2nd or 3rd time I
posted it after it kept getting deleted:
YouTube - Stan Meyer concentric tube test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VphxVYYnEvA)

Both the below vids are the 2nd or 3rd time I had to post them as well.

YouTube - Water Fuel Cell Conditioning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiag4h7H-TQ)
If I put a choke in series, the of course I can get higher voltaged
and lower current. I have built several variations of the vic for
straight up running the cells to produce gas and not for conditioning,
but haven't really posted anything on that. Anyway, I was the first
to point out the similarity of Meyer's circuits and Bedini's circuits way
back on icubenetwork before it got hacked and shut down.

YouTube - energeticforum's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/energeticforum#p/u/21/2VLYufVSJL8)

What I personally observed a long time ago was my inner tubes started
to get a pure white powder coating on them AND as this conditioning
process went on, which is a conditioning process even if
Meyer didn't have that same coating, the gas volume INCREASED consistently
as the white powder coating became more evenly spread across the
entire surface. This idea was based on actual experimental empirical
evidence.

So, it is not a myth that it allows for higher voltage with less current
with the benefit of increased gas production for less energy. It is a fact.
Again, I'm not disputing you about Meyer having no coating.


Thanks Aaron, very intersting video's. :thumbsup:

What these show is that a certain coating, in this case on the negative tube, increases resistance and efficiency as well. It seems as though the coating appeared only at the outer side of the inner tubes, but that may be because of the video.


I think what you really want to do with this construction is to create electrolytic capacitors. The obvious choice for the positive tube would then be aluminium, because that is what is used in the industry in electrolytic capacitors, probably because the aluminum oxide layer that forms has good properties for electrolytic capacitors. And of course, the electret effect has been shown to work with normal electrolytic capacitors, which should be mainly aluminum based.

In the case of aluminum, the layer that forms, can be controlled by the applied voltage during "conditioning". This should be such that the normal desired operating voltage is about 80% of the conditioning voltage.

Given the experiments I referred to above in this thread, it would probably be a good idea to take aluminum tubes and condition them with soda.

For the negative tube, any metal could be used I think, as long as it keeps a good contact with the electrolyte, the water. However, aluminum should be fine, since that is what is used in electrolyte capacitors in the industry.

If you have formed an electrolyte capacitor this way (something in the order of 100 uF should be easily obtainable), you can charge that, and it should hold charge pretty reasonably. Given the "cold boiling" effects observed with Bedini chargers in batteries, one can expect gas production to continue even after the power has been shut off if "radiant charging" is used.

Anyway, these are just suggestions that should work if the theory that a polarized dielectric indeed can be used as a power source is correct. So, this may be interesting things to experiment with. I hope I can find some time in the not too distant future to experiment with this myself, but of course: good luck to anyone that feels like trying this...

lamare
12-26-2009, 12:42 PM
So, first the water is pulsed by the VIC transformer in which voltage pressure acts on the water molecules the water responds by creating hydronium ions (H3O+) and a hydroxide ions (OH−). The hydroxide ion is forced very close to the positive electrode of the WFC and the hydronium to the negative electrode. The time it normally takes for water to reestablish equilibrium is around 1 pico second, this is the time to beat and that time is between the pulsing trains of the VIC transformer and the EEC. The EEC provides a B+ voltage field attracting the electron of the hydroxide ion giving it another path to follow that produces light in Meyers WFC set up. Meyer calls this a byproduct of the reaction in that it produces electricity. This flow of electricity to power up the bulb or amp consuming device is doing so by making water itself the ground to complete it's circuit path. This can only be done if the secondary of the VIC transformer is an isolated circuit and no real grounds exist in the system. When this circuit path is completed and the bulb is producing light the equilibrium of water has been upset, since it is a chemical reaction Meyer found out that it does not shut down when the power is turned off, this is due to reaction lag time in that the reaction takes time to reestablish equilibrium. This holds true for any chemical reaction. The pulsing trains of the EEC and VIC transformer overlap due to the shark tooth of the BMF in the VIC transformer so there is no lag time in beating the equilibrium constant of the water molecules 1 pico second time frame to reestablish equilibrium. This creates a path for the electrons to go and the bulb emits light and the current is being drawn from the water bath making this an endothermic reaction as energy is being taken from the system(water bath) and the scientist that looked at Stanley Meyers tubes all noted that after running for hours the temperature had not increased as it should have done if it where working like a Dr. Faraday type electrolysis reaction. And they also noted that something was different in this reaction and now you know how it is different :thumbsup: .


@h2opower:

Let me say a few things about this. First of all, Meyer is not a saint. Neither is Bedini or even Tesla. All these guys have done great inventions, but as far as I am aware, there has never been a single person on this earth that has been right 100% of the time. If all inventions were to be taken "as is" and we make unfallable saints of our inventors, then our cars today would still look like this:

http://www.car-history.org/media/karl_benz_car.jpg

So, scientists should have the courage to "question everything" as Einstein once said and should have the courage to do away with a theory that does not explain everything anymore at some point. As a sidenote, I think we should even do away with Einsteins relativity theory, because it is based on an error: Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill (http://www.etherphysics.net/)

Now you may be right with all the processes you describe as well as the timing issues involved with these processes, but there are two major arguments against this theory:
1. Bedini and others have observed batteries "cold boiling" without any consideration of the properties of water or any tuning based on any water properties. Still, the batteries can continue "cold boiling" for up to half an hour after the power has been shut off, clearly without any resonance or any other fast electro-magnetic gradients whatsoever occuring in the system after the power has been shut off. And of course, "cold boiling" is nothing other than the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
2. The processes you describe are basically chemical reactions and/or reactions a/o the flow of electricity that requires energy to be fed into the system in order for these processes to take place. As far as I can tell, no solid explanation has been given for where any excess energy might come from, other than that it must be "endothermic". If that were the case, you should see a (significant) drop of temperature of the water. And, if you would want to power a car out of "endothermic" reactions, you would need a hell of a lot of heat in order to keep your water liquid, given the amount of energy needed to keep a car moving. IMHO, there is no way "endothermic" energy could come even close to explain Meyers car running on water. If that were the case, there should have been a huge heat collector device somewhere on the car.

As far as I can tell, at this moment, the only explanation for the existence of excess energy in any capacitor-like system, be it Bedini's caps and batteries or Meyers fuell cell, is the more than likely existence of a super-polarized dielectricum somewhere between the capacitor plates. It appears that in all these systems electrolytic capacitors are being created, with various qualities, depending on things like the used materials and liquids. However, it is clear that such a polarized dielectricum provides an electric field and that the energy for that comes from the vacuum, as explained by Prof. Turtur: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf (page 10-14).

The key to obtaining this energy source and utilizing it, can be found in Bedini's and Meyers technologies (as well as Stiffler) and the understanding of how an electrolytic capacitor works.

The dielectric layer formed in a normal electrolytic capacitor is very thin, and such that the dielectric breaks down at about 125% of the normal operating voltage. So, normally, the dielectric can never be polarized very strong, because the polarization is induced using a field created by the capacitor plates because of an electron flow from one plate to the other. So, at 125% of the normal operating voltage, the dielectricum shorts out and no further polarization is possible.

However, an electro(-magnetic) field can exist of its own, without need for any charge carriers (electrons). So, if you would polarize the dielectricum with an electro-magnetic or electric field, the maximum polarization possible is no longer bound by the dielectric break-down properties of the dielectric.

What you apparantly get then, is a super-polarized dielectricum in between capacitor plates and an electrolyte, which creates an electric field that is much stronger than the field created by the capacitor plates. Since under normal circumstances, these two opposing(!) fields are of comparable strength, the net field in the dielectricum is relatively small or even close to zero, so the polarization inside the dielectricum cannot maintain itself, it is weakened by the field of the capacitor plates.

When the dielectricum is very strongly polarized, however, the field created by the capacitor plates is limited, because at some point the dielectric breaks down and electrons drift from one plate to the other. In other words: the field in between the capacitor plates created by the dielectricum is no longer largely canceled by the field created by the capacitor plates. This has two advantages:
1) the dielectricum can keep its polarization much longer
2) since the electric field created by the polarized dielectricum is no longer largely cancelled out by the field created by the plates, it extends well into the electrolyte fluid, the water.

So, the end result is that you have a semi-permanent electric field in between the dielectricum and the negatice capacitor plate, which can be utilized for free to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. And this is not the same as "Faraday electrolysis", because that talks about "electricity" or current:

Faraday's laws of electrolysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_laws_of_electrolysis)

"Faraday's 1st Law of Electrolysis - The mass of a substance altered at an electrode during electrolysis is directly proportional to the quantity of electricity transferred at that electrode. Quantity of electricity refers to the quantity of electrical charge, typically measured in coulomb."

However, in between the dielectric and the negative capacitor plates, there hardly is any current going trough, and the current that does go trough is actually a leaking current. This type of electrolysis is purely caused by the electric field, not by ramming any charge trough the water.

This patent clearly shows that it is possible to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using an electric field only:
http://sdch2o.free.fr/vrac/GB%202.324.307A%20R.Eccles.pdf

So, all the ingredients are there. Use a strongly-polarized dielectricum to get a strong electric field for free in betweeen your capacitor plates, put water in between the dielectric and the negative plate, and the field created by the dielectricum splits your water for free. The only energy you need to put in, is the energy that is needed to maintain the polarization of the dielectricum.

One more thing I'd like to add:
Since all of these systems are essentially electrolytic capacitors, it may very well be possible to use fuel cells in circuits like the Tesla switch and the scalar charger. That way, you could create self-running systems that provide electricity as well as fuel for free. :cheers:

Aaron
12-26-2009, 06:56 PM
When the battery charged for an hour after removing the charger,
I only experienced it after charging with capacitance discharges.

For example, if the battery is 12v, I'd charge a cap bank around 200,000uf
and 15~16 volts... just a few volts over the battery and discharge every
2 seconds or so. Doing that for about an hour then turning it off, you get
2 hours of charging total and it isn't a phantom charge.

That charge that continues for an hour powers a load, even inductive load
pretty decent. I used that charge to power an electric scooter and I'd ride
it down to Bedini's shop from my office.

Anyway, the Eccles explanation you give is about the same as Tay Hee
Han. If you search online, you may find some French forum discussing it
with some replications. I don't recall their results but they mentioned
Tay Hee Han and showed pics and vids of an Eccles replication.

lamare
12-27-2009, 01:31 AM
Anyway, the Eccles explanation you give is about the same as Tay Hee
Han. If you search online, you may find some French forum discussing it
with some replications. I don't recall their results but they mentioned
Tay Hee Han and showed pics and vids of an Eccles replication.

Thanks Aaron, I will study these more closely. I just skipped trough them and concluded they confirm that water can be split by the field only and not much more.

These are also discussed here:
most promising water split (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8377.0)

One interesting quote:


I designed something very similar to this and see no point why it would not work, actually I'm building now a power supply for HV DC to do some tests. I do not believe they achieved it with that small field strengths, i 'm aiming at 50kV/mm in my next setup. With 20kV in 3mm(1mm thick plastic with distilated water in between) setup i couldn't see any bubble under the microscope.It's known fact that water breakes up in high electric fields, just like it does in very high temps. Make some googling and u will be able to find some papers about it. The problem is the field strength required is great so the setup must be very thin to work in any amateur setup.



Note that with a dielectric layer of about 2um on your positive tube, you already get a field strength of 50kV/mm inside the dielectric layer with a voltage of 100V across the dielectric (50KV/mm = 50V/um). For a layer of 1 um, you would only need 50V. So, when polarizing the thin dielectric layer with strong EM pulses, it seems certainly possible to come within the range of the required field strengths in the area around the dielectric, *if* the field created by the metal plates is not too strong.

lamare
12-27-2009, 01:14 PM
When the battery charged for an hour after removing the charger,
I only experienced it after charging with capacitance discharges.

For example, if the battery is 12v, I'd charge a cap bank around 200,000uf
and 15~16 volts... just a few volts over the battery and discharge every
2 seconds or so. Doing that for about an hour then turning it off, you get
2 hours of charging total and it isn't a phantom charge.

That charge that continues for an hour powers a load, even inductive load
pretty decent. I used that charge to power an electric scooter and I'd ride
it down to Bedini's shop from my office.


Man, are you lucky to live so close to Bedini!

Anyway, this is also very interesting. It shows that you can get this cold boiling effect with a low voltage, when the voltage is indeed over the normal operating voltage and you are pulsing the battery.

Were this conditioned batteries or new ones??

Anyway, this suggests that you can also super-polarize the thin dielectric layer on the positive plate, by using over-potential DC pulses. While steady DC should normally cause the dielectric to break down, apparantly this is at least not catastrophic when you use sufficiently short pulses. So, this seams to be a second possibility by which you can over-polarize the dielectric, without breaking it down physically.

To sum the whole thing up:

While it is still not totally clear how the dielectric layer behaves exactly, I think it is clear that it is possible to create a strong electric field inside the very thin dielectric, caused by a strong polarization of the dielectric, which can remain polarized for a considerable period of time. As long as this field is considerably stronger than the (opposing!) field created by the capacitor plates, of which one is extented trough the electrolyte liquid to the "surface" of the electrolyte "touching" the dielectric, then the electrolytic capacitor charges itself, apparantly because a significant leakage current goes trough the dielectric. At the same time the strong field inside the dielectric extends well into the electrolyte, and that can cause water to split one way or another into hydrogen and oxygen, whatever intermediate chemicals may be present. This can be observed as "cold boiling" of a battery or gas production in a fuel cell, which are one and the same regarding this process: an electrolytic capacitor. This process has nothing to do with any resonance or timing critical effects, because it has been observed in batteries that these can continue boiling long after the power supply has been shut off.

lamare
12-27-2009, 02:59 PM
In order to get an idea about how a dielectric layer on aluminium would look like, I opened up an electrolytic capacitor of 33 uF / 30+ V. You can see what it looks like in the attached picture.

The aluminum foils are light-grey, so it is visible that some layer is present on the foil. As you can see, the layer can be easily scratched with a knife, and then the shining metal underneath becomes visible.

I tried to measure the resistance of the layer, which is not easy. Most of the time I measured a resistance in the order of 10 Ohms, which was also the resistance of the aluminum itself. However, sometimes when I tried to connect the probes very gently, the resistance appeared to vary between something like 500 Ohms and 2 k. However, these are not reliable measurements, indications at best.

sucahyo
12-28-2009, 04:30 AM
I think what you really want to do with this construction is to create electrolytic capacitors. The obvious choice for the positive tube would then be aluminium, because that is what is used in the industry in electrolytic capacitors, probably because the aluminum oxide layer that forms has good properties for electrolytic capacitors. And of course, the electret effect has been shown to work with normal electrolytic capacitors, which should be mainly aluminum based.Alumunium will corrode as positive. Much much faster than even SS304. If alumunium do not have to be in contact water, maybe a nickel coated alumunium is better. Never heard its use before though, I only heard nickel coated copper or nickel coated silver.

lamare
12-28-2009, 10:58 AM
Alumunium will corrode as positive. Much much faster than even SS304. If alumunium do not have to be in contact water, maybe a nickel coated alumunium is better. Never heard its use before though, I only heard nickel coated copper or nickel coated silver.

@sucahyo: You want it to corrode, because the layer that is formed because of the corrosion, is some form of aluminum oxide. And it is exactly this oxide that has the dielectric properties we want, both in terms of insulating and of polarization properties. The interesting thing about this layer is that it not only insulates, but it also "seals" the aluminum, preventing further corrosion, unless a sufficiently large voltage is applied to the plate with respect tot the water / chemical solution. In other words: you can control how thick the oxide layer becomes, because you can control how much voltage you apply during conditioning. Interestingly, the dielectric breakdown voltage of the layer becomes (almost?) equal to voltage applied during conditioning, so you can control both the thickness of the dielectric layer as well as its break-down voltage, the voltage at which the dielectric suddenly becomes a conductor, by the voltage applied during conditioning.

Now I'm not a chemicist, so I don't really know whether or not multiple types of aluminum oxide are possible and that we are interested in only one specific type. However, these pages show that when conditioning aluminum with soda, you get the right type and you can make electrolytic capacitors this way:

Borax or Baking Soda Rectifier and the glow. (http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/borax.htm)
Baking Soda Variable Electrolytic Capacitor. (http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/varelec.htm)

Let me add that it may be necessary that there should always be some soda present in the fuell cell, because during operation the dielectric layer will tend to grow further because of the over-potential we want to feed it with, unless this can be prevented by using a current-less EM field instead of over-voltage pulsing for polarization of the dielectric. It may also be that the exact opposite, soda not being present, can prevent further growing of the dielectric layer, maybe at the expense of unwanted types of oxide growing instead. It may also be that you have to take care of what type of water you use during conditioning and/or operation (demineralised or destilled) since there may be unwanted chemicals in tapwater that could have unwanted side effects.

However, at this moment, I can't say anything sensible on that, other than referring to the above two links for further information. From that, it appears that tapwater is fine, but this may depend on local conditions.

Finally, one has to take care of how electric contact is made with the positive plate, because it has to be(come) insulated from the water. So, you can only use either insulated wires and non-conducting screws and other fastening material, or you can use aluminum if you take care that during conditioning all aluminum is submerged under the liquid and take care that after conditioning no mechanical stress is applied that can break the thin and mechanically sensitive layer.

lamare
12-28-2009, 08:40 PM
Now the new reactions after the GP has stripped the electrons off of the oxygen atom are known as ionic reactions.

@h2opower:

Interesting story. The above quoted part is the key, IMHO.

I have all the confidence you are completely right about the kJ/mol calculations you performed. These reactions apparantly can deliver energy, but you have to provide the energy for stripping of the electrons, before you get the reaction with the positive end result.

Now where does that energy come from???


Now each water droplet is charged to the splitting voltage over and over again by the 50 kHz(plus) power supply to the voltage zones of the injectors.

Once again, the answer is: the electric field, in this case pretty high frequency and high voltages over micro capacitors, if I understand this right. I don't know any further details, but I bet you are using some form of resonance to get the high frequency, high voltage signal, meaning that you only have to provide the energy that is being lost in the resonating circuit yourself, while the electric field caused by this resonating system provides the actual benefitial energy. This is being converted for free from the vacuum by the charge carriers that are being pushed and pulled around in your resonator into an electric field between your (micro)capacitor plates, which eventually powers the ionization process, right?

Aaron
12-28-2009, 10:08 PM
Were this conditioned batteries or new ones??

They were used 12v 7ah gel cells at that time.

I forgot to mention that the discharge was with a mechanical pulley
that triggered the switch.... mechanical copper brush switch and not
a solid state switch. It is best with mechanical switch.

sucahyo
12-29-2009, 02:05 AM
@sucahyo: You want it to corrode, because the layer that is formed because of the corrosion, is some form of aluminum oxide. And it is exactly this oxide that has the dielectric properties we want, both in terms of insulating and of polarization properties. The interesting thing about this layer is that it not only insulates, but it also "seals" the aluminum, preventing further corrosion, unless a sufficiently large voltage is applied to the plate with respect tot the water / chemical solution.My experiment with aluminium as positive (12V around <0.5A) show that oxide do not prevent corrotion. My white powder coating happen a lot less on positive electrode. Maybe you need <1mA current, since at 10mA the aluminium still produce decent bubble. However I doubt we can get any hho since even meyer use 50mA.

Aluminium will react to baking soda even without current, I think this is unwanted. Since that baking soda will turn into NaOH after a while in electrolysis, I think a stream of baking soda solution have to be added continuously for your idea.

Attachment is aluminium plate from carbon negative & alumunium positive experiment.

However, I will try and see with 100mA radiant output.
Edit:
The aluminium oxide float. They don't form on aluminium surface. Aluminium will still corrode, and it will be very rapid. I think at 1 amp it would only last 24 hours.

lamare
12-29-2009, 03:58 PM
My experiment with aluminium as positive (12V around <0.5A) show that oxide do not prevent corrotion. My white powder coating happen a lot less on positive electrode. Maybe you need <1mA current, since at 10mA the aluminium still produce decent bubble. However I doubt we can get any hho since even meyer use 50mA.

Aluminium will react to baking soda even without current, I think this is unwanted. Since that baking soda will turn into NaOH after a while in electrolysis, I think a stream of baking soda solution have to be added continuously for your idea.

Attachment is aluminium plate from carbon negative & alumunium positive experiment.

However, I will try and see with 100mA radiant output.
Edit:
The aluminium oxide float. They don't form on aluminium surface. Aluminium will still corrode, and it will be very rapid. I think at 1 amp it would only last 24 hours.


I have done some experiments today, using aluminum and copper. It seems that the white powder that forms on the aluminum tube comes from minerals from the tapwater, since when I used demineralised water, I don't get any white powder.

It looks like I can indeed make a capacitor this way, but it leaks quite terribly. So, I going to see if I can get some Borax. That may work better:

Electrolytic capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor)

A major problem was that most electrolytes tended to dissolve the oxide layer again when the power is removed, but he eventually found that sodium perborate (borax) would allow the layer to be formed and not attack it afterwards.


The electrolyte is usually boric acid or sodium borate in aqueous solution, together with various sugars or ethylene glycol which are added to retard evaporation.


There are three major types of water-based electrolytes for aluminium electrolytic capacitors: standard water-based (with 40-70% water), and those containing ethylene glycol or dipropyl ketone (both with less than 25% water). The water content helps lowering the equivalent series resistance, but can make the capacitor prone to generating gas, especially if the electrolyte formulation is faulty; this is a leading cause of capacitor plague, to which the high water content electrolytes are more susceptible.

lamare
12-29-2009, 10:51 PM
I have made a video of some of my experiments.

I used an aluminum tube as positive and a copper plate as negative. It appears that the white powder is Calcium Carbonate, since we have hard water over here. After a few runs, grinding the tube between runs, the white powder no longer appeared. And with demineralised water, it also did not appear.

Interestingly, the white powder appeared on the outside of the positive tube, not on the copper plate at all, where with stainless steel tubes, you get the powder on the negative tube.
This suggests that the dielectric layer is indeed formed, since the negative plate of the electrolytic capacitor is at the surface of the dielectric. So, that's probably why in this case we get a deposit layer on the postive tube.

I have also done some experiments with an imhotep fan. This suggests that indeed a capacitor is formed. On the scope I see the fan charging the cap with spikes, and then the cap discharges when the spikes are gone. IIRC the fan was able to keep it charged at something in the order of 1-3V.

The video is at: YouTube - cap_experiments_.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swknDdT05-M)

sucahyo
12-30-2009, 05:08 AM
Electrolytic capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_capacitor)
A major problem was that most electrolytes tended to dissolve the oxide layer again when the power is removed, but he eventually found that sodium perborate (borax) would allow the layer to be formed and not attack it afterwards.Thanks, I guess that is the reason for why my experiment failed.


I have made a video of some of my experiments.Thanks for the video :thumbsup: .

Interestingly, the white powder appeared on the outside of the positive tube, not on the copper plate at all, where with stainless steel tubes, you get the powder on the negative tube. That is interesting.

I have also done some experiments with an imhotep fan. This suggests that indeed a capacitor is formed. On the scope I see the fan charging the cap with spikes, and then the cap discharges when the spikes are gone. IIRC the fan was able to keep it charged at something in the order of 1-3V.Can you see if it also act like a battery? by measuring amp output?


Would the coating remain if you use higher voltage or bring both electrode closer together?

lamare
12-30-2009, 07:54 AM
Can you see if it also act like a battery? by measuring amp output?


Would the coating remain if you use higher voltage or bring both electrode closer together?

It appears to act like a battery, indeed. I measured at what's supposed to be the negative plate about 0.8V (IIRC) positive with respect to the aluminum plate. I think this is because I took copper for the negative plate instead of aluminum. This probably also explains why I would get gas production without any voltage source. And this also explains why the industry takes aluminum for both plates when making electrolytic capacitors. If you take different metals, you create a battery...

I did not take current measurements, but when I took two 1k resistors in parallel (making 500 Ohm) and put that in series with my power supply, the voltage across the resistors would still be negative.

According to the theory, the coating (aluminum oxide, *not* the white stuff) should become thicker when applying higher voltages. This is basically how the voltage rating of an electrolytic capacitor is determined. The capacitor should be conditioned at about 125% of the desired voltage rating.

The distance of the electrodes should not make much difference, because the negative plate is extended trough the electrolyte liquid to the surface of the dielectric layer. The distance of the plates should mostly influence the series resistance of the cap, not the capacity nor the thickness of the layer.

However, I think the layer is not stable when using soda, so I'm going to try borax. It may also be that the aluminum I used, which is an alloy, is not pure enough for this. It may be an idea to dissect an old electrolytic capacitor to get aluminum foil with the proper properties.

sucahyo
12-30-2009, 08:57 AM
Ok. I look forward for your result :).

Do the oxide coating peel off because the voltage exceed dielectric voltage limit? And borax increase it?

lamare
12-30-2009, 01:58 PM
I did some measurements on the cap/battery. When I shortcut it, and then measure the voltage, it slowly increases to about 0.8 - 1 V. If I try to measure the amperage, I can't measure anything with my multimeter. It should be able to measure low amperages, but somehow that doesn't work.

Anyway, if we consider that it draws about 15-20 mA when charged with about 15V, then the resistance of the dielectric layer is something in the order of 1-2 kOhm. Then, with a voltage of about 1V, one cannot expect to be able to draw more than about 1 mA. That's the disadvantage of an insulating dielectric layer: it makes a bad battery....

Coming to think about this, it may be that the soda version is not too bad if we want to make a fuell cell, because if the layer becomes too stable, it may grow too much, so we would need ever more voltage in order to get the electret effect. So, with soda, we may have to pay a bit more in terms of energy we need to put in in order to keep the dielectric polarized, but we may get the advantage that the layer can be broken down pretty quickly, so we can keep the thickness of the layer under control as well as shut the gas production down. Assuming this all works as planned, of course.

So, I think I'll experiment a bit more with the current configuration. See if I can get an estimate of the capacity and see what happens if I feed it with high voltage pulses from an ignition coil, etc.

lamare
12-30-2009, 03:22 PM
That's the interesting part nature has shown us ways to cheat like this. A lightning storm uses the same stuff to make it's massive energy output. Even the wavelengths of light that are used are at resonance with the oxygen atom, that is better known as the light being absorbed by the atoms. In my summary of Stanley Meyer's work I go over all of this but it needs to be updated as I have learned the last part now and have to add that in.

A lightning storm has three capacitive zones, between the earth and the bottom of the cloud, between the bottom of the cloud and the top of the cloud, and between the top of the cloud and the upper atmosphere. It has the energy to break down the water molecule both ways Meyer found and used. Most of this energy comes from the self-ionization properties of water, and I think that is the key to everything, even life itself, for without water life doesn't exist as far as we can tell. So perhaps water is a conduit to this energy of the vacuum, for a tree has no problems breaking down the water molecule to get at the hydrogen it needs to build it's cells, nor does the rest of the living things on this planet. One thing we all have incomon is we don't use up large amounts of energy to break down the water molecule.

This is an area of some much need research this self ionization property of water and it's role in life and other things seen in nature, like a lightning storm. The suns coherent light also plays a important role in this, as too does the magnetic field of the earth. Anyway this is where the science has lead me to in looking at Stanley Meyer's patents. These type of questions keep popping up and have to be answered, all we can do is give it our best, and follow the rules of science and bend them some if they don't seem to apply.

:rainbow:
h2opower.


Certainly a lot of research has to be done, and it is sad to see how "science" has evolved on a few paths that one can hardly call science. If one thing can be learned from climategate, it is that science in general has departed from the concept of open discussion and verifyable experiments. The most important thing science has lost the past hundred years is its objectivity, it has largely become an industry that walks the ways money supply points to.

One of the aspects of this, is that some people are made into unfallable saints no one dares to question anymore. One of the most prominent examples of this is without doubt Albert Einstein. Because he warned the US that the Germans were making an atomic bomb, he and the Los Alamos scientists became heros that are not to be questioned, even to this day. Actually, the making of the bomb is a very interesting story, that appears to be quite different from the story we are told at school:
Critical Mass* - The Real Story of the Birth of the Atomic Bomb and the Nuclear Age (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/atomicbomb/contents.htm)

However, Einsteins relativity theory is based on a flaw. I think Thornhill has some very good points about why relativity is wrong: Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill (http://www.etherphysics.net/)

Relativity basically says that the propagation speed of light is constant. It has to say that, because the Lorentz transformation that is needed to generalize Maxwells wave equations demands that. However, these wave equations are exactly the same as the wave equations describing waves in fluids. Now what physical ground is there that warrants the choice of a strange, but mathematical correct transformation, that defines away the concept of a physical propagation medium (ether) for electro-magnetic waves, while all you are really correcting for can just as well be considered as a speed difference between the propagation medium, the ether, and the "observer", so you can use the very simple Galilei transformation in both cases?

I mean, we *know* that the propagation speed of light is not constant, and certainly not in the vicinity of matter, which is why light is broken at the contact layer between two different media, for example.

However, if Einstein is wrong on this one, you can do away with a lot of theories that are presented today as "proven facts", most notably the big bang theory, which already has a host of problems assuming relativity is correct, but if you assume a physical ether is present after all, then the floor drops from underneath the whole big bang idea, because if the speed of light is not constant, the basic assumption by which the distance to and relative speed of stars is "measured" no longer holds, and you basically cannot trust these measurements anymore.

If you go for ether physics, as Tesla did and Prof. Meyl does, you can describe everything from the nano to the macro level in terms of ether vortexes, and if you take two opposing vortexes like this:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif

as both Meyl and Haramein do -- Haramein calls this a "black hole" --, you get a consistant theory that works all the way from sub-atomic levels up to the description of whole galaxies, explains gravity and explains the "dark matter" or "dark energy" astronomers have been looking for for years, to name a few.

However, this is basically an extention of the same theory Tesla used, a theory that allows free energy to be tapped of the ether, as Tesla already did more than a century ago. But Tesla did not walk the ways money supply pointed to, which is the reason he never became a saint and is all but forgotten. And there, the circle is round again. Science has been directed by money far too long to deserve to be called "scientific" anymore. Today, it serves its money masters that don't want free energy, because free energy puts the masses out of control of the money masters, even though there are holes in the theory one can easily ride a truck trough. Any critics that have a point, like the German professors Meyl and Turtur and Dr. Thornhill, are simply ignored and ridiculed, exactly the same way as serious climate researchers are treated by the IPCC and friends.


Having said that, I do wonder if the explanation that electrons are stripped of of their nuclei holds out eventually. It may be much more simple in that the electric field in the micro-capacitors actually splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen much the same way as described elsewhere in this thread. If that were the case, it could still be much more efficient to use the field with small water droplets, because the ions inside the droplets have a much shorter distance to travel, and it could still be true that the water droplets tend to split, much the same way as with Kelvins generator.

Then, you would indeed get (tiny?) charged water droplets, which would react to the electric field and would give you a problem, since they would start moving in the direction of one of your plates. Because, if charged water droplets would be allowed to touch your plates, you would get an electric current, meaning you would not only have to pay the energy bill, but would also be confronted with water droplets at places where you don't want them to be.

That could be prevented by using an alternating field, varying at such frequencies that the water droplets have no chance to actually reach the plates.

If this were true, then you would have to optimise your systems for solving this problem and choosing voltages and frequencies according to the electric forces acting upon the moving, charged water droplets, droplets with a certain weight, speed and direction...

lamare
07-07-2010, 12:59 PM
Just stumbled on a website with a 30's book about how to make electrolytic capatitors:

FaradNet Electrolytic Capacitor Book Contents (http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/book_toc.htm)

Especially chapter 5 is interesting, since it deals about different types of electrolytes and how to form layers on the aluminum foil:
FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5 (http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/chapt_05.htm)

lamare
08-18-2010, 08:12 PM
The aluminium oxide float. They don't form on aluminium surface. Aluminium will still corrode, and it will be very rapid. I think at 1 amp it would only last 24 hours.

According to "Electrolytic Capacitors - Theory, Construction, Characteristics and Applications" there are different kinds of layers that can be formed. FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5 (http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/chapt_05.htm) :

The formation of the anodic film can take place in either an acidic or basic electrolyte. The presence of acid ions in the electrolyte favors the formation of the anodic film whereas, in some cases, the presence of alkali ions favors the actual removal of the oxide film.

Experience has shown that there are two distinct types of films: a thin film of aluminum oxide (A1203) and a comparatively thick film of hydrated aluminum oxide or aluminum hydroxide which also may contain other elements such as aluminum sulphate, oxalate, chromate or other acid reaction products.

The type of electrolyte used will determine, to a great extent, the type of film produced but there are other factors such as temperature and magnitude of applied electrical potential.

If aluminum is immersed in an aqueous solution of sulphuric, phosphoric or oxalic acid and made the anode, it will be found, upon passage of current, that the aluminum surface will acquire a tough film of a rather gelatinous nature. It will also be found that the same magnitude of current will pass with time. In other words, the film does not show a current limiting action as it is built up. This demonstrates that the film will continue to be increased in thickness as long as voltage is applied. It has been noted that the thickness of such a film is determined by the time of current application and the acid concentration.

This type of film does not possess the asymmetric characteristics of the aluminum oxide film and is therefore known as an inactive film to distinguish it from the extremely thin dielectric film of aluminum oxide known as the active type of film. The inactive type of film is apparently a form of hydrated aluminum oxide which contains some aluminum salts of the acid used in the electrolyte. Although not a satisfactory dielectric, the inactive film may be rendered conductive in the presence of alkali ions, which fact may permit the subsequent formation of an active oxide film on the aluminum surface, beneath the inactive film. The presence of an inactive film, however, reduces the effective capacity and increases the equivalent series resistance of a completed capacitor of either the wet or dry electrolytic type. On the other hand, the inactive film is sometimes used as a mechanical protective coating for the active oxide film. This will be referred to again in later chapters.

The true active dielectric film of aluminum oxide is best formed in an aqueous solution of ammonium or sodium borate and the concentrations of the borate salt are desirably such that the electrolyte is sufficiently conductive but definitely on the acid side of neutrality. To accomplish this, boric acid is added to the electrolyte. As the phenomenon of sparking or voltage breakdown of the active anodic film is a function of the log of the ion concentration and temperature of the electrolyte, the net result is that for satisfactory anodic film formations the electrolyte consists, in practice, of an aqueous solution of boric acid with a comparatively small content of either ammonium or sodium borate.


I have lately done some experiments with just aluminum tubes and demineralised water, feeding it with a solid state Bedini coil. It produces quite some gas, but after a while I get white flocks in the water. Since in my previous experiments the water would stay clear when using soda, I think it is important indeed which type of electrolyte solution is used. As is stated in the book quoted above, the wrong type(s) of oxide do not limit the current while forming, which means that the corrosion process is not stopped by the formation of a non-conducting layer. That means the aluminum will corrode and keep on corroding indeed.

sucahyo
08-19-2010, 04:46 AM
According to "Electrolytic Capacitors - Theory, Construction, Characteristics and Applications" there are different kinds of layers that can be formed. FaradNet "Electrolytic Capacitors" Chapter 5 (http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/chapt_05.htm) Many thanks :).

WeThePeople
08-20-2010, 08:51 AM
Here is an HTML copy of the book packaged with Win-RAR.

It has relative, not literal links.

So it should work fine, let me know if not.

Launch the table of contents with "book_toc.htm".

Hope this helps.

FaradNet Electrolytic Capacitor Book.rar

Attached: 991-KB (1,015,742 bytes)


UPDATE:
Sorry guys, can't upload it...sorry...sigh

Are we really limited to 3-MB per human
in total possible contributions to share?

Two lousy floppies worth ??? Wow ...

I looked for a file upload area instead,
is there one we all share I can link to?

sucahyo
08-21-2010, 01:42 AM
try
4shared.com - free file sharing and storage (http://www.4shared.com/)
Free file hosting. File sharing. File upload. FileFactory.com (http://www.filefactory.com/)

WeThePeople
08-21-2010, 02:44 PM
TY Sucahyo,
I have in the past done this with other sites
by recommendation by another forum member.

The opinion changes a little forum to forum,
but essentially one problem persists.

Free file servers tend to only keep active files.

I am willingly and with great hope trying
yet another suggested file server.

Do you know if they will keep serving a file
if no one downloads it in a period of time ?



Here are a pair of options.

One is just the capacitor book,
the other the whole website.

I knew of this resource already,
and have written them before too.

I asked if it was OK to convert the book
into a .DOC or .PDF for people to read offline.

I have never received a reply.

Both of these are available publicly,
but lousy or dialup connections make it
less than convenient to read them online.

Packed with Win-RAR...

The Capacitor Book 08-20-10.rar (http://www.4shared.com/file/-nopkQwD/The_Capacitor_Book_08-20-10.html)

Book Packed:
3.83-MB (4,023,213 bytes)

Book Unpacked:
103-Files, 3-Folders
1.25-MB (1,317,009 bytes)
(Launch "book_toc.htm")



FaradNet.com Captured 08-20-10.rar (http://www.4shared.com/file/zY-ooMwE/FaradNetcom_Captured_08-20-10.html)


Website Packed:
3.83-MB (4,023,213 bytes)

Website Unpacked:
7,590-Files, 62-Folders
42.3-MB (44,433,484 bytes)
(Launch "index.html")

WeThePeople
08-22-2010, 03:47 AM
A day later I received my welcome email,
it is 30 days for these people too.

Just with a different twist.

"PLEASE NOTE: You have to log into your free account
at least once per 30 days. Failing this, your free account
and all your files will be automatically deleted!
In this case, lost information can not be restored."



Thank you anyway Sucahyo for the new site,
but this book will be outdated in a month probably.

It appears to be an ongoing body of work
that grows regularly.

Anyway, hope this helps people with dialup and such.

sucahyo
08-23-2010, 05:36 AM
A day later I received my welcome email,
it is 30 days for these people too.I see. thats too bad :(. Thanks for the file :thumbsup: .

lamare
06-07-2013, 08:14 PM
ahoi pap IK REAGEER NUTELOOS OP JE ARTIKEL... :P ERG INTRESSANT OVERIGENS :P:cheers: