Awesome. Glad. I thought about putting more words in about this "symmetrical" thing, but decided the posting was long enough already.
In Mr. Godes' design, the driver circuitry (the part similar to my toy circuit, shown on the left in figure 3C) and the electrolytic cell (the "back end", on the right in 3C) are not connected electrically. They are literally air-gapped by isolation transformer T8. The gap is "crossed" only in the sense of the electromagnetic coupling inside the transformer, which is shown in the middle of figure 3C. This means that in particular, the entire system can contain more than one "ground". If you look at my circuit, the pulses shown in Figure 1 are about 25 volts "tall", but they are referenced to the supply voltage: they never go below 0 volts. My toy circuit has no transformer isolation. It includes only one ground, which serves as "ground" for both the digital input signal and the Q-pulses. My circuit shows no electrolytic cell, no "back end" part. Now look at paragraph 0045 in the patent application. What he actually says there is a bit more complicated, but what he's getting at is that he wants the core to see Q-pulses that alternate between some +V and some -V, symmetrically around "ground". But the ground in this case is what the core sees, which is separate from the "ground" of the digital input / driver / primary of T8. This is shown more clearly in both of his figures 3A and 3B, where it's easy to see that the whole electrolytic cell is a completely separate "loop" from the controller and driver. I should note a further complication. The electrolytic "back end" is shown as providing feedback signals to the controller. You can see these signals at lower left in figure 3B, e.g. the lines labelled 50a, 50b, 50c. I believe, though not sure, that all of these feedback signals will have to be similarly isolated from the computer / microcontroller "ground", perhaps using optical isolation. If they are not so isolated, they will force the computer and drive circuitry to have a common ground with the back end, which screws up all the reasoning above. And these are analog signals, which means the suggested optical isolation will introduce error. A personal side note: in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked on sonar systems that had some characteristics in common with Mr. Godes design. A sonar makes noise in the water with a piezo transducer, which requires high voltages. But transistor amplifiers are generally low-voltage, high current. So a step-up / isolation transformer was required, and like Mr. Godes design, its primary coil could be leveraged to act as an inductor, providing signal shaping across the amplifier output in addition to isolation. The problem was actually harder back then, because we didn't have the benefit of these amazing power FET devices that appear in Mr. Godes design and in my toy design. I guess this was all quite serendipitous because it was easy for me to recognize what was going on here, despite the fact that I'm not a trained electronic engineer. And in closing I can say that I recognize one other thing too. It took that sonar company quite a while to polish the designs I'm referring to, and the folks working on it were very good indeed. So I can say with some authority that Mr. Godes is deadly, deadly good at what he does. This is a deeply complex design, one that I could never even imagine doing for myself, although I can recognize it. We are very fortunate that Mr. Godes is pursuing LENR. Even if this isn't the design that prevails (the patent has other "embodiments"), I have high hopes for Brillouin. I would love to hear more about where you take this. We here in Portland are also considering such things. Our biggest issue is lack of instrumentation (we can't afford it). Even tiny parasitic capacitance or inductance on the load - and I mean tiny, like the inductance that might result from sloppy wiring - change the behavior of that circuit. Without decent instrumentation, I think it will be very difficult to figure out exactly what the core is seeing. It's the usual CF/LENR issue: no money. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, thanks for this. I had considered something like this with a > microcontroller that I have which will generate square waves of 3.3V up to > 120Khz. > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: My circuit contains no remedy > for the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According > to the text of the patent application, this is a "show stopper" that would > need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for > experimentation. > > What do you mean by lack of symmetry about the ground? > > I want to try to build this, and your work is helpful in deconstructing > how to do it. > > Thanks, > Jack > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin >> patent application, and published them on our blog: >> >> >> http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html >> >> In the posting I acknowledge Abd directly and the rest of vortex. Thanks >> again for helping get over a couple of spots I couldn't scratch my head >> hard enough to get past on my own. >> >> Jeff >> >> >
