Yes, that figure is directly from the patent. I think we're on the same
page.
Figure 9 shows two "cells": the "real" cell on the left and the "control"
(joule heat) cell on the right. Four wires are shown leaving the real cell.
The leftmost is a temperature sensor that runs to a data logger. The middle
two run vertically from the cathode to the control board. These are "J1-1"
and "J1-2" ("Connection point for Core") shown at lower right in figure 3C
of the patent. In other words, these are the Q pulses taken from the
secondary of the transformer.
In the patent, "Cathode" and "Core" are synonymous, although this is not
immediately evident. And yes, the "loading pulse" is the current from anode
to cathode in the electrolytic cell. It's the ordinary current flow of an
electrolytic cell; he calls it "loading" current because the flow of this
current evolves H2 at the cathode, causing the nickel (or whatever metal)
to "load" with H2, forming nickel hydride. Here the only difference from
any other electrolytic cell is that Godes can turn this current flow on and
off under software control from the microcontroller, hence loading
"pulses". This anode current flow is the fourth (rightmost) wire entering
the real cell in the figure. It runs back to the center tap of the
secondary of T8, and is weirdly labeled "F04" in Figure 3C.
In the patent text, Godes kind of disclaims the importance of control over
the loading (electrolytic) current, saying he could only get excess heat
when it had an 80% duty cycle or higher. I think he is implying that if the
electrolytic (loading) current was just on all the time, it might be fine.
So at the bottom of all this, you just have an electrolytic cell with
high-current, high-voltage Q pulses sweeping back and forth across the
extent of the cathode, first one polarity, then the other. And that brings
us to your question about "really" AC and "truly negative".
When an electrician wires your house, it's important for safety reasons
that there be a "ground" which is referenced to the earth, the "real
ground" ("earth ground"). This leads people to think about "ground" as some
kind of absolute thing. But in designed circuits like this, "ground" is a
more complex idea. Every circuit is of course a loop, and a complex design
like this one may be broken up in to more than one loop with the loops
isolated by transformers, optical isolators or the like. In this case the
"ground" of one loop may have nothing in common with the "ground" of
another loop.
Here's an example: suppose you have a battery-powered electrolytic cell
running on a table top. No point in the entire loop has anything in common
with your house wiring. As a result, the idea of a voltage "between" any
part of the battery-powered electrolytic circuit and any part of your house
wiring has no meaning. Similarly, no point on the left (primary) side of T8
- the driver circuitry - need have anything in common with any point on the
right (secondary) side of T8, the electrolytic cell.
This is even harder to see in Godes' circuit, because (as I make it out),
the "ground" for the cathode is referenced through the liquid electrolyte,
the anode, a "current source", and back to the center tap of the secondary
of T8. Using this definition, the Q pulses are "truly AC", because the
polarity of the pulses will swing both positive and negative relative to
the anode which is the same [* note below] as the center tap of the
transformer. If you connect the black probe of an oscilloscope to the
center tap and put the red probe on the core (cathode) with the circuit
running, you'll see positive going pulses with positive voltage and
negative-going pulses with negative voltage. This is what the core "sees".
It's truly AC because the polarity reverses.
[* note: if you look at figure 3C, it's even more complex because there is
a small shunt resistor, "R3", between the center tap and the anode. This
allows measuring the electrolytic current flow. There will be a small
voltage drop across R3, so the voltage at the anode will never be quite the
same as the center tap. There also has to be something to actually provide
the current to the anode; this is shown as a circle with a downward
pointing arrow labeled "Current Source" in figure 3A. None of this affects
any of the reasoning above: the Q pulses are still symmetrical, positive
and negative, around a reference that is roughly defined by the liquid
electrolyte the cathode is immersed in.]
The patent doesn't appear to go into circuit detail about the "current
source" for the anode, so there's a certain amount of hand waving in the
above.
Jeff
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Look at figure 9 on this page: http://www.rexresearch.com/godes/godes.htm
>
> Two cathodes are shown. It almost looks like the "2" cathodes are
> connected together at the bottom. Is he running the Q in a loop through
> this, and the loading pulse through the anode do you think?
>
> Here is some support for the idea. In this paper (
> http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Godes-Controlled-Electron-Capture-Paper.pdf
> -- bottom of column 1 page 1), he says, "High voltage, bipolar, narrow
> pulses were sent through the cathode and separately pulse-width
> modulated (PWM) electrolysis through the cell (between the anode and
> cathode)."
>
> So, looks to me like he loops Q through the cathode and the DC loading
> pulse comes through the anode through the cell to the cathode.
>
> Also, are you suggesting that his alternating current is alternating DC
> current (never goes to truly negative voltage)?
>
> Thank you for the caution. I will research and be careful with this.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are referring to his Figure 3A - I don't *think* he's using two
>> cathodes. I think the image of two dots with two lines between them is
>> intended to convey that the cathode has physical extent - he describes it
>> somewhere as a "grid of nickel wires" (?) - and the Q pulses swing positive
>> and negative across the cathode when referenced to the center tap of the
>> secondary. This also suggested by figure 3B where the core (again, labeled
>> "15") is just a horizontal line between vertical lines running to the ends
>> of the secondary of T8. Of course I could have missed what you're seeing.
>> Or we could be looking at the same thing and I could be completely missing
>> it. ;-)
>>
>> With respect to finding the part - the exact part is probably not
>> critical. The circuit design on our blog page doesn't use the same
>> half-bridge driver chip or the same MOSFETs as Godes either, it just
>> produces similar behaviors (I hope). The key points are that it's a radio
>> frequency isolation transformer with a certain turns ratio between primary
>> and secondary. (The fact that it's a radio frequency part supports the
>> whole argument about the Q pulses - it has to pass those higher harmonics
>> as described in the blog page, or the pulses will come out rounded in the
>> secondary, the skin effect won't come into the play to the same effect
>> there, etc.)
>>
>> I found this link:
>> http://www.lintechcomponents.com/product/010478953/F62612H/72656
>>
>> which might be a starting point for finding or making something similar.
>>
>> Really do be careful. We wouldn't want to lose you. It looks like a 3:1
>> voltage step-up in the secondary. This circuit can burn a path through your
>> internal organs faster than your muscle fibers can possibly contract to
>> take your hands away. Read up on high voltage technique and think about
>> every action. Always wear eye protection. I once saw a miswired high
>> powered sonar driver blow some of the driver components into little shards
>> some of which became embedded in the wallboard behind the lab bench. This
>> isn't like working on digital electronics.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for explaining this Jeff. Did you see that he is using 2
>>> cathodes? What is the difference between the two?
>>>
>>> Initially I was thinking about just trying to replicate his circuit, but
>>> the F626-12 seems to be pretty hard to track down.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> F626-12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
