Patent coils polarities comparison

[Login to see usernames]

Do you see the differenc e?


I'm using the dot conventio n.
(http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2492.0;attach=11424)

(http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2492.0;attach=11420)






(http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2492.0;attach=11416)


(http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2492.0;attach=11418)

[Login to see usernames]

Intresting discussion.
The polarity is indeed not consistant in his drawIngs

[Login to see usernames]

Yes thats the thing...


if you notice there is yet other different configura tion he shows, it's the vic IMPEDANCE NETWORK.. .. WHICH IS the only one diagram with all coils adding fields...


In the first patent drawings the chokes oppose the secondary


in the second patent drawings one choke oppose the secondary which in turn adds with one of the chokes...


In the third drawing all coils adds...




(http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2492.0;attach=11422)

[Login to see usernames]

Theres two possibilities or all three ways are correct or only one.


In terms of agreement to what he talks i believe only the first one is the correct! which is the one i'm using at the moment, notice however that i understood what i wanted to do and than found that this first patent drawing was exactly what i was doing coincidentally ...


In the past i noticed this about this patent but overlooked and forgot about it...


What i tried much is the second patent vic design... and i think that many did it, except the crew who was aways claiming the coils should all be adding fields...


In the first drawing from my analysis the chokes send opposite polarity pulse potentials to the cell during pulse off...
 
The second diagram sends positive potential to both electrodes


While the third is like the first but only a potential difference is applied to the cell because there is no amp restriction by electron bounce phenomenon.