Ionizationx: a clean environment is a human right!

Projects by members => Projects by members => Tony Woodside => Topic started by: TonyWoodside on December 12, 2012, 01:33:08 am

Title: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 01:33:08 am
I want to talk about a couple of things here. I've seen on many forums were people are talking about the WFC being over unity, but it's really not! Stan even says in his lectures that his system isn't over unity! He says many times that the WFC consumes between 3 & 5 amps, but its nothing compared to the power output of Hydrogen! like for example, lets say your WFC is consuming 3 amps @ 14.6V and its producing enough hydrogen to run a 4 cylinder engine. Now can you take that same 3 amps @ 14.6V and rotate the 4 cylinder engine? The answer is simply NO! There's really noway you could run an engine with that small of a current and voltage combination, but with a WFC and the hydrogen output at these power levels can! I hope you guess are following what I'm saying here.

I also want to talk about the PLL and exactly what the 4046 chip is looking for in order to "Lock-In" to resonance. Stan talks a lot about Resonance in his system and basically what he has built is an impedance matching systems (This can also be seen in Stephen Meyer's patents). When you build an LC circuit, you will get resonance at a specific frequency. You can also get resonance at Harmonics and Sub-Harmonics of this specific frequency. Some many be more efficient than others, but the concept is the same, Resonance achieved and maintained. OK, so let me get into the signal that the PLL 4046 is looking for. Pin 14 receives a "cleaned up", virtually perfect, square wave from the Feedback coil, while at the same time Pin 3 is receiving a square wave signal from the VIC's Primary coil. The signal from the Primary coil at all frequencies (except for the Resonant, Harmonics, & Sub-Harmonics frequencies) will be distorted and the PLL is looking for a prefect square wave to match the signal it's receiving at Pin 14. So, the only time you will get "Lock-In" is when these two signals are a perfect square wave and this means that the LC circuit and Primary coil are Impedance Match and the energy transfer will be at its most efficient point!!! Once the signal at Pin 3 and Pin 14 are matched, the PLL will lock to this frequency and out this single signal at Pin 4. When out of "Resonance", the signal's frequency at Pin 4 will vary/scan. This is the basic concept of the Voltage Intensifier Circuit and its function. I have included a couple of images to show the signal in "Resonance" and out of "Resonance".
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 02:48:03 am
Excellent description of the PLL.  Thanks Tony!!

TS
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 10:48:49 am
Tony,first time you start the circuit you have to manualy search the res freq?in order to give the 4046 a clean signal at the primary?and then he automaticaly locks?or the scaner scans right from the begining and the signal is created by the 4046,if so why do we need the manual freq gen.?
Title: All about tuning now!
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 20:54:12 pm
Why would something that multiply power input to be over unity? Well in strict sense of the word it indeed is... but as meyer said he was able to tap into it by releasing the power from water..

I got the vic to work as described by him... collapsing the field and generating another pulse... Its amazing how simple stupid it is... you just need to make the connection...

It is indeed a voltage intensifier circuit! 

Title: Re: All about tuning now!
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 20:59:13 pm
I got the vic to work as described by him... collapsing the field and generating another pulse... Its amazing how simple stupid it is...

It is indeed a voltage intensifier circuit!

Oh?  Got some step by step details on that?  Scope shots?  Amazing amounts of HHO yet?

TS
Title: multiplier during switch off condition...
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 12, 2012, 21:47:57 pm
I can only say the the bifilar is a key concept, but no results yet keep coiling here..

Restricting amps to allow voltage take over and do work in a dead short condition...

my theories were right in the end, is just matter of too hard work to make things work in our favor...

guess what i created a two step method to determine primary turns number... for just pulsing cores with class c ampliìfier basically unipolar square wawe

simply you need to find the maximum flux the core can handle multiplying the Bmax field by the crossectional area in square meters... this is the flux in webber quantity

B max for ferrite is around 0,3 Tesla

so

Flux = Bmax * Area

than simply primary turns required is = ((volts applied / flux) / frequency)


Title: Re: multiplier during switch off condition...
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 01:08:35 am
B max for ferrite is around 0,3 Tesla

so

Flux = Bmax * Area

than simply primary turns required is = ((volts applied / flux) / frequency)

So basically you would say something like this?
Flux = 0.3 * 0.0381
Flux = 0.01143

Primary Turns = ((12V / 0.01143) / 5000)
Primary Turns = 1049.87 / 5000
Primary Turns = 0.209974

I'm guessing from here you would use the 1/x function? Like 1 / 0.209974 = 4.76 Turns???
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 01:12:39 am
nono the formula is correct the area you used is just too big... if you multiply something like 2cm x 2cm it makes 0,0004m2 sqmeters ...

the formula for sine wave is similar.. Nt=volts/4.44/Hz/m2/Bmax

If hbrige was used than instead of 4.44 it just rounds to 4
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 01:16:48 am
I was using 1.5 inches squared which = 0.0381 meters squared
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 01:22:43 am
You must think in meters than it will work i'm sure. it worked for me... mind that 1cm is 0,01meter so 1cm2 = 0,0001 m2

In you first calculus 0,038m = 381cm2 way a lot =)
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 01:27:26 am
It was such a mystery to me but only now I had the clarity of mind to understand it..
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 02:07:48 am
ok so like this example for Stan's VIC Transformer core?
tw = 1.09728 cm
hw = 4.72186 cm
bf = 6.25348 cm
tw = 1.09728 cm

A = ( hw * tw ) + (2( bf * tf))
A = ( 4.72186 * 1.09728 ) + (2( 6.25348 * 1.09728 ))
A = ( 5.181203 ) + (2( 6.86182 ))
A = ( 5.181203 ) + ( 13.72364 )
A = 18.904843 cm2

2 * 18.904843 = 37.809686 .....I multiplied by 2 since there are 2 core halves

37.809686 * 0.0001 = 0.0037809686 meter2

Flux = 0.3 * 0.0037809686
Flux = 0.0011343

Primary Turns = ((12V / 0.0011343) / 5000)
Primary Turns =   10579.21185 / 5000
Primary Turns = 2.1158 ???
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 02:49:47 am
No tony sorry you maybe misread it, i meant cross-sectional area not the total area of the core... only the cross-sectional area is considered here.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_calculate_the_cross_section_area_of_cylinder

for example:
typic flyback core like... 1,8cm diameter
cross-sectional area 2,54x10^-4 m2
max flux= 7,63x10-5
12v 5khz = 31 turns considering bmax = to 0,3tesla which should holds true for up to 10-20khz
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 02:52:53 am
so what would it be using the measurements I gave for Stan's transformer?
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 06:20:36 am
well the cross-sectional area is tf multiplied by the component length in the z direction which you did not provided...

the area of interest is only the area of the wire loops you see? i mean the area of the core cut.

If meyer was using ferrite, this would mean for 2cm wide maybe 1cm high is 0.0002m2

so maximum flux would be 0,00006 webber considering bmax = 0,3 tesla

So turns number considering 12v 5 khz

40 turns...

If he was using a core that has half this size in high for example than it would be a flux of 0,00003

so turns = 80

so is directly proportional to the core size... I guess his core was smaller...

Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 07:52:15 am
He clearly than modulated the voltage at the input of the transformer as function of frequency applied so he could aways input power at maximum level just below saturation. Probably lowering voltage applied at lower frequencies of course.

Title: Re: multiplier during switch off condition...
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 14:49:28 pm
simply you need to find the maximum flux the core can handle

so

Flux = Bmax * Area

than simply primary turns required is = ((volts applied / flux) / frequency)

Hey,

h=0.105 inches = 0.2667 centimeters
w=0.4320 inches = 1.09728 centimeters

A = 1.09728 * 0.2667 = 0.292644576 cm2
A = 0.000029264 m2

Bmax = 500 miliTesla =>0.5 Tesla
flux = A * Bmax => 0.000029264 m2 * 0.5 Tesla => 1.4632 × 10^-5 Wb

turns = [(V / flux) / freq]
turns = [(12 volts / 1.4632 × 10^-5 Wb) / 5kHz] => 164.024057 turns

Ok, so now we have the maximum flux of the core, now what?  8)

Since there is 10 ohms of wire resistance in the primary coil , 164 turns are not enough?  :-X
 
Regards
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 15:37:25 pm
Your calculation is correct, but i'm not sure if Bmax can be 0,5 tesla in ferrite... maybe only at powdered iron cores or up to 1,5 tesla for silicon iron...


I'm not sure but i guess that some compensation for the wire resistance can be done... probably calculating the voltage drop for a given operation.. for say it has 1 ohm primary resistance and should get maybe 5 amps flowing so maybe the target voltage is somewhat the source voltage subtracted by the voltage drop or a percentage of it...


Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 16:04:05 pm
Your calculation is correct, but i'm not sure if Bmax can be 0,5 tesla in ferrite... maybe only at powdered iron cores or up to 1,5 tesla for silicon iron...


I'm not sure but i guess that some compensation for the wire resistance can be done... probably calculating the voltage drop for a given operation.. for say it has 1 ohm primary resistance and should get maybe 5 amps flowing so maybe the target voltage is somewhat the source voltage subtracted by the voltage drop or a percentage of it...

Seb,

Yes it depends on temperature for example: MnZn B for 25 degrees C ; 10kHz; 1200 A/m; 500mT or 100 degrees C ; 10kHz; 1200 A/m; 440mT. 30AWG wire won't take 5 amps!!!

Regards
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 13, 2012, 20:38:49 pm
electron speed is important, if you control electron speed you have OU.
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 09:06:57 am
ok seb try your math skills on this  http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,2567.0.html
its an dan danforth homemade inductor, its one of the few parts I hadn't come up with a value for yet
for this early Sri Lankan Meyer  clone



regards

Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 10:03:01 am
There's something I haven't seen being discussed any on these forums and that is the purpose of the 220 Ohms resistor Stan had in parallel with the Primary coil of his VIC Transformer. Anyone want to take a guess what its purpose is? ;-)
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 10:41:13 am
Used for fine tunning the input freq. to match the ouput freq. is my guess!
Title: why do we burn so many components and go nowhere?
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 12:23:13 pm
There's something I haven't seen being discussed any on these forums and that is the purpose of the 220 Ohms resistor Stan had in parallel with the Primary coil of his VIC Transformer. Anyone want to take a guess what its purpose is? ;-)

That would be protection in certain cases, but in this case, it controls the voltage multiplication limiting it to safer levels during switch off conditions... of course other means to protect the switch must be used too...
I pointed this out in many threads-- posts--- here..

When he talks about potential being possibly infinite if electronic components allowed it to happen he meant this.. i can only guess... 

I can only add that open circuit do nothing other than burn components and coils... It were the only flaw in my previous theories.. .to those who read them in the past... not wiling to waste time to discuss further... just take a look at older posts if want...

In my primary i clearly see a doubled pulse when theres resonance... thats so because the chokes acts as primary when pulse is off... but there are two resonances when hiting it at 9khz other at 13,5khz strangely... where the second is a perfect sine wave
greatest peak is at 9khz...
could it be boyces longitudinal resonance?


Do you know the method for analysing potential in networks?

well i learned but is hard to explain but a must to understand how things go on. basicaly the sum of the potentials around a circuit must be zero. from that you can understand the stress across the components as function of time if you want...
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 15:13:22 pm
There's something I haven't seen being discussed any on these forums and that is the purpose of the 220 Ohms resistor Stan had in parallel with the Primary coil of his VIC Transformer. Anyone want to take a guess what its purpose is? ;-)

My guess is to absorb BEMF.

TS
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 15:48:17 pm
There's something I haven't seen being discussed any on these forums and that is the purpose of the 220 Ohms resistor Stan had in parallel with the Primary coil of his VIC Transformer. Anyone want to take a guess what its purpose is? ;-)

My guess is to absorb BEMF.

TS


I agree : )

 I use a diode across the primary instead
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 18:16:33 pm
Tuning, limiting, adjusting.
A point of view from outside:
There is a point of perfection depending on the coil design.
I imagine in the various cases and choices this resistor could change a small amount depending on what you need to see in the circuit.
 

There's something I haven't seen being discussed any on these forums and that is the purpose of the 220 Ohms resistor Stan had in parallel with the Primary coil of his VIC Transformer. Anyone want to take a guess what its purpose is? ;-)
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 15, 2012, 20:30:45 pm
Ok guys this is my guess and observation to the purpose of the 220 ohm resistor in parallel with the primary coil. I think its to match impedance during "Off" time, gating!
Secondary Coil: 72.4 ohms
L1 Coil: 76.7 ohms
L2 Coil: 70.1 ohms

Total Resistance = Sec+L1+L2
Total Resistance = 72.4 + 76.7 + 70.1
Total Resistance = 219.2 ohms

As for pulse "ON" time, the frequency will do the impedance matching for the VIC Transformer.
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 16, 2012, 12:49:07 pm
Seems more a coincidence to me.

The primary during pulse off receives another pulse of same polarity but right before and after this happens its voltage and source adds up to destroy the switch. This resistor limits this voltage rise no magic. Is also acts as a load for the incoming pulse. A snubber is also needed to control the potential rise between source and drain... basically is better to use 1200v or more switches...


Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 18, 2012, 15:25:40 pm
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 18, 2012, 15:28:55 pm
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks

Not to mention the pin 11 to 12 error was still there last time I checked.

TS
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 18, 2012, 19:39:42 pm
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks

Not to mention the pin 11 to 12 error was still there last time I checked.

TS
On what ic?
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 18, 2012, 19:44:57 pm
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks

Not to mention the pin 11 to 12 error was still there last time I checked.

TS
On what ic?

http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php/topic,2523.msg23604/topicseen.html#msg23604

TS
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 19, 2012, 11:06:15 am
Yes i noticed  yesturday while looking at Tony schematics.And about the thread you posted by Seb.there is to much fuss about one pin,Stan does not even used thouse cips,keeping in mind the hard work that Tony did  and giving the schematics for free it's a piece of cake.
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 19, 2012, 11:43:14 am
We use to say here that for free we take also injection in the head...  ;D
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 19, 2012, 11:47:09 am
We use to say here that for free we take also injection in the head...  ;D
what do yo mean by this?(btw have you talked to tony these days?)i see him online all the time but never answer.thanks.
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 19, 2012, 11:59:43 am
We use to say here that for free we take also injection in the head...  ;D
what do yo mean by this?(btw have you talked to tony these days?)i see him online all the time but never answer.thanks.
Hey,

Just like everybody else on the forums, all clueless....  8)

Regards
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on December 19, 2012, 12:23:18 pm
Is a popular say, forwe like free stuff don't matter if good or not for us... =)

There is another: When someone gives a horse to you, you don't look the teeth...
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 11, 2013, 04:10:33 am
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks

Not to mention the pin 11 to 12 error was still there last time I checked.

TS

This error was corrected on my latest PCB's but its an easy fix on the earlier versions by just clipping of pin 11 and connection pins 11 & 12 on the PCB.
Title: Re: WFC Not Over Unity
Post by: Login to see usernames on February 11, 2013, 15:11:50 pm
Hy Tony sorry for offtopic but is ok to build your schematics from your site?(PLL .scaning and pulse indicator)are they complete? because i see some holes unconected(see att).thanks

Not to mention the pin 11 to 12 error was still there last time I checked.

TS

This error was corrected on my latest PCB's but its an easy fix on the earlier versions by just clipping of pin 11 and connection pins 11 & 12 on the PCB.

I was more referring to your posted schematics.

TS