As someone asked in the VIC-Thread about the efficiency of Stans WFC, I remembered, that Stan calculated something in the "Independent Test Evalutation Report". So I looked now again for it, and found it on page 60.

(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/1130/stanefficiencycalculati.jpg)

But if you look closer at the values, it gets quite obvious, that Stan is doing some serious mistakes here.

Let's go through his "points":

1) Tested Electrical Power Loading: 12.5VDC@40Amps=500Watts.

I'm quite curious how exactly he measured this. In between the WFC and the alternator???

The main problem here is, that if you don't have a nice known curve, it is very difficult to exactly calculate the real power needed. But let's assume these values are correct.

2) Tested Gas Rate: 1 liter cavity@7lbs/min Gas Production Rate.

The big question is, how exact this 1 liter cavity size is. I would say, it's easily possible to have here quite some tolerances.

3) 1 Liter Cavity = 1000 cc of Gas Volume = 1lb Gas Pressure

Here is one of Stans biggest mistakes. 1psi gas pressure would not equal 1000 cc of gas volume. 1 bar of gas pressure would equal 1 liter more gas. And one bar is about 14.5psi.

4) 1'000 cc x 7lbs/Min = 7'000 cc Gas Volume/min.

As already stated, the actual volume of gas produced, indicated by the pressure of 7lbs, would be much smaller. It would actually be only about 480 cc Gas volume/min.

Now let's go to point 8, where he calculated the conventional "Faraday electrolysis":

1cc Gas Production Rate per (1) amp/hr@2Volts Electrical Power Loading

Unfortunately this is the other big mistake of Stan. Everywhere in his notes he always states, that conventional Faraday electrolysis only produces 1 cc of gas with 1 Amp in 1 hour. But this is far from the true value, and I have no idea how Stan got this value.

The real value for conventional electrolysis is easily calculable. And you get a figure of about 620 cc Gas (H2 + O2) per 1 amp in one hour.

This relativates the figures enormously:

Stans Rotary VIC: One Tube has 12.5V at 4.4Amps and delivers about 53 cc gas volume/min

Conventional electrolysis with 2V at 4.4Amps delivers 45.5 cc gas volume/min

As you can see, the figures are almost the same. If you now take into account, that there were probably quite some tolerances in Stans measurement, it's even thinkable, that it is the same as for conventional electrolysis.

But then Stans rotary VIC would have been much less efficient than conventional electrolysis, as he used 12Volts instead of 2. Which means 6times less efficient.

IMHO there could be some points which could explain this outcome:

First, if the simple rotary alternator VIC, was really that bad in efficiency and actually did nothing else but conventional electrolysis.

Second, if the measurements of his used current were completely wrong. E.g. if you have a resonance circuit and you measure the current in there, you will see a lot of current going in and out, but no actual power needed for that. So if he measured the current from the alternator to the WFC, and if there was a resonance, then it is very likely that the amps rating Stan used was way too high in respect to the really needed input power.

Edit:

Ahh, think I just realized, why Stan made the pressure error. It looks like his pressure indicator had 1psi offset. So that it displayed 1 psi at ambient pressure. So he thought, that the ambient had 1psi pressure.

This would actually mean, that the produced gas would be only responsible for an increase of 6psi. And if you calculate that, you get 45.7 cc gas volumen/min at 4.4Amps which is really exactly (just a minor tolerance) the same as that of the conventional electrolysis.