### Author Topic: VIC = Balun?  (Read 4688 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

• Hero member
• Posts: 4625
##### VIC = Balun?
« on: September 05, 2016, 10:22:07 am »
Hi ,

Again some possible theorys on how the VIC is build and how it is supposed to work.
Would it be possible that they must act as an antenna balun?

cheers

http://www.antenna-theory.com/definitions/balun.php

http://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/538/using-a-balun-with-a-resonant-dipole

• Hero member
• Posts: 4625
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2016, 10:36:32 am »
I would focus on the current baluns...

This would mean that we should measure currents on our scope and not voltage waveforms.
Maybe thats why nobody have been succesfull in replicating Meyer.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 326
• Build it. Power it. Use it.
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2016, 07:46:27 am »
Hi Steve,

You may have hit on something when you said the word balun.  But what if it's the exciter array itself which is acting as a balun?  The way he has the sets of coaxial tubes connected in series, with two 90 degree bends in each of the jumper wires.  Each jumper is a half turn inductance.  If it was strictly to add the resistance values, a straight diagonal wire would work.

• Hero member
• Posts: 624
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2016, 22:14:08 pm »
Looking at how the wires are connected to the tubes....it looks like they are the same polarity or at the very least ,the outer tube of one tube set is the same polarity of the inner tube of the adjacent tube set.
I haven't seen anybody talk about the function of having the tubes wired that way but it looks like they are effectively wired for the same polarity In some way.

• Sr. member
• Posts: 326
• Build it. Power it. Use it.
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2016, 22:41:42 pm »
Looking at how the wires are connected to the tubes....it looks like they are the same polarity or at the very least ,the outer tube of one tube set is the same polarity of the inner tube of the adjacent tube set.
I haven't seen anybody talk about the function of having the tubes wired that way but it looks like they are effectively wired for the same polarity In some way.

I've been thinking about the possibility of free electron build up on one of the electrodes, relative to the other.    Cross wiring them like seen in his pictures would prevent sparking through the water, in a given tube set.  But the inductive bends in the jumpers could cause the array to act as a pulse forming network.  This might be important for balancing the impedance to an input PFN.

Here's an example of the type of balun I was remembering:

(https://s20.postimg.org/5n4wwfay5/balun2_1.gif)

Maybe a little far fetched, without a top connection except through the water.

I just started a new project involving a hidden wire inside the inner tube.  A pure static charge on this wire would place the same static polarity on the outside of each electrode tube.  But the inside surface of the outer tube would be the opposite polarity.  This, in itself, will polarize the water, and also present the sparking hazzard.

• Hero member
• Posts: 624
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2016, 05:53:06 am »
I've wanted to go back and look at the reference with the 3rd ring electrode at the top of one drawing. ..the most I can remember was it dealt with the EEC .

• Sr. member
• Posts: 326
• Build it. Power it. Use it.
##### Re: VIC = Balun?
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2016, 00:12:19 am »
I've wanted to go back and look at the reference with the 3rd ring electrode at the top of one drawing. ..the most I can remember was it dealt with the EEC .

In a soup consisting of water molecules, gas ions, and free electrons, a water molecule which becomes ionized by losing an electron will typically recapture the same, or different electron in 180 micro seconds.  (Just under two tenths mili second.)  This is in the absence of an external field which pulls the free electrons out of the mix.  And this recapturing is also prevalent with gas ions in the EEC which are non polarized and therefor bouncing around, rather than being stretched while held stationary.  A third electrode - connected to a charge pump circuit - can remove enough free electrons to allow the gas ions to remain ionized and become even more ionized by gaining energy through impact with other molecules.  I see no reason why a third electrode wouldn't also aid the water splitting process.  Pulse mode water splitting exceeds the maximun efficiency for Faraday type electrolysis by quite a bit.  As a result, the charge on the positive electrode can only neutralize a small percent of the free electrons given off by the water during a given pulse train.  For the best possible operation, the rest of the liberated electrons also need to be pulled out of the water.

Instinctively, Meyer's system should produce far more gas than shown.  It's quite possible something's missing from his schematics, whether he included that third electrode in his Exciter Array or not.  This is where a little experimenting is needed, to tell the tale.