WFC VIC

[Login to see usernames]

@Kali
Do you think the reason for the low current measure is because you haven't reached the threshold voltage or current to turn the SCR on?

seems like he's playin with figure AA  of the evaluation report

[Login to see usernames]

This 3-23 vic, apparently uses 25 mA out of resonance, and then drops down to 1-2 mA, so not much power being sent through the core. Voltage is unknown, but from the control patent, a guess might be around 650 volts, with mentions of 2000 volts and 5000 volts...

When you say Don you mean Dynodon right? I'f you're looking for me say Donald

Also if you are not using an SCR with this 8xa system you will get a different response, because a SCR is like two transistors in one, changes the interaction, to what end, is up for research. He did switch to a transistor in later systems, but there are also other fundamental changes to accompany that transformation.

Stan also mentions the water molecule as a micro capacitor, and when it is stretched, the dielectric properties increase, because if the lone pair electrons on the oxygen are father away from the hydrogen atoms then the dipole increases. This may be related to the capacitor effect you are referring too.

[Login to see usernames]

This 3-23 vic, apparently uses 25 mA out of resonance, and then drops down to 1-2 mA, so not much power being sent through the core. Voltage is unknown, but from the control patent, a guess might be around 650 volts, with mentions of 2000 volts and 5000 volts...

One thing is for sure, if you look at the 5-coil-vic picture. It certainly didn't develop a very high voltage. I would say, at most about 2-3kV (which would match the values indicated in the patent for this kind of WFC). Why? If you look at the connectors to the cell on the right side, you see that the isolation plastic distance washers are not very thick. If a higher voltage would develop, there would be a spark to the casing. You would also get heavy corona discharges at higher voltages with these connectors. This is very different from the connectors of his 6-1 coil. There he really used High-Voltage connectors. And as far as i understood, these coils actually were meant to get in the xxkV regions.


This is actually IMHO quite interesting. As I have mentioned before, according to the Tay-Hee Han patent, you need at least an E-field of 20kv/mm for water to split just due to the E-field, and it is not possible to develop such a high e-field without having an isolator in between, because the water would arc through already before that. Therefore I personally think his effect is not really splitting the water molecules directly by an e-field, but rather separating the already available ions with an E-field and letting them again neutralize each other, whereas some will then build H2 and O2 instead of again H20. This would still be IMHO the only solution which would actually explain where the overunity splitting energy is coming from.
For ripping apart water directly just by an e-field is not an overunity reaction. Why? Because due to the splitting action, your e-field of the capacitor would loose energy. This is called losses in the dielectric of a capacitor.
So my all time changing guess would be, that you really go to the point where you just would get a water arc. But due to the very small energy in the oscillator, the arc cannot really develop, but just the pre-arc-situation, where the ions get heavily separated. Then  you immediately have to stop the oscillator (gating off), for otherwise you would again pump energy in it, and as soon as the ions didn't had time to neutralize, the ion conduction channel would still be there, and then you would get an arc, which would waste your energy just in heat. But just another lame hypotheses... I know...I should really stop with that and continue experimenting...

[Login to see usernames]

Kali,
      Sorry for the late reply,I was out all day yesterday and didn't get a chance to read theses post.
 
The VIC was wired just like the figure you posted of the coils.All of the coils were wound in the same direction,and put on the core in the same orientation as you travel around the core.They were wired just like the figure as well.So yes that figure is exactly the same as the VIC was wired and layed out.
 
The blocking diode goes to the positive choke and always goes to the positive tube (outside tube).
The negative isolated ground wasn't hooked to any ground either.
 
I haven't though about putting anything together for sale.But as we go along I will keep adding to the info as I feel comfortable releasing.
 
Don
 
Don

[Login to see usernames]

Thank you very very very much!!!!
Although I already guessed that answer!
Actually I would have bet my left arm and right leg, that you would answer that!
You're obviously no electrical engineer (no offense), just like Stan you did make the same mistake! Stan also indicated the orientation wrong in this picture. For in this picture the two choke coils do not have the same orientation as the secondary! Why? Because they are on the other side of the core and therefore have the magnetic field going in the opposite direction!
Here again the pic, but this time with the orientation points as in the original patent (I erased them in the pic before, not to influence you):

(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3761/patviccircuitcorrecteds.jpg)
Here you can see, that Stan made exactly the same mistake, namely he put the orientation points on the choke coils in the wrong direction. I added in red the correct orientation points according to the picture.

I thought the same. If the chokes do have different polarities to the cell, this wiring is the only one which does make sense. Now I'm happy.
Again: Thank you very very very much, really!


So actually it is now obvious that the VIC is really just an extension of the early "8XA circuit". For if you don't wire the coils as in the 8xA pic, but the other way around (like I did and as above in the patent circuit) you will have exactly this situation like in the VIC. And just the choke coils alone ("Amp Inhibiting circuit") already resonate wonderfully, and surely inhibit any current except for oscillation losses.
So Stans problem after the 8XA was to get higher input voltages, as the 8XA is limited in the oscillation voltage by the input voltage. So it seems like he first used a separate forward converter for the step up (as indicated in the patent with a small toroid core). But this still limits the voltage by the input voltage (just stepped up).Surely you could let the forward converter resonate to get higher voltages, but it would be very difficult to adjust the resonance frequency of the forward converter with that of the choke coils. But if you mount them on the same core, then the voltage can increase and increase (limited by your Q-factor) and you only have to hit one resonance frequency.


BTW: I just measured the "Amp Inhibiting circuit" through, while resonating on the WFC. An it's really like in every RLC. You see the wonderful 90° shift of voltage vs. current. When the voltage on the coils is high, no current is flowing through the WFC. When the voltage is zero, most current is flowing through the WFC.

[Login to see usernames]

Don't really think that the representation is wrong, nor in the 3-23 vic nor the patent nor this new pic you came up with... they all show the tuned coil being field subtractive with the secondary and other choke being field adding with the secondary... There are some that are represented wrong like fig 7_1 Vic impedance network, here he shows the north of the coils all being adding fields...  also in the sync pulse, even if there actually the amp inhibiting coil has the opposing field again...


Is strange that there was no connection from the bottom of the tuned choke to the electrical insulated housing... however, who knows---


Anyway


Thanks a lot Don for pointing this.


Br
Fabio

[Login to see usernames]

Kali, yes the red dots you applied are the correct way.Thats just how all my testing of coils ended up,that gave me the highest output of voltage.I tried arranging the coils in every configuration possible,but that arrangement always gave the highest voltage output.
 
Stan showed several different drawings with different coil arrangements,so one of them was bound to be right.
Don

[Login to see usernames]

It really does make sense now.
Especially interesting are Stans highlightings and notes on the Graneau experiments. There it was noted, that the current density was the all important factor if a bang shall occur. Not the voltage and not the overall current. Only the current density. But how can you get a high current density on the WFC, without having to apply a high voltage at the same time, which will simply arc over and bang (like in the Graneau experiments). As I now measured, it is obvious. You actually really are able to have exactly this situation. No voltage on the coils, but all the current flowing through the WFC. Surely, if the current is high and the WFC capacitance discharged, I would certainly guess that you would then see the voltage drop according to the resistance.
I will make a scope shot, to show this effect!


And here it is (fresh from my "Amp Inhibiting Circuit" on my WFC with tap water):
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/690/coilvoltagevswfccurrent.gif)
The yellow one is the voltage of a coil, the blue is the current through the WFC. I had to add quite a resistance in the circuit to measure it (shunt), this distorted a bit the current waveform. But the effect is still clearly visible. When the coil voltage is highest (yellow), the current through the WFC is zero (blue). When the coil voltage is zero (yellow), the current through the WFC is at it's max (blue)