Was Stan Being Dishonest About The Charging Chokes???

[Login to see usernames]

Was Stan being dishonest about the configuration of the charging chokes? I'm questioning this for a couple of reasons. Stan says over and over in his videos that the charging chokes where equal length, but from all my research over the years I don't think he was being totally honest about that aspect.

1) In a lot of Stan's diagrams he shows the L2 (-Ve) choke as a variable choke or "Tuned" choke.

2) As Don showed with the choke measurements taken from Stan's actual VIC transformer, the values were different.

3) Stan also refers to the chokes as "Frequency By-pass Coils".

4) As you can see in the simulation images and actual real-time image, the only way I've been able to get the "Ring" effect is when you use two different value chokes. I've been using a mathematical formula to get the choke values, but I'm not going to go into that aspect right now.

Well just thought I would throw this all out there and see what happens 

[Login to see usernames]

One last think I will explain why he called it a "tuning" choke. You have to adjust the inductance of the L2 choke thus adjusting the frequency/phasing so that when the L1 chokes voltage is "LOW", due to the diode half-wave rectifying it, that they line up to give the "ringing" effect. You can see this in the image named "sim-2".

[Login to see usernames]

Good thread Tony,nice to ''see'' you post again here...Don said stan had a motor driven winding machine with the wire feed by hand,so no much precision when winding 2 coils..

[Login to see usernames]

What if he was simply not honest at all?

What if the chokes had a function different than proposed?

Meyer used water as dielectric for something thereto because of its natural proprieties.

He was indeed correct in assuming whatever person with the knowledge of the prior art would capable of replicating and improving it.

What i mean is that many hydrogen from water based patents relies its operation around the same principle and each present one aspect at least of the principle in question.

The easy way is to examine the circuit but also what exactly it is doing to water. This will tell you the modifications that you need to make to the circuit in order for it to work.

I guess the difference in choke size is only applicable to fine tune the effect not to determine its operation.
In another aspect it can indeed be determinant if you consider this wiper arm as a mean to ad a coil load to the circuit to increase the power being consumed from the source...

[Login to see usernames]

Hey Tony can you share some paremetrs of the sim you made? Thank you for sharing what you did....I would love to see how that is done and have been trying with limited success .
Are you actualy running the primary straight thru to the positive of a tube set?

[Login to see usernames]

It may be blasphemy, but I concur.

You get a really good bump when you run in resonance and have a nice differential between the chokes. Example: Freq. 1.591kHz, L1=1.1H, L2=1H, 10nF

I'm not sure what numbers your playing with. I really believe the chokes were not of equal length.

I'm still messing around with the concept.

Warm regards,

Derek

[Login to see usernames]

It may be blasphemy, but I concur.

You get a really good bump when you run in resonance and have a nice differential between the chokes. Example: Freq. 1.591kHz, L1=1.1H, L2=1H, 10nF

I'm not sure what numbers your playing with. I really believe the chokes were not of equal length.

I'm still messing around with the concept.

Warm regards,

Derek

Hi Derek,

We would love to see some motivating pictures of your setup and some scope shots 

Steve

[Login to see usernames]

I was doing a simulation like Tony Woodside. I would love to post some results, but I need to bring it to the realm of practical application like Tony did with his last scope pic.

I do plan to follow up with this and something else that will take more time.

Tony's the best shot right now for questions on this matter.

Warm regards,

Derek