Nav 3055 is not the driver, it is part to the analog voltage amplitude control. Check it out

I will not respond to you.
I cant understand why you choose to be stupid instead to be a nice man like Ronnie or Matt Watts.

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 03:36 PM

Nav 3055 is not the driver, it is part to the analog voltage amplitude control. Check it out

You havn't answered the question AGAIN, voltage can be controlled across the primary in many different ways. Stan can control the voltage amplitude to the primary from the PCB, anyone can build circuits to do that using mosfet drivers. Stan used the tip3055 for a specific reason, what is it?

You don't know because you havn't built it, I've built it and thats how I know.

STOP INVENTING CIRCUITS

All I can say is, "It takes gas to make Stan's gas". It's a lot easier to take a gas through these stages than it is to try to take water through these stages. Water is only used in the V0 to Vn stage and to keep the process going. It even states Gas Ionization not Water Ionization.

THE MOST BLIND IS THE MAN THAT DOES NOT WANT TO SEE!.

I will not waste my time explaining the thinks that are in the public domain and you are so lazy that you prefer to ALLUCINATE WITH ACIDS than see the things that are there.

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 03:49 PM

STOP INVENTING CIRCUITS

Stan Meyer circuits are not invented, neither are flyback circuits, i'm showing similarities between the two, you however don't even know why you can't use mosfets in driver circuits.

Nav open your eyes and stick to what Ronnie is explaining us insted of be here making trouble and confusion. If you not respect me is your choice, i dont care, but respect Ronnie and others that want to learn.

If my memory doesnt fail, you were the guy that refused the knowledge that Ronnie wanted to give you... so be on your thread alucinting and tell there how the trip is going on...

Quote from nav on October 29th, 2016, 03:52 PM

Stan Meyer circuits are not invented, neither are flyback circuits, i'm showing similarities between the two, you however don't even know why you can't use mosfets in driver circuits.

It is not a flyback. LOL

Some computer monitors use the irf530 and 730 on flyback driver. It does not mean nothing, and said by you means less!

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 03:54 PM

Nav open your eyes and stick to what Ronnie is explaining us insted of be here making trouble and confusion. If you not respect me is your choice, i dont care, but respect Ronnie and others that want to learn.

If my memory doesnt fail, you were the guy that refused the knowledge that Ronnie wanted to give you... so be on your thread alucinting and tell there how the trip is going on...

Stop the name calling and abuse, its you that is ruining the thread. My comparison to tv flyback circuitry is useful information because it explains how one piece of apparatus can maintain 30kv on a cathode without blowing up. Whether we like it or not x-blade we are struggling to maintain a similar voltage on a cell without it blowing up, indeed at the moment no one seems to have any voltage on a cell at all. That means its 1-0 to the tv engineers does it not?
Maybe we can learn things from them hey?

You are making trouble with your pictures out of context and offending people.
Ronnie told a lot of time to stop throwing high voltage to the cell.

You are trying to piss Ronnie but you only piss your pants off.

Look to the dots on the VIC and look into flyback, did you saw the same? do you know what is a single-ended transformer and the difference between the both? Man we are in the same again...

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 04:05 PM

You are making trouble with your pictures out of context and offending people.
Ronnie told a lot of time to stop throwing high voltage to the cell.

You are trying to piss Ronnie but you only piss your pants off.

Look to the dots on the VIC and look into flyback, did you saw the same? do you know what is a single-ended transformer and the difference between the both? Man we are in the same again...

Ronnie told us not to throw high voltage at the cell without considering inhibiting current first and impedance matching the VIC to the load because of standing wave ratio's.
That doesn't mean flyback transformers are not in the ball park, it means they have to be tuned too.

This thread is "Understanding How Stan Meyers Fuel Cell Works", and the propose of that is to discuss what Ronnie have to teach us not to reinvent the Wheel.
"There are many ways to skin this cat". If you have your own vision you are free to put it in your own thread.

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 04:15 PM

This thread is "Understanding How Stan Meyers Fuel Cell Works", and the propose of that is to discuss what Ronnie have to teach us not to reinvent the Wheel.
"There are many ways to skin this cat". If you have your own vision you are free to put it in your own thread.

Pardon me but i'll quote Ronnie.

Quote

Nav keep up the good work, You are taking a lot of work off my shoulders. Thanks, you don't know how much you are helping.

If i'm not helping then i'll leave the thread.

Nav,

You bring up some great points.

I don't see the VIC as a flyback though.
The reason is because the flyback produces voltage in a different manner than the VIC.

A flyback depends on short high current pulses through an inductance...When the magnetic field collapses it produces a high current through the inductance.  V=L *di/dt shows you how the voltage is produced.

Yes Stans explanations are very similar...But I don't believe they describe a flyback.

In the VIC the voltage is generated by a small current flowing through a large reactance.  V=i * XL, V=i * XC

Do the math used for basic transformers....You'll find the turns ratio produces around 60V across the secondary coil....In a series resonant circuit at resonance the only impedance is the resistance in the circuit (around 220 ohms for the 3 coils).
Take 60V/220 ohms = 270mA .

Now...Stan states the cell uses up to 20kV
How much reactance would it take for the 1.262H choke to produce 20kV?

20kV/.27A = 74,000 ohms impedance
Now....What is the impedance of 1.262H at 10kHz?
Answer: 79,000 Ohms

That shows you using the actual measured valued of Stan's VIC & L1 choke that just below 10kHz the circuit will produce 20kV across the cell...If it's at resonance, that's the hard part!

Good explanation Brad.

Quote from X-Blade on October 29th, 2016, 05:34 PM

Good explanation Brad.

Thank you: )

You can take what Brad just posted to the Bank.

Quote from gpssonar on October 29th, 2016, 06:10 PM

You can take what Brad just posted to the Bank.

That's kind of what I was getting at in my previous post without getting into the gory details.  A one-to-six step-up transformer isn't going to give you 20,000 volts from 12 volts unless you have a means to enter into a resonant-rise condition.  When you do that, the only limits you have come from the physical components and the Q-factor they will allow/sustain.  This is why a Tesla Coil can achieve some crazy high voltages without the typical turns ratio a conventional transformer (i.e. ignition coil, or TV flyback transformer) would use.  Granted, a Tesla coil does step-up and does have a significant turns ratio, but what actually creates  most of the voltage increase is the resonant-rise.

If you're not familiar with the term resonant rise, this link should be helpful:
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/resonant.html

All the Tesla Coil stuff you'll ever want can be found here:
http://www.hazardousphysics.com/main/zeus/The_Zeus_Tesla_Coil_2.html

Quote from gpssonar on October 29th, 2016, 03:49 PM

All I can say is, "It takes gas to make Stan's gas". It's a lot easier to take a gas through these stages than it is to try to take water through these stages. Water is only used in the V0 to Vn stage and to keep the process going. It even states Gas Ionization not Water Ionization.

Ronnie, I almost wish you would have never said this and I'll explain why with some thinking out loud.

Suppose I had a brute force electrolysis cell making about 3 liters per minute.  Now suppose I had a high voltage source connected to a dry WFC--any high voltage source, nothing special, no VIC required.  If I pushed the gas from this brute force cell into this otherwise empty WFC, what would happen to that gas once it was exposed to high voltage DC?   Would this gas become more energetic?  Enough to run an engine?

I'd like to think so, but it sounds too easy.  Surely we would know the answer by now.  I've never tried it and I don't know anyone that has.  It almost seems simple stupid to go and find out.  I have a hunch things don't work this way.  I'll bet you have to follow Stan's process.  You have to crack the water in the correct environment; if you don't, it won't carry the energy we are looking for.

If anyone knows for sure, please speak up.

I've never tried it, but I don't see why it would not excite the gas from brute force and make it more powerful, by how much who knows. you have to keep in mind that stan's gas is already took to a higher state once it comes out of the cell. You can keep running it through stackable cavities and excite the gas to a higher voltage state per each stackable cavity and make it as powerful as you want. I had a stackable cavity made to do some testing with. All I did was take two of my cells and turn one of them upside down. I never got around to testing it yet. You would have to design each stack's Vic not to ark over while raising the High voltage. Think about it Matt, no one has tried it because they didn't know that the high voltage was exciting the gas, they always thought it was breaking the water apart. I would not advise anyone to run any type of hho gas through high voltage with out knowing how to keep it from aching over first.

This picture actually goes 4 steps beyond the water.

Hey!!!
#1 dont let someone get under your skin and dont get under someone elses skin either!!!! I said it before and i will say it again. If someone gets you upset go cool off dont chew a website up.it is easy to get wound. Too easy at times. Then words are passed and then as time goes on we regret letting someone make us look bad.
#2 rome wasnt built in a day work together figure it out.
#3 we can all learn from eachother even if it is what NOT TO DO! wether it is a step or process  or how not to be a prick like someone else .
There is a phrase dont argue with a stupid person. You drop to their level and they will beat you with experience!!!!!!

Quote from nav on October 29th, 2016, 03:07 PM

x-blade, do you know something - you're a prick. If you cannot realise that comparisons to other successful electrical devices are more useful than speculation then you are an out and out idiot. Stan didn't sit in bed one night and think of his technology, he looked at other devices and progressed from there like most people do. One thing leads to another then another, we didn't jump from a steam engine to a computer over night, it is always one small step at a time. Stan more than likely took information from cathode charging systems and progressed that knowledge.
When people get stuck and don't understand something someone did, sometimes you need to take a step back and learn what was before and that can lead to what is after.
You don't understand this principle, you just pile in criticizing everyone's ideas because you genuinely havn't got any of your own.
Now do me a favour and f off.

I didn't think it would be necessary to address this, I thought it would be self evident, but apparently it's not.
Petty bickering won't help at all, so it needs to stop.
This is Ronnie's thread, which we all have been waiting for, so keep arguments and disagreements out of this thread.
Feel free to start new threads of your own if there's something specific you want to discuss and let this thread be for Ronnie to tell us what he knows about Meyer's WFC system.
If you have questions on what kind of arguments I'm talking about here, feel free to send me a PM and we'll take it from there.