X-Blade I see your doing your homework. LOL I'll get to the diode soon, keep looking for other things.

Quote from gpssonar on November 1st, 2016, 05:05 PM

I'm sorry to see Nav go, But for those that don't want this information I'm given out that no one ever talked about. Then this may not be the place for you. I said I would give this out on the 24th. And this is how I'm going to give it out like it or not. I want everyone to be equal in knowing how this works and not just a few. Those few will have to wait on the many. Sorry

I am so very grateful for what you're sharing with us here Ronnie and the more detailed your explaining is the better, especially given my many grey cells which aren't quite as open to new ideas as they once were.

Need to unlearn what I've learned I must :yoda:

Thanks for replying about my C core vic problem Russ...I'm waiting for you guys to gather up for ordering.no offense guys after all the math is done you will still need a core to have the inductances right and have room for the feedback coil.I am also frustrated that after all this work to build the cells and the coils..i'am getting 17v no mater what i do but i like what Ronnie is teaching...although i read Grobs book on impedance matching its described briefly and not very clear.Ronnie why do you include all the coils as a load and not calculate from the chokes to cell?
Another question will be why calculate the cell/load resistance as 78ohms(I know thats the dialectric constant).I have put 12v on my 1cell and its draws 300mA,on natural drinking water.so 40ohms resistance.I will try with distiled water,i think that will get close to 78ohms.

*Russ the problem with timeout has solved..thanks

Quote from adys15 on November 1st, 2016, 10:50 PM

Ronnie why do you include all the coils as a load and not calculate from the chokes to cell?

Because at resonance there is no ohm value if XC and XL is tuned to cancel each other out, So therefore it does not effect the impedance match. The only way you have a ohm value in XC and XL, is if there is a difference left once you subtract the two. We don't live in a perfect world, so therefore our coils are not going to be perfect and our total resistance we need may be a little off here and there as we wind each of the coils, So we can still use the XL and XC to our advantage to still keep all the resistance right by having a small ohm value left once we subtract the two. That is achieved by tuning the frequency. In other words ( a little above or below resonate frequency will add a ohm value). That's why when tuning it is so damn touchy, and things can go south real fast. Again that is why you want see anyone touch my cell and turn knobs once tuned and working, (Like I seen another person do), and Stan wouldn't either.

Note: If you don't start the tuning around 2 volts on the line and work your way up, You will indeed burn up a coil and not even know it. And you can tune for a year and never get any voltage. The only way you will know if you burn up a coil is to take everything apart and check the inductance of each coils to see which one you fried.

Did some math tonight...boy I suck at math...Been 31years since I took trig.

Thanks for all the Info GPS I will keep reading.

Hho dan.
Lol
you aint the only one that sucks at math. !!
Just dont give up. Keep at it. I am in same boat as you but still plugging away until i get it right.

Quote from gpssonar on November 2nd, 2016, 03:18 AM

Because at resonance there is no ohm value if XC and XL is tuned to cancel each other out, So therefore it does not effect the impedance match. The only way you have a ohm value in XC and XL, is if there is a difference left once you subtract the two. We don't live in a perfect world, so therefore our coils are not going to be perfect and our total resistance we need may be a little off here and there as we wind each of the coils, So we can still use the XL and XC to our advantage to still keep all the resistance right by having a small ohm value left once we subtract the two. That is achieved by tuning the frequency.

A few videos to help the concepts sink in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykgmKOVkyW0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqhV50852jA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi24SpKYYoQ

Thanks

Thanks Matt, those video's should help everyone. I have watched all his video's, he is a good teacher. If you want to know anything about electronic, Just find you a well experienced Ham Radio operator.

I had a guy that goes by the name reverandkilljoy tell me tonight through a pm that the math I gave out to work out the impedance match want work because I used AC math. Can anyone tell me where to find DC math. I've googled it and everything and I just can't find DC math. Can someone help me out.

lol

You more than welcome to use your DC math here and explain how to impedance match Stan's vic. I want mind at all, like I said I welcome it. Because I've never seen DC math before.

"In electronics, impedance matching is the practice of designing the input impedance of an electrical load or the output impedance of its corresponding signal source to maximize the power transfer"

P = (I^2)*R

more power transfer means more current means less voltage ..... why would I want to impedance match my cell?

it seems like you've been going about this the wrong way gps

Wrong?

 :deathstar:

Oh well, maybe I just wasted ten hours improving this spreadsheet.    :facepalm:

But now it calculates two different wire sizes and handles oval bobbins.  Also does a full turns hunt for the desired turns ratio you want--six being optimal for the cores I'm using.

Cheers!

Many thanks Matt :thumbsup:

Quote from reverandkilljoy on November 2nd, 2016, 07:56 PM

"In electronics, impedance matching is the practice of designing the input impedance of an electrical load or the output impedance of its corresponding signal source to maximize the power transfer"

P = (I^2)*R

more power transfer means more current means less voltage ..... why would I want to impedance match my cell?

it seems like you've been going about this the wrong way gps

By all means, provide us with the correct math if you please.

Meanwhile We'll just build Meyer's WFC system the way Ronnie shows us, get the bubbles bubbling the Meyer way, then we can talk about the correct math :thumbsup:

Plug into my spreadsheet P = I^2 * R and you get the exact same values.  So, unless Ronnie sees any problems, I think we're good-to-go gang.

If anyone would know Ohm's Law, it would be the guy with this Avatar:

Quote from Lynx on November 2nd, 2016, 10:16 PM

Many thanks Matt :thumbsup:

Just made some small updates to see if the coil will expand outside of the bobbin flange, which it clearly does using the 24 gauge wire.  It's looking to me like 27 gauge may be the best wire choice for this setup.  I'll run some numbers and have a look.  The other obvious thing to consider is the amperage at 12 volts.  If this setup is run outside of resonance at full power, it will clearly go up in smoke.  With 27 gauge wire, you better be pretty much locked-on at 7 volts.

Looks Good Matt, all Math adds up. But I would still like to see it done in DC math. Back to bed now, so I can dream about DC math.

Quote from gpssonar on November 3rd, 2016, 12:16 AM

..., so I can dream about DC math.

Pleasant dreams.    :offtobed:

Hay Matt What version of Excell are you using?
I can't run your spreadsheat on my very old version of Excell...
Thanks again

Hi Matt,

nice excel sheet :D

greetings
Vortex

I suspect that the actual d.c. resistance of the secondary, L1 and L2 is not critical, just as low as practical
(for a given bobbin and desired number of turns, use the largest wire diameter that will fit)
(but when the circuit is not FULLY understood, it is unwise to deviate from the prototype)

I guess that the primary resistance is of some importance
... it limits the maximum possible current if the electronics do not.

I usually give great consideration to impedance matching at radio frequencies,
the VIC operation and its harmonics cannot be at radio frequencies due to the steel core,
so electromagnetic wavelengths are much greater than physical dimensions,
hence there are no classical 'transmission line' considerations.

Books often quote the rule where the effective resistive part of the load impedance should match (be equal to) the source resistance.
This is exactly how it is normally done for signals.
When it comes to power, it is usually more important to consider efficiency,
which basically means minimising the source resistance losses.
e.g. a particular 12 V automotive battery gives 12 V at 0 A = 0 W, or 0 V at 400 A = 0 W
the most power that can be supplied by the battery is 6 V at 200 A (battery resistance = load resistance)
but the battery would have 6 V across its internal resistance, x200 A = 1200 W dissipated INSIDE the battery.

Also, with a diode as part of an LCR circuit, true resonance does not apply.
(I just wrote a little about that here  http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2793.msg40512#new

Quote from HHO-Dan on November 3rd, 2016, 02:21 AM

Hay Matt What version of Excell are you using?

It's Office 2013

Quote from HHO-Dan on November 3rd, 2016, 02:21 AM

I can't run your spreadsheat on my very old version of Excel...

Attached is where I tried saving it as an older version.  It may not work, but you can have a look and see.

Quote from Sulaiman on November 3rd, 2016, 09:23 AM

Also, with a diode as part of an LCR circuit, true resonance does not apply.

I have a feeling the placement of the diode is what is most critical to this circuit.   It is never placed between the water capacitor and the chokes, only prior to the chokes where the voltage would be lower during resonant-rise conditions.  Not knowing for sure, just spectating, I would think this would indeed create a polarity bias.