"mode change"

Primary mode of operation maybe.

Because the circuit doesn't have any hard switches in it, it can do both modes/tasks simultaneously.  My feeling and not proven.  Dollard would classify it as an analog computer.

The more I study the VIC circuit, the more apparent to me how ingenious this device actually is.


The trick to all this that Ronnie has now mastered, is to not overthink things.  Comprehend why the parts are there, what they should do and how to adjust them to get them to do what they should do.  And there really isn't all that many parts:

1.  Signal generator.
2.  Transistor driver.
3.  Primary diode.
4.  Primary coil.
5.  Impedance match resistor if primary isn't already matched.
6.  Secondary coil.
7.  Secondary diode.
8.  Negative choke coil.
9.  Positive choke coil.
10.  Magnetic core.
11.  Water capacitor or WFC.

That's really not too much compared to most digital electronic devices.  A stupid switching power supply has far more components and can't do half as much as a VIC.


So I see there are still quite a few questions floating about.  Ronnie, would you like to tackle some of them?  Boost their confidence a little maybe...?

Quote from Dom on November 11th, 2016, 09:30 PM

If the voltageacross a dielectric material becomes too great -- that is, if the electrostatic field becomes too intense -- the material will suddenly begin to conduct current.

Only if the charge ratio across the cell falls out of the two to one ratio.  Then yes, the water will begin to conduct current.  A good example of this is running an electric current through pure deionized water, driving a good sized load.  Simply put, the current won't go.  But toss something in the water that creates ions and heavy current will zip right through.  Must be a clue right?

No current flow and the charge ratio is spot on.

So think about a device that forces full negative charge and has an adjustable positive charge.  The adjustment is made by how much current tries to flow through the capacitor.  See where this is going...?

If it can detect too much positive charge as well as too little positive charge and adjust appropriately, then you got something, especially if it can react almost instantaneously.

Hmmm...   Me thinks I'd like to make one of those gizmos.

Thanks for all of the information GPS, Matt, Russ.
Revised..My 4 core VIC core is done (sanded to fit bobbins) ...1st coil done.

Matt pointed out......
The unbalanced (two to one) charge ratiovoltage field caused by the air gap on the cores....
 

....... Is this the big secret that Stan was hiding?........

you will want to fill the gap with some kind of a sturdy material that will not compress, so once you have things dialed-in, they will stay that way.

I'm sure that you won't have much luck with a 2mm gap in your cores we are working in the thousands off an inch like taking sheet of aluminium foil of at a time...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong please..

Hi,

Wow, lots of pages!!

Main issue with the inductance of coils is the mutual inductance.
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html

The coupling coefficient of the coils is expressed with the k factor [%].
In other words, if k = 1 the two coils are perfectly coupled, if k > 0.5 the two coils are said to be tightly coupled and if k < 0.5 the two coils are said to be loosely coupled.

My calculations of the VIC coupling coefficient is 0.535 [53.5%] tightly couple.

Meyers flat core has no air-gap if you choose the right perm. It lowers the inductance. Needed to comply with the C and L of the LC resonance frequency. (I only followed Meyers original flat core VIC and Array dimensions)

There is a reason why Meyer put those coils on a flat C-core with the distances between them, Mutual Inductance.

note. this is for the 10 cell array

~webmug
 

We must have a gap....Stan had a gap to unbalance the charge ratio
........I think........

Quote from ~Russ on November 11th, 2016, 12:28 PM

next understanding.

There needs to be more negative "charge"
 (charge is defined by the idea of having potential difference we can call it "voltage" but that gets confusing, so we use the term "charge" just to help us understand this, like Matt was saying "electrostatic" )
 the ratio 2:1 due to the fact that H2O Having two positive H charges and one negative O charge. (opposites attract) we must "match" the water charge differential. 2:1, in the cell.

~Russ

Russ, you don't follow Meyer.

Keep the B+ and B- the same but opposite in "charge" (charge B+ = charge B-) else there is unbalance in the WFC. The exciters are balanced.

Here you can see the balanced "voltages" or "charges" from the B+ and B-. It wants to separate the charges.

~webmug

Quote from gpssonar on November 6th, 2016, 06:59 AM

Dan there is more to it than just a capacitance value. Voltage plays a big role in this. If you look at this photo of Stan's, the first level is the polarization process. You want this process to take place with around 2 volts on the primary. If you tune to resonance at 2 volts and you see no gas being produced at all then you know there is something wrong. By leaving it at resonance at 2 volts, raise the voltage from 2 volts 4,6,8,10,12 somewhere in that voltage range you should see some gas being made. What ever that voltage is that you see the gas being made let's say 6 volts. That should tell you, the turn ratio is off on the secondary, because you want it to take place at 2 volts to the primary not 6 volts. This is where everything gets tricky to adjust. In order to keep the impedance match, what you have to do is take turns off the chokes and add them to the secondary to increase the voltage. By doing this you change the inductance which will change the resonate frequency. So it's a balancing act that your shooting for. Again if the polarization process takes place at 6 volts and it's suppose to start at 2 then you've lost 4 volts in the process that you can no longer do anything with.

So what is the voltage to water breakdown rate????

If you don't see gas at 2V it means you did not polarize the water enough or your B+ and B- are not the same but opposite in polarity. There is only one resonance frequency were the coils operate at. Voltage amplitude is independent on resonance frequency. When gas is produced the water should be maintained in the water-gap.
The step-charge is due the chokes, but with a limit on voltage amplitude. The number of pulses are adjusted to get up the staircase (higher voltage amplitude). The WFC keep it's charge due the diode and the current is restricted at the same time to charge it.

Increase the input voltage amplitude at the primary or increase the number of pulses and you go higher on the staircase.

~webmug

Quote from Webmug on November 12th, 2016, 05:23 AM

When gas is produced the water should be maintained in the water-gap.
The step-charge is due the chokes, but with a limit on voltage amplitude. The number of pulses are adjusted to get up the staircase (higher voltage amplitude). The WFC keep it's charge due the diode and the current is restricted at the same time to charge it.

This to me is the very culprit in understanding one of the basic fundamentals regarding a Meyer WFC.

If the WFC is to keep it's charge, to me that means that the cell walls has to be "coated" with a layer of gas as gas is a poor conductor of current. So in order to maintain this layer then more current has to flow to replenish the gas having escaped the cell walls, while more gas is being produced in the water cavity between the electrodes through the fracturing process itself, so current is very low and the fracturing process operates on voltage "only" in this case.

So it's Either that, or part of the process is to get the gas to stick to the electrode walls, preventing it from escaping, either by using voltage or electrostatics or whatever, while the fracturing process is up and running producing gas the Meyer way in the water cavity between the gas layers, which means that current through the cell is near zero while the voltage is fracturing the water in this case.

Is either of my theories anywhere near the truth here?

Otherwise what is it that I'm missing altogether?

Quote from Lynx on November 12th, 2016, 06:16 AM

This to me is the very culprit in understanding one of the basic fundamentals regarding a Meyer WFC.

If the WFC is to keep it's charge, to me that means that the cell walls has to be "coated" with a layer of gas as gas is a poor conductor of current. So in order to maintain this layer then more current has to flow to replenish the gas having escaped the cell walls, while more gas is being produced in the water cavity between the electrodes through the fracturing process itself, so current is very low and the fracturing process operates on voltage "only" in this case.

So it's Either that, or part of the process is to get the gas to stick to the electrode walls, preventing it from escaping, either by using voltage or electrostatics or whatever, while the fracturing process is up and running producing gas the Meyer way in the water cavity between the gas layers, which means that current through the cell is near zero while the voltage is fracturing the water in this case.

Is either of my theories anywhere near the truth here?

Otherwise what is it that I'm missing altogether?

The WFC is a "form" of resistance between the chokes and makes the VIC circuit complete. So where can current flow? If the B+ and B- are equal but opposite? No need for "coatings".

Current only flows when the charges or voltages are not the same. But unfortunately the coils are "real" there is some leakage through the WFC. If you can make the coils impedance large as possible the current is limited.

See it differently: try to match the electromagnetic field strengths of FL1 = FL2 in equal electromagnetic intensity.

~webmug

Quote:

Quote

thereby preventing and inhibiting electron-flow to pass through or arc-over capacitor water-gap

This tells me that there's some form of risk in the WFC to get an electron flow passing through an arc over in something called "capacitor water gap", so what exactly is a "capacitor water gap" then?

Thanks for the reply btw :thumbsup:

think i might have discovered something, might seem trivial but seems the circuit has been drawn incorrectly for a long time.........tricky old stan eh!

There is something wrong with resonance and the flow of electrons
I'll find a way
maybe you're right

Quote from brettly on November 12th, 2016, 08:02 AM

think i might have discovered something, might seem trivial but seems the circuit has been drawn incorrectly for a long time.........tricky old stan eh!

Actually it's the circuit below.

~webmug

I just wanted to do the same, but I do not know how to put a picture
whether you can find and put a picture   electron extraction circuit fig 1-14

Quote from Ris on November 12th, 2016, 08:18 AM

I just wanted to do the same, but I do not know how to put a picture
whether you can find and put a picture   electron extraction circuit fig 1-14

Is it this one you mean?

yes -and absolutely the same thing is happening in WFC and people should think more logical where the electrons go from the water ie from a partially ionized HHO gas

Quote from Ris on November 12th, 2016, 08:35 AM

yes -and absolutely the same thing is happening in WFC and people should think more logical where the electrons go from the water ie from a partially ionized HHO gas

Well unless there's an ionization process going on which turns the water molecules into H2 and O2, the other explanation must be that it's a fracturing process doing the same thing, where the former uses current to acheive what the second one does using "only" voltage.

Right now this whole process has far more questions than answers, to me anyway.

also resonant choke -The main purpose is that choking all above and below the resonant frequency
so the main question what then is choking at resonant frequency

Quote from Ris on November 12th, 2016, 08:48 AM

also resonant choke -The main purpose is that choking all above and below the resonant frequency
so the main question what then is choking at resonant frequency

You got it reversed. Maximum "choking" is at resonant condition.

~webmug

you're probably right for classical explanation from the book
but let me remind you on the power of resonance-
Mechanical resonance can break down any building and even entire planet
most efficient heating of metals electrical resonance
Radio TV radar EMR NEMR spectroscopy, electrical resonance again
all other electronics avoids and prevents resonance especially in power supplies
electrical generator in resonant conditions almost always burn out which directly says if L and C cancel each other how within the system we have enough energy for burnout
I do not want to mention the Tesla Stan and several other what they do with resonance
so the bottom line you really still think that resonance choking something

Quote from Ris on November 12th, 2016, 10:22 AM

you're probably right for classical explanation from the book
but let me remind you on the power of resonance-
Mechanical resonance can break down any building and even entire planet
most efficient heating of metals electrical resonance
Radio TV radar EMR NEMR spectroscopy, electrical resonance again
all other electronics avoids and prevents resonance especially in power supplies
electrical generator in resonant conditions almost always burn out which directly says if L and C cancel each other how within the system we have enough energy for burnout
I do not want to mention the Tesla Stan and several other what they do with resonance
so the bottom line you really still think that resonance choking something

Yes, you are right, if you do it wrong you burn the VIC!

Choking=
"... causing amp flow to be reduce to a minimum value while allowing voltage potential (627) of Figure (7-7) to go toward infinity if the electronic components would allow it to happen"

~webmug

Quote from Webmug on November 12th, 2016, 10:27 AM

Yes, you are right, if you do it wrong you burn the VIC!

To satisfy my curiosity about something here.  Has anyone burned up a VIC coil?

And if you have, can you tell us exactly which coil or coils burned up?

Did it burn up from arc-over between windings (short out) or did it simply pass too much current (open circuit) ?

The reason I ask is because knowing where amperage or voltage went when it was not supposed to could be helpful in the tuning process.

You are technically correct but only technically-cells or WFC equal to capacitor equal to capacity.capacity because not been physically changed with each volt upp energy or watt also go upp toward infinity if the electronic components would allow
so This energy is there somewhere exchanging between the inductors and cells or maybe it is separate in individual components