The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit

energyrich626

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #50, on June 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM »

do you think a gap in a e core would do the trick? as long as both sides cant touch...


 

Amsy

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #51, on June 21st, 2012, 01:38 AM »Last edited on June 21st, 2012, 02:46 AM by Amsy
Quote from energyrich626 on June 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM
do you think a gap in a e core would do the trick? as long as both sides cant touch...
Do you mean an air gap in the magnetic core?
I think that can help to rise the voltage. In my tests, there were no air gaps but also no very high voltage.

But as you see in the original VIC there is a option to "fine tune" the air gap with help of the magnetic cores and a little drill hole (marked in pic) to adjust the air gap. (Attachment1+2: VIC)

Also the 8XA Bifilar Coils have this air gap. (Attachment 3: 8XA)

So IMHO it looks a litte bit, that Meyer was using his transformer as a flyback converter or something.
Quote from Jeff Nading on June 20th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Good photos, this really helps others understand better whats going on, thanks Jeff. :D
You are welcome :). Hopefully this can help someone.


Quote from Faisca on June 20th, 2012, 06:29 PM
Yes that's the point, but always there will be a chain.
If more frequent enough, the chain had fallen quite, but will point out, because the potential remained whole, the inductor, and the cell received only a fraction.
Forget for a moment Meyer. And let's use what we know:
An inductor to be charged, must have current (imagine an LR circuit), turn on and off very slowly, there will be a lot of current, turn on and off very fast, there will be little current, but in both cases will be out of resonance.
The point is correct: when the time is bound coincides with LR load time.
The cell is not like a resistor (nonlinear), I think like an R-NTC. Much like a diode (at least driving the curve). Try to make a model in the simulator, and that could'll know when the oscilloscope waveform that appears, I showed the first picture.
Yes, the curve of the water is like a diode. :-/ So IMHO we have to inhibit the amps as much as possible.
The first point IMHO is that we can gain Z (Impendance) in the circuit, so we can inhibit the amps very good. Because the WFC is in series with the Z, the amps which going through the water are also inhibited. So energy will not be consumed.
For example: Z can be increased by the frequency or the inductivity, as you said.
The advantage of the inductivity is, that the energy isn´t lost.

The next point is, when we look at a secondary of a transformer, what will happen if we gain Z on the secondary-->the voltage will rise, because when the transfered energy from the primary side will result always as P=UxI (Voltage*Current). So P is constant because of the primary, that means when current is very low, the voltage will rise automatically.

This will inhibit electrolyses for the first step and also increase the voltage. The other point is, that we have a gap in our tube. The current can not go through the water because of the resistance. But the voltage will pending on the pysical existing capacitor (WFC).

Voltage is only a force on the electrons on the watermolecule and will pull out the electrons of the bonding (ionisation). The product of this chemical reaction ist H2 + O2 because they lost their bonding. The Electron extraction circuit (EEC) of Meyer would have never worked, when there is no iosinsation (pull out electrons of the water).
There are also other ionising reactions e.g. creating ozon O3. Ionise O2 and you will get O + O that will form with other O2 to an endproduct O3.
(So Thats my theory, don´t hit me :) ).











Jeff Nading

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #52, on June 21st, 2012, 06:03 AM »
Quote from Amsy on June 21st, 2012, 01:38 AM
Quote from energyrich626 on June 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM
do you think a gap in a e core would do the trick? as long as both sides cant touch...
Do you mean an air gap in the magnetic core?
I think that can help to rise the voltage. In my tests, there were no air gaps but also no very high voltage.

But as you see in the original VIC there is a option to "fine tune" the air gap with help of the magnetic cores and a little drill hole (marked in pic) to adjust the air gap. (Attachment1+2: VIC)

Also the 8XA Bifilar Coils have this air gap. (Attachment 3: 8XA)

So IMHO it looks a litte bit, that Meyer was using his transformer as a flyback converter or something.
Quote from Jeff Nading on June 20th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Good photos, this really helps others understand better whats going on, thanks Jeff. :D
You are welcome :). Hopefully this can help someone.


Quote from Faisca on June 20th, 2012, 06:29 PM
Yes that's the point, but always there will be a chain.
If more frequent enough, the chain had fallen quite, but will point out, because the potential remained whole, the inductor, and the cell received only a fraction.
Forget for a moment Meyer. And let's use what we know:
An inductor to be charged, must have current (imagine an LR circuit), turn on and off very slowly, there will be a lot of current, turn on and off very fast, there will be little current, but in both cases will be out of resonance.
The point is correct: when the time is bound coincides with LR load time.
The cell is not like a resistor (nonlinear), I think like an R-NTC. Much like a diode (at least driving the curve). Try to make a model in the simulator, and that could'll know when the oscilloscope waveform that appears, I showed the first picture.
Yes, the curve of the water is like a diode. :-/ So IMHO we have to inhibit the amps as much as possible.
The first point IMHO is that we can gain Z (Impendance) in the circuit, so we can inhibit the amps very good. Because the WFC is in series with the Z, the amps which going through the water are also inhibited. So energy will not be consumed.
For example: Z can be increased by the frequency or the inductivity, as you said.
The advantage of the inductivity is, that the energy isn´t lost.

The next point is, when we look at a secondary of a transformer, what will happen if we gain Z on the secondary-->the voltage will rise, because when the transfered energy from the primary side will result always as P=UxI (Voltage*Current). So P is constant because of the primary, that means when current is very low, the voltage will rise automatically.

This will inhibit electrolyses for the first step and also increase the voltage. The other point is, that we have a gap in our tube. The current can not go through the water because of the resistance. But the voltage will pending on the pysical existing capacitor (WFC).

Voltage is only a force on the electrons on the watermolecule and will pull out the electrons of the bonding (ionisation). The product of this chemical reaction ist H2 + O2 because they lost their bonding. The Electron extraction circuit (EEC) of Meyer would have never worked, when there is no iosinsation (pull out electrons of the water).
There are also other ionising reactions e.g. creating ozon O3. Ionise O2 and you will get O + O that will form with other O2 to an endproduct O3.
(So Thats my theory, don´t hit me :) ).
Now were talking, everyone post photos when possible, thanks, Jeff.:cool::D:P

Faisca

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #53, on June 21st, 2012, 10:13 AM »
Quote from Jeff Nading on June 21st, 2012, 06:03 AM
Quote from Amsy on June 21st, 2012, 01:38 AM
Quote from energyrich626 on June 20th, 2012, 08:50 PM
do you think a gap in a e core would do the trick? as long as both sides cant touch...
Do you mean an air gap in the magnetic core?
I think that can help to rise the voltage. In my tests, there were no air gaps but also no very high voltage.



Quote from Faisca on June 20th, 2012, 06:29 PM
Yes that's the point, but always there will be a chain.
If more frequent enough, the chain had fallen quite, but will point out, because the potential remained whole, the inductor, and the cell received only a fraction.
Forget for a moment Meyer. And let's use what we know:
An inductor to be charged, must have current (imagine an LR circuit), turn on and off very slowly, there will be a lot of current, turn on and off very fast, there will be little current, but in both cases will be out of resonance.
The point is correct: when the time is bound coincides with LR load time.
The cell is not like a resistor (nonlinear), I think like an R-NTC. Much like a diode (at least driving the curve). Try to make a model in the simulator, and that could'll know when the oscilloscope waveform that appears, I showed the first picture.
Yes, the curve of the water is like a diode. :-/ So IMHO we have to inhibit the amps as much as possible.
The first point IMHO is that we can gain Z (Impendance) in the circuit, so we can inhibit the amps very good. Because the WFC is in series with the Z, the amps which going through the water are also inhibited. So energy will not be consumed.
For example: Z can be increased by the frequency or the inductivity, as you said.
The advantage of the inductivity is, that the energy isn´t lost.

The next point is, when we look at a secondary of a transformer, what will happen if we gain Z on the secondary-->the voltage will rise, because when the transfered energy from the primary side will result always as P=UxI (Voltage*Current). So P is constant because of the primary, that means when current is very low, the voltage will rise automatically.

This will inhibit electrolyses for the first step and also increase the voltage. The other point is, that we have a gap in our tube. The current can not go through the water because of the resistance. But the voltage will pending on the pysical existing capacitor (WFC).
You see, if it was not clear yet, this arrangement series, is a voltage divider between "Z" of the inductor and "Z" of the cell, both are dynamic, but the truth is to have a greater voltage drop in cell, the "Z" of the inductor has to be much smaller than the "Z" of the cell at some point. This is where the inducer is almost perfect, since the frequency can be adjusted (for different types of water) and together with the dynamic resistance of the cell, it is possible to achieve such performance, where the greater part of the input impedance is high and at the end of a load impedance smaller, which allows the high energy inductor for delivering the cell.
You've done the equivalent of a cell, the simulator?
If you do not? then make the bench: a square pulse generator, capable of 12V/1A. or more. an inductor (any) and its cell in series. Use an oscilloscope and see (on the cell) at some frequency the result I'm talking about.

Amsy

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #54, on June 21st, 2012, 10:40 AM »
Quote from Faisca on June 21st, 2012, 10:13 AM
You see, if it was not clear yet, this arrangement series, is a voltage divider between "Z" of the inductor and "Z" of the cell, both are dynamic, but the truth is to have a greater voltage drop in cell, the "Z" of the inductor has to be much smaller than the "Z" of the cell at some point. This is where the inducer is almost perfect, since the frequency can be adjusted (for different types of water) and together with the dynamic resistance of the cell, it is possible to achieve such performance, where the greater part of the input impedance is high and at the end of a load impedance smaller, which allows the high energy inductor for delivering the cell.
You've done the equivalent of a cell, the simulator?
If you do not? then make the bench: a square pulse generator, capable of 12V/1A. or more. an inductor (any) and its cell in series. Use an oscilloscope and see (on the cell) at some frequency the result I'm talking about.
For me its more clear to see this "from the other side". The voltage drop have to be on minimum at the cell IMHO. Because voltage drop of a diode or a cell or a resistor always means energy consuming. The cell is more like a resistor then a capacity (very tiny). So the voltage drop has to be on the coils I think.

It also makes more sense, because, if we look at the inductor values of Stanley Meyers VIC, they are large inductivities. Also the frequencys which Meyer used were in audio range up to 10kHz (See in video and patent), so the Z of the inductors are high (coercive).

I made a lot of simulations since two years, but no good results yet. Before I was making my 1,5kV test, I simulated the circuit, then I saw that no current was running through the watercell. And this was the reason why I was using this topology.



Faisca

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #55, on June 21st, 2012, 05:42 PM »
Someone else, can reproduce this experiment?

Amsy

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #56, on June 21st, 2012, 11:39 PM »
Quote from Faisca on June 21st, 2012, 05:42 PM
Someone else, can reproduce this experiment?
Yes in few simulations.

Faisca

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #57, on June 22nd, 2012, 08:47 AM »
Quote from Amsy on June 21st, 2012, 11:39 PM
Quote from Faisca on June 21st, 2012, 05:42 PM
Someone else, can reproduce this experiment?
Yes in few simulations.
cool! and how you simulated the cell?
I believe that a varistor (SIOV).
The closest my model, I used: diodes, resistors, capacitor, inductor and 2.5 V battery (but I'm not satisfied).
If you got it, and load chart is as I gave, great, teach us, that greatly speeds up searches.

Amsy

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #58, on June 22nd, 2012, 11:57 AM »Last edited on June 22nd, 2012, 12:30 PM by Amsy
In the very beginning of my tests, I tried to produce the step charging effect in the simulation, after hours of simulating it was clear for me, that the "Step Charging" characteristic is nearly 100% of the loading characteristic of the inductor. Not of the capacity. Because the capacity is very small in comparison to the L.
So when pulsing the inductor it takes a litte time, then the full amount of current can go through. (like real DC). (Attachment 1) It looks like the C would load in steps, but thats the inductor, which will react like that.
This curve can be manipulated with the L, the frequency and the R of the WFC. But, the voltage is smaller as the input voltage, and the current will rise after a few pulses.

Depending on the voltage source, the resistance of the water will be more or less.
I used the equivalent circuit diagramm of Stanley Meyers Patent. But the only factor which change something is the resistance in the water. But I know always, that a simulation can never be like a real WFC/Circuit. it´s nearly impossible to bring in all values of the WFC. Also my consideration about the C in the WFC was, that the C -when the WFC is in action- will never be constant because of the flowing of the HHO bubbles. So is another factor, which can not be simulated.... better to test on real circuits.

I only can say, that the behaviour of the circuit is like normal electrotechnical behaviour. Also in my test, all electrotechnical laws are valid.






Faisca

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #59, on June 22nd, 2012, 06:18 PM »
Quote from Amsy on June 22nd, 2012, 11:57 AM
In the very beginning of my tests, I tried to produce the step charging effect in the simulation, after hours of simulating it was clear for me, that the "Step Charging" characteristic is nearly 100% of the loading characteristic of the inductor. Not of the capacity. Because the capacity is very small in comparison to the L.
So when pulsing the inductor it takes a litte time, then the full amount of current can go through. (like real DC). (Attachment 1) It looks like the C would load in steps, but thats the inductor, which will react like that.
This curve can be manipulated with the L, the frequency and the R of the WFC. But, the voltage is smaller as the input voltage, and the current will rise after a few pulses.

Depending on the voltage source, the resistance of the water will be more or less.
I used the equivalent circuit diagramm of Stanley Meyers Patent. But the only factor which change something is the resistance in the water. But I know always, that a simulation can never be like a real WFC/Circuit. it´s nearly impossible to bring in all values of the WFC. Also my consideration about the C in the WFC was, that the C -when the WFC is in action- will never be constant because of the flowing of the HHO bubbles. So is another factor, which can not be simulated.... better to test on real circuits.

I only can say, that the behaviour of the circuit is like normal electrotechnical behaviour. Also in my test, all electrotechnical laws are valid.
see it!
In their simulation, the result of "cell", is wave "sawtooth" nothing to do with what I showed.
This is important, let's stop dreaming of fantasies, and take what we have. There is no charge capacitor / inductor without energy, there's always a cost. So this waveform I show, is very important, it represents a great strength Instantané, at low cost. Can be compared to an ignition system ("CDI") or a modulator radar (microwave), or an echo sounder (pulses of short duration with 10kW. At a cost of less than 20W.).
In a conventional electrolysis, we can have 2V with 20A continuous. With the same energy cost (= 40VA), can (with resonant pulses) to 100V with 50A or more by instantaneous pulses (=> 5000VA). I know they are very narrow and separate pulses (greater period without power), but the equal of the examples I cited above, all work.
Think about it ..... or better yet, try it!

Amsy

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #60, on June 24th, 2012, 01:47 AM »
Quote from Faisca on June 22nd, 2012, 06:18 PM
Quote from Amsy on June 22nd, 2012, 11:57 AM
In the very beginning of my tests, I tried to produce the step charging effect in the simulation, after hours of simulating it was clear for me, that the "Step Charging" characteristic is nearly 100% of the loading characteristic of the inductor. Not of the capacity. Because the capacity is very small in comparison to the L.
So when pulsing the inductor it takes a litte time, then the full amount of current can go through. (like real DC). (Attachment 1) It looks like the C would load in steps, but thats the inductor, which will react like that.
This curve can be manipulated with the L, the frequency and the R of the WFC. But, the voltage is smaller as the input voltage, and the current will rise after a few pulses.

Depending on the voltage source, the resistance of the water will be more or less.
I used the equivalent circuit diagramm of Stanley Meyers Patent. But the only factor which change something is the resistance in the water. But I know always, that a simulation can never be like a real WFC/Circuit. it´s nearly impossible to bring in all values of the WFC. Also my consideration about the C in the WFC was, that the C -when the WFC is in action- will never be constant because of the flowing of the HHO bubbles. So is another factor, which can not be simulated.... better to test on real circuits.

I only can say, that the behaviour of the circuit is like normal electrotechnical behaviour. Also in my test, all electrotechnical laws are valid.
see it!
In their simulation, the result of "cell", is wave "sawtooth" nothing to do with what I showed.
This is important, let's stop dreaming of fantasies, and take what we have. There is no charge capacitor / inductor without energy, there's always a cost. So this waveform I show, is very important, it represents a great strength Instantané, at low cost. Can be compared to an ignition system ("CDI") or a modulator radar (microwave), or an echo sounder (pulses of short duration with 10kW. At a cost of less than 20W.).
In a conventional electrolysis, we can have 2V with 20A continuous. With the same energy cost (= 40VA), can (with resonant pulses) to 100V with 50A or more by instantaneous pulses (=> 5000VA). I know they are very narrow and separate pulses (greater period without power), but the equal of the examples I cited above, all work.
Think about it ..... or better yet, try it!
I see now what happend. I misunderstood the waveform of your drawings. But thats no big deal because it also shows, that with every puls the voltage will be bigger on the WFC.
By the way, I stopped dreaming, since I have usable measurments of my tests which cost a lot of time and money. ;)

Faisca

RE: The Fastest Way (for me) to Build Stan's Circuit and to Create a WFC kit
« Reply #61, on June 26th, 2012, 08:33 AM »
Quote from Amsy on June 24th, 2012, 01:47 AM
Quote from Faisca on June 22nd, 2012, 06:18 PM
Quote from Amsy on June 22nd, 2012, 11:57 AM
In the very beginning of my tests, I tried to produce the step charging effect in the simulation, after hours of simulating it was clear for me, that the "Step Charging" characteristic is nearly 100% of the loading characteristic of the inductor. Not of the capacity. Because the capacity is very small in comparison to the L.
So when pulsing the inductor it takes a litte time, then the full amount of current can go through. (like real DC). (Attachment 1) It looks like the C would load in steps, but thats the inductor, which will react like that.
This curve can be manipulated with the L, the frequency and the R of the WFC. But, the voltage is smaller as the input voltage, and the current will rise after a few pulses.

Depending on the voltage source, the resistance of the water will be more or less.
I used the equivalent circuit diagramm of Stanley Meyers Patent. But the only factor which change something is the resistance in the water. But I know always, that a simulation can never be like a real WFC/Circuit. it´s nearly impossible to bring in all values of the WFC. Also my consideration about the C in the WFC was, that the C -when the WFC is in action- will never be constant because of the flowing of the HHO bubbles. So is another factor, which can not be simulated.... better to test on real circuits.

I only can say, that the behaviour of the circuit is like normal electrotechnical behaviour. Also in my test, all electrotechnical laws are valid.
see it!
In their simulation, the result of "cell", is wave "sawtooth" nothing to do with what I showed.
This is important, let's stop dreaming of fantasies, and take what we have. There is no charge capacitor / inductor without energy, there's always a cost. So this waveform I show, is very important, it represents a great strength Instantané, at low cost. Can be compared to an ignition system ("CDI") or a modulator radar (microwave), or an echo sounder (pulses of short duration with 10kW. At a cost of less than 20W.).
In a conventional electrolysis, we can have 2V with 20A continuous. With the same energy cost (= 40VA), can (with resonant pulses) to 100V with 50A or more by instantaneous pulses (=> 5000VA). I know they are very narrow and separate pulses (greater period without power), but the equal of the examples I cited above, all work.
Think about it ..... or better yet, try it!
I see now what happend. I misunderstood the waveform of your drawings. But thats no big deal because it also shows, that with every puls the voltage will be bigger on the WFC.
By the way, I stopped dreaming, since I have usable measurments of my tests which cost a lot of time and money. ;)
What I have shown, no big deal?
This is the strangest thing, I noticed in all the experiments conducted by myself. And this is a result which is only obtained with an inductor and a cell where it is clear that the cell is a different component of a capacitor, is unique.
Note carefully: the load curve, describing an arc upward exponentially. not a logarithmic curve, where the continuation of the load, tends to infinite in the horizontal, in this case, the continuation of the load tends to infinity vertically.
I forgot to comment on one thing: in this case, the bubbles appear in the middle of the gap, not the walls of the tubes.
You know what the speed of the ions in the water? I'm not sure, but a gap = 1 mm. is somewhere around 3 seconds (for a Amper). This reminds Puharich something?