i test by sending pulse wave to primary side then output(secondary side) not like Stan explained.

i use analog oscilloscope 20 mhz to test output.

but the result is not like transformer action picture.

what do u think? why he give wrong information?

Quote from geenee on June 22nd, 2012, 12:14 PM

i test by sending pulse wave to primary side then output(secondary side) not like Stan explained.

i use analog oscilloscope 20 mhz to test output.

but the result is not like transformer action picture.

what do u think? why he give wrong information?

It looks like he was drawing the Pulses after the Diode. (pic of transformer action)
Try to measure after the Diode and increase your frequency, then your pulses will be tighter.

thanks alots Amsy

and Why Stan Use cell driver circuit?

Quote from geenee on June 22nd, 2012, 12:14 PM

i test by sending pulse wave to primary side then output(secondary side) not like Stan explained.

i use analog oscilloscope 20 mhz to test output.

but the result is not like transformer action picture.

what do u think? why he give wrong information?

what you see is normal transformer behaviour. secondary voltage only stays constant as long as current increases linear at primary. see a transformer as 2 coupled inductors. it depends on core magnetic parameters and frequency and input voltage.

the negative voltage occurs as soon as primary pulse goes low. that way the transformer transforms the dc input voltage to an ac level.

increase frequency and the secondary output shape will become square wave.

Why not rectify the output?  Then you could get double the input frequency (at least in theory).

Quote from FloatyBoaty on June 22nd, 2012, 02:11 PM

Why not rectify the output?  Then you could get double the input frequency (at least in theory).

Good point. Usually the secondary will be full wave rectified.
A reason why only one diode is used, can be that the VIC's function is like a flyback transfo. Because the fb transfo only works with one diode. Just an idea...

i think "VIC is Stephen Meyer's Design".VIC is idea from Alternator WFC version(high spike voltage from alternator when off times).because alternator wfc version is the best before wfc go to car and develop to vic.

i have questions.
-Why use cell driver circuit? transistor npn?
-Why dont use mosfet?mosfet developed in 1959 before stan developed VIC.

thanks all comments
geenee

Also, here is a guy who combined an AC current on top of a DC current to produce a higher HHO output:  http://www.viewzone.com/verichipx.html

Quote from FloatyBoaty on June 22nd, 2012, 02:11 PM

Why not rectify the output?  Then you could get double the input frequency (at least in theory).

Of course frequency would be doubled.

Maybe the OFF-pulse time is needed for the chokes to restrict amps. the whole oscillation and magnetic flux has to take into account primary, secondary, chokes, wfc and parasitic capacitances between the pancakes of the chokes.

add more pic transformer action

1. 1khz_ac_ferritecore
2. 1khz_ac_ironcore
3. 1khz_rectify_ferritecore
4. 10khz_ac_ferritecore
5. 10khz_ac_ironcore
6. 10khz_rectify_ferritecore

middle line of monitor is 0 voltage.input is pulse wave dc.

Quote from FloatyBoaty on June 23rd, 2012, 09:13 AM

Also, here is a guy who combined an AC current on top of a DC current to produce a higher HHO output:  http://www.viewzone.com/verichipx.html

i just test like you saying. "AC on top of DC" is real.when changing freq then have sine wave form. voltage(PK-PK) is maximum(with diode,resistor and coil).coil,i use secondary side of microwaveoven transformer(ironcore big inductance 20+H) and 600V 3A diode. frequency use around 1k-12khz.

i added pic
7. my setup test by 555 timer pulse wave output to primary side transformer.transformer(24V to 220V) is iron core, sec side inductance 2H.input voltage is 9 volts.

8. ac top dc wave form = result resonant with diode from input pulse wave,from my setup.when i changed coil to lower inductance then no sin wave form. this is parallel LC circuit inside coil.

add more test's pic and video

1. ac_output from secondary
2. ac_on_dc  = ac sinwave form upper 0 voltage without capacitor in parallel with resistor
3. mysetup 1
4. zoom 50 ns ac on dc with capacitor in parallel with resistor
5. zoom 10 ns ac on dc with capacitor in parallel with resistor
6. add capacitor in parallel with resistor
7. video change frequency up down to find resonant dc

used oscilloscope in dc scale. resonant at around 11 - 12 khz.

thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on June 23rd, 2012, 08:37 AM

i think "VIC is Stephen Meyer's Design".VIC is idea from Alternator WFC version(high spike voltage from alternator when off times).because alternator wfc version is the best before wfc go to car and develop to vic.

i have questions.
-Why use cell driver circuit? transistor npn?
-Why dont use mosfet?mosfet developed in 1959 before stan developed VIC.

thanks all comments
geenee

Also my considerations going in that direction. The VIC seems to be a development step. An improvement. Taking the basic idea of the alternator and form a new circuit. The cell driver can handle the frequency automatically with the "Pic Up Coil". Because when using different water types, different loads will be on the secondary of the transfo. (e.g. saltwater and destilled water) and the circuit have to change the frequency, to hold the voltage to maximum. (Todays computer power supply unit works like that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply )

Maybe a mosfet was not needed. The frequency of the cell driver circuit was very low (<10kHz; source: 2 videos of stan).

Quote from geenee on June 22nd, 2012, 12:14 PM

i test by sending pulse wave to primary side then output(secondary side) not like Stan explained.

i use analog oscilloscope 20 mhz to test output.

but the result is not like transformer action picture.

what do u think? why he give wrong information?

Hi
I dont understand how to achieve waveform in middle pic , middle part - inductive coupling ( pulse doubling) without full bridge rectifier.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/attachment.php?aid=1818
Can someone help?


andy

i think "secondary coil and 2 resonant choke at same U core,it will induct together and shift phase 90? or 120? degree,like 3 pole alternator".

oh!!! this concept!!  Idea from alternator to VIC.??

just thought with my 0.001 cent :)

geenee  

Quote from geenee on June 24th, 2012, 06:14 PM

i think "secondary coil and 2 resonant choke at same U core,it will induct together and shift phase 90? or 120? degree,like 3 pole alternator".

oh!!! this concept!!  Idea from alternator to VIC.??

just thought with my 0.001 cent :)

geenee

I agree with this part, hell, there is a phase shift in chokes, considering that these are best secondary, and not choke, as intended. I measurements made ​​and compared each of the coils in phase relation with the primary (and this was confirmed).
There are a misunderstanding here. The choke should be independent with their magnetic lines (or in a separate core, or even with perpendicular orientation).
I believe that this information is hidden in the patents.
See for example this figure, where primary and secondary are aligned, but do not choke, they are on another alignment.

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee  

Quote from geenee on June 23rd, 2012, 08:37 AM

i have questions.
-Why use cell driver circuit? transistor npn?
-Why dont use mosfet?mosfet developed in 1959 before stan developed VIC.

Both ways work. 2N3055 was a very powerful and cheap transistor in the 80s.
For Mosfets you need special drivers to get sharp edges.

The current driven mode of transistors is less influenced by electromagnetic disturbance (high voltage spikes) than voltage driven Mosfets.

Very good reason.Thanks Bussi04. High voltage(hi electromagnetic) = Hi noise to mosfet (mosfet use electromagnetic switch).

thanks
geenee

Quote from geenee on June 25th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee

Do we exactly know if all inductivities in the VIC are working in the same direction?
Because, you are right, it would make no sense to seperate the inductivites to three coils working in the same direction.
In Stan´s Memo the direction of the wrapping of the coils are drawed on the magnetic core. I studied them very long, coming allways to the same result:
The main secondary and the Charging Choke 1 are wrapped in the same direction. The Charging Choke 2 is wrapped in the other direction to the two other chokes. Can someone confirm this drawing of the wrap-directions?
Also I made very interesting tests with different wrapped coil pairs. That was the reason, why I could achive 1,5kV on the coils and a strong electric field in the WFC.

Attachment 1: simplified VIC
Attachment 2: schematic of test (1,5kV), direction of coil wrapping

now i think about"Why he give wrong information?"

EX. VIC U CORE it act likely Alternator?why he don't talk the true? it easy to understand.
EX. Many explained from paper, video (Misinformation,Misleading,wrong theory,many wrong word).IS MISTAKE?OR TRICK to keep secret from replicator?he is a businessman.businessman want to rich.

i believe "Meyer's car can run on water".But i don't believe "Meyer is honest".


if we need to success WFC then we shouldn't trust somethings from Meyer's word.and go ahead in real theory ,think about real equipment from Meyer, reference patents from other or other real waterpower guys,like "Puharich,Stephen Horvarths,Daniel Dingel".

now i will think differences. and go ahead.

maybe secret is steam water burning???by less HHO burning because hard to make more hho in low power consumption.

geenee

Quote from geenee on June 27th, 2012, 12:35 PM

now i think about"Why he give wrong information?"

EX. VIC U CORE it act likely Alternator?why he don't talk the true? it easy to understand.
EX. Many explained from paper, video (Misinformation,Misleading,wrong theory,many wrong word).IS MISTAKE?OR TRICK to keep secret from replicator?he is a businessman.businessman want to rich.

i believe "Meyer's car can run on water".But i don't believe "Meyer is honest".


if we need to success WFC then we shouldn't trust somethings from Meyer's word.and go ahead in real theory ,think about real equipment from Meyer, reference patents from other or other real waterpower guys,like "Puharich,Stephen Horvarths,Daniel Dingel".

now i will think differences. and go ahead.

maybe secret is steam water burning???by less HHO burning because hard to make more hho in low power consumption.

geenee

We shouldn´t forget that he was at the patent office, and at the end Meyer patented all his stuff (idea and apparatus). Normally the patent office make sure, that his apparatus will work like he discribing this in the patent.

Also there is the http://globalkast.com/docs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
If the evaluation team was "independend" of Meyer, it can be a proof, that the stuff worked as he claimed.

Just my idea...

Quote from Amsy on June 26th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote from geenee on June 25th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee

Do we exactly know if all inductivities in the VIC are working in the same direction?
Because, you are right, it would make no sense to seperate the inductivites to three coils working in the same direction.
In Stan´s Memo the direction of the wrapping of the coils are drawed on the magnetic core. I studied them very long, coming allways to the same result:
The main secondary and the Charging Choke 1 are wrapped in the same direction. The Charging Choke 2 is wrapped in the other direction to the two other chokes. Can someone confirm this drawing of the wrap-directions?
Also I made very interesting tests with different wrapped coil pairs. That was the reason, why I could achive 1,5kV on the coils and a strong electric field in the WFC.

Attachment 1: simplified VIC
Attachment 2: schematic of test (1,5kV), direction of coil wrapping

Amsy, the more we look at this circuit, looks more like a decoy. These chokes are not chokes, are secondary, and are opposite, subtract, as you proved (1500-1500 = 0) ..... for what? this makes no sense in the real world.
Do you think the government would commit this error, and compromise "national security" of the mafia. Sorry, but you must be very naive.
All this information so easily available, has an obvious purpose, to expose Mr.. Meyer WFC as a fraud and a fantasy. Again, here there was manipulation, such as the "magic bullet" (murder of Kenedit), or "against Iran," or "Vietnam" or "Gulf" or "9-11 wtc" (pancake effect) and very more. And just the fact that they had all this care to screen, increases the belief that Meyer made ​​real.

Quote from Faisca on June 28th, 2012, 08:37 AM

Quote from Amsy on June 26th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote from geenee on June 25th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee

Do we exactly know if all inductivities in the VIC are working in the same direction?
Because, you are right, it would make no sense to seperate the inductivites to three coils working in the same direction.
In Stan´s Memo the direction of the wrapping of the coils are drawed on the magnetic core. I studied them very long, coming allways to the same result:
The main secondary and the Charging Choke 1 are wrapped in the same direction. The Charging Choke 2 is wrapped in the other direction to the two other chokes. Can someone confirm this drawing of the wrap-directions?
Also I made very interesting tests with different wrapped coil pairs. That was the reason, why I could achive 1,5kV on the coils and a strong electric field in the WFC.

Attachment 1: simplified VIC
Attachment 2: schematic of test (1,5kV), direction of coil wrapping

Amsy, the more we look at this circuit, looks more like a decoy. These chokes are not chokes, are secondary, and are opposite, subtract, as you proved (1500-1500 = 0) ..... for what? this makes no sense in the real world.
Do you think the government would commit this error, and compromise "national security" of the mafia. Sorry, but you must be very naive.
All this information so easily available, has an obvious purpose, to expose Mr.. Meyer WFC as a fraud and a fantasy. Again, here there was manipulation, such as the "magic bullet" (murder of Kenedit), or "against Iran," or "Vietnam" or "Gulf" or "9-11 wtc" (pancake effect) and very more. And just the fact that they had all this care to screen, increases the belief that Meyer made ​​real.

lol, the topics you liste have nothing to do with patents and testing evaluations... also it is not comparable with such events...

The cancelling of the voltage inhibit the current through the water. The C in the WFC will load on the supplyvoltage of the secondary. A I said, normal electrotechnical laws...
How was it possible to measure a high voltage field in the tube and in the near of the tube in my test? Teach me...

That is the basic for ionisation.... so the information of meyer is coherent to this point. And yes, every atom or molecule can be ionised. The further step is, that a liberated electron can hit another molecule on the way to the electrode and ionise this one.... think about particle physics and cold plasma.

You and I can believe what we want, but don´t call me naive...

Quote from Amsy on June 28th, 2012, 11:16 AM

Quote from Faisca on June 28th, 2012, 08:37 AM

Quote from Amsy on June 26th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote from geenee on June 25th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee

Do we exactly know if all inductivities in the VIC are working in the same direction?
Because, you are right, it would make no sense to seperate the inductivites to three coils working in the same direction.
In Stan´s Memo the direction of the wrapping of the coils are drawed on the magnetic core. I studied them very long, coming allways to the same result:
The main secondary and the Charging Choke 1 are wrapped in the same direction. The Charging Choke 2 is wrapped in the other direction to the two other chokes. Can someone confirm this drawing of the wrap-directions?
Also I made very interesting tests with different wrapped coil pairs. That was the reason, why I could achive 1,5kV on the coils and a strong electric field in the WFC.

Attachment 1: simplified VIC
Attachment 2: schematic of test (1,5kV), direction of coil wrapping

Amsy, the more we look at this circuit, looks more like a decoy. These chokes are not chokes, are secondary, and are opposite, subtract, as you proved (1500-1500 = 0) ..... for what? this makes no sense in the real world.
Do you think the government would commit this error, and compromise "national security" of the mafia. Sorry, but you must be very naive.
All this information so easily available, has an obvious purpose, to expose Mr.. Meyer WFC as a fraud and a fantasy. Again, here there was manipulation, such as the "magic bullet" (murder of Kenedit), or "against Iran," or "Vietnam" or "Gulf" or "9-11 wtc" (pancake effect) and very more. And just the fact that they had all this care to screen, increases the belief that Meyer made ​​real.

lol, the topics you liste have nothing to do with patents and testing evaluations... also it is not comparable with such events...

The cancelling of the voltage inhibit the current through the water. The C in the WFC will load on the supplyvoltage of the secondary. A I said, normal electrotechnical laws...
How was it possible to measure a high voltage field in the tube and in the near of the tube in my test? Teach me...

That is the basic for ionisation.... so the information of meyer is coherent to this point. And yes, every atom or molecule can be ionised. The further step is, that a liberated electron can hit another molecule on the way to the electrode and ionise this one.... think about particle physics and cold plasma.

You and I can believe what we want, but don´t call me naive...

sorry was no intention of offense, just wanted to say "that need to be very naive to ..." (all of us, not you specifically).
Everything I listed, is all about (inventors, scientists, etc., being suppressed by corporate interests).
But back to the subject; high tension without amp? only if the resistance is infinite (or almost). Would be the case of a capacitor and not the cell with tap water.
You insists that got high tension in your test, this is not true. What you saw was in relation to the ground, not between the poles, I'm sure, who should be the same potential.
Tests on a cell with gap = 1.2mm show:
voltage <1V, I got an amp = 15 to 100uA and end of the graph, with voltage> 10V, I got an amp = 100 to 900mA.
This infers that resistance begins in dozens of K-ohms and ends with tens of ohms.

Quote from Faisca on June 28th, 2012, 04:20 PM

Quote from Amsy on June 28th, 2012, 11:16 AM

Quote from Faisca on June 28th, 2012, 08:37 AM

Quote from Amsy on June 26th, 2012, 09:50 AM

Quote from geenee on June 25th, 2012, 03:35 PM

Alternator WFC version is the key.VIC developed from Alternator WFC version.I'm sure about this.

i think about "why separated 2 chokes?" L in series  L all = L1 + L2, use 1 choke is the same action.
when i think about alternator (3 pole),it act likely. and RUSS's VIC inductance of secondary coil and 2 chokes is the same value of inductance.

i can't see pic in pdf file. this hidden information???

geenee

Do we exactly know if all inductivities in the VIC are working in the same direction?
Because, you are right, it would make no sense to seperate the inductivites to three coils working in the same direction.
In Stan´s Memo the direction of the wrapping of the coils are drawed on the magnetic core. I studied them very long, coming allways to the same result:
The main secondary and the Charging Choke 1 are wrapped in the same direction. The Charging Choke 2 is wrapped in the other direction to the two other chokes. Can someone confirm this drawing of the wrap-directions?
Also I made very interesting tests with different wrapped coil pairs. That was the reason, why I could achive 1,5kV on the coils and a strong electric field in the WFC.

Attachment 1: simplified VIC
Attachment 2: schematic of test (1,5kV), direction of coil wrapping

Amsy, the more we look at this circuit, looks more like a decoy. These chokes are not chokes, are secondary, and are opposite, subtract, as you proved (1500-1500 = 0) ..... for what? this makes no sense in the real world.
Do you think the government would commit this error, and compromise "national security" of the mafia. Sorry, but you must be very naive.
All this information so easily available, has an obvious purpose, to expose Mr.. Meyer WFC as a fraud and a fantasy. Again, here there was manipulation, such as the "magic bullet" (murder of Kenedit), or "against Iran," or "Vietnam" or "Gulf" or "9-11 wtc" (pancake effect) and very more. And just the fact that they had all this care to screen, increases the belief that Meyer made ​​real.

lol, the topics you liste have nothing to do with patents and testing evaluations... also it is not comparable with such events...

The cancelling of the voltage inhibit the current through the water. The C in the WFC will load on the supplyvoltage of the secondary. A I said, normal electrotechnical laws...
How was it possible to measure a high voltage field in the tube and in the near of the tube in my test? Teach me...

That is the basic for ionisation.... so the information of meyer is coherent to this point. And yes, every atom or molecule can be ionised. The further step is, that a liberated electron can hit another molecule on the way to the electrode and ionise this one.... think about particle physics and cold plasma.

You and I can believe what we want, but don´t call me naive...

sorry was no intention of offense, just wanted to say "that need to be very naive to ..." (all of us, not you specifically).
Everything I listed, is all about (inventors, scientists, etc., being suppressed by corporate interests).
But back to the subject; high tension without amp? only if the resistance is infinite (or almost). Would be the case of a capacitor and not the cell with tap water.
You insists that got high tension in your test, this is not true. What you saw was in relation to the ground, not between the poles, I'm sure, who should be the same potential.
Tests on a cell with gap = 1.2mm show:
voltage <1V, I got an amp = 15 to 100uA and end of the graph, with voltage> 10V, I got an amp = 100 to 900mA.
This infers that resistance begins in dozens of K-ohms and ends with tens of ohms.

Hi faisca,
No prob. Looks like a language barriere. :D

No, in my test, the "infinte resistance" is no infinite resistance, it is a counter-voltage in the second coil (1,5kV-1,5kV). So the current from the first to the second coil is very small.
Like if you put two full loaded batteries in parallel (+ on +). If the voltage is even, no current will flow. So in my test then when having the same inductivity value, and the induced voltage is even, also no current will flow.  

So in my WFC I only can measure 0,7Volt Voltagedrop. But thats not the problem, because, the C in the WFC will charge on the 1,5kV of the first Coil. The second coils voltage have no influence on C because of the diode.
We have to difference "voltage drop" and "working voltage on C". If you ever measure a voltage over WFC it will be a voltage drop because of the dominating waterresistance.

Of course I measured against a ground, but that say, that the voltagefield on one of the tubes is produced in the WFC. The -electrode of the WFC can only be 0Volt, because of the Diode. No loading current can flow to -C.
I also could measure the voltage field between the cables (and only between them) to the WFC with the phase-tester, without touching the phase tester (neon lamp light was on and strong).

I read about that phenomenon of my test in the "test evaluation report". (Attachment 1, Page 66 beginning)
The voltage drop over the WFC was very tiny in the replication.

http://globalkast.com/docs/International%20Independent%20Test%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf