VIC testing (Findings and notes)

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #100, on July 3rd, 2013, 03:51 PM »
I have had some success getting the step charging effect.

Here are some of my scope shots from a VIC I designed a while back.

[attachment=3905][attachment=3906]

This stuff takes a tremendous amount of work to get right. I've designed 10 VIC's and still am not able to get the full effect. BTW, when I say I've designed 10 VIC's that does not mean I just wrapped some wire on a coil former. I have a notebook with page after page of math to prove it. Meyer's work is not easy to replicate. IMHO the coil design is one of the most critical parts of the system, and probably the most complex.  

I have learned a great deal about the VIC and the Water capacitor since then. One thing I pointed out before that I will point out again here is that the water cap needs more current than most people think.

adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #101, on July 4th, 2013, 04:24 AM »
 Nice..HMS-776,what vic type do you use?vic coil type or U core one?whats the size of your wfc?

Jeff Nading

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #102, on July 4th, 2013, 07:18 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 3rd, 2013, 03:51 PM
I have had some success getting the step charging effect.

Here are some of my scope shots from a VIC I designed a while back.



This stuff takes a tremendous amount of work to get right. I've designed 10 VIC's and still am not able to get the full effect. BTW, when I say I've designed 10 VIC's that does not mean I just wrapped some wire on a coil former. I have a notebook with page after page of math to prove it. Meyer's work is not easy to replicate. IMHO the coil design is one of the most critical parts of the system, and probably the most complex.  

I have learned a great deal about the VIC and the Water capacitor since then. One thing I pointed out before that I will point out again here is that the water cap needs more current than most people think.
Good incite, findings and proof of concept HMS-776. Please keep up the good work, Jeff.:cool::D:P

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #103, on July 4th, 2013, 02:34 PM »Last edited on July 4th, 2013, 02:42 PM by HMS-776
Adys15,

Those scope shots were from coils I designed myself. I could never get the U core or any other Meyer VIC to work so I started designing my own.

I have a wfc that is 7 inches high, made from the standard .5" rod and .75" ID tube.

Trying to design a VIC is not only difficult, it's extremely time consuming.

[attachment=3913]

Above is a scope shot from an early design. Although you see some step charging the pulses are distorted and there are large gaps between pulses. An experienced coil designer coil take one look at this waveform and tell you a lot about the coil. It's parasitic elements are too high and it's underdamped.
After hours of work the scope shots tell the real truth.

After several more deisgns and got the following waveform:
[attachment=3914]

Although this one looks better it still is not a success.

The step charging scope shots I posted previously were the result of months of effort and different designs. They are a success in some ways (they achieved pulse doubling and step charging), but still not a complete success.

Since then I have tried and tried again to design a VIC which could give me the full effect (200V+) at the cell. I keep running into the same problems when doing the math. Those problems have kept me from building a new coil as I am not sure if I want to spend that amount of time on another design and build only to find out more problems to overcome.

 


adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #104, on July 4th, 2013, 05:18 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 3rd, 2013, 03:51 PM
I have had some success getting the step charging effect.

Here are some of my scope shots from a VIC I designed a while back.



This stuff takes a tremendous amount of work to get right. I've designed 10 VIC's and still am not able to get the full effect. BTW, when I say I've designed 10 VIC's that does not mean I just wrapped some wire on a coil former. I have a notebook with page after page of math to prove it. Meyer's work is not easy to replicate. IMHO the coil design is one of the most critical parts of the system, and probably the most complex.  

I have learned a great deal about the VIC and the Water capacitor since then. One thing I pointed out before that I will point out again here is that the water cap needs more current than most people think.
More curent than people think?so you used a thicker wire on primary because of the voltage drop when conect the wfc?What was the voltage at the cell?production?From what i'v seen you dont get much gas from the resonant setup...cheers!

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #105, on July 4th, 2013, 07:17 PM »Last edited on July 4th, 2013, 07:34 PM by HMS-776
More current, Yes!

If you have a bucket with a small hole in the bottom of it how could you fill it up with liquid? You have to put the liquid into the bucket at a faster rate than it will leak out. (Think of the bucket as the capacitor and the liquid as current).

 Even distilled water is conductive. I did leakage tests at different voltages using a coaxial cell (Meyer's standard 3" tube set) and distilled water. At 60V the leakage current through the water was 150mA!

 So tell me, how can you expect to fill the bucket (charge the capacitor) with 1mA when there is 150mA leaking out? This is why so many of the replications out there see only tiny voltages at the cell, even when your coil outputs several hundred volts or more.

It's not only about resonance! That's just one part of a much more complex system.
I can hit resonance any time I want with my coils. I designed my coils to output around 300V (and they will) but when connected to the capacitor I can only step charge to about 20V.

In the International Independent test report Meyer states the electrical input per tube was 12.5V @ 4.4 Amps! (See pg 60).

This is just the beginning...


adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #106, on July 5th, 2013, 02:13 AM »
Thanks HMS!You are saying to charge the cap with more current,that meaning thicker wire on primary and chokes...I though we are charging the wfc with potential..I had better results with thicker wire on chokes.

I know that doc.Stan used 12v because that was his max output of the alternator.
How can you say step up from 300v to 30v?

About the production in your setup at resonance...seems like 30v strait dc?
Cheers!


securesupplies

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #107, on July 5th, 2013, 11:11 PM »
This is excellent work

Well done guys
the scope shot of different designs is very important for education of others.

What you are doing here is re learning the method and why.

It is vey interesting tht you have posted the step and screen shots from different coils.

it help people under stand the progression.

could you consider posting a word file or diary of your current coil design trails and scope shots? to date ,

t would help others  delete a lot of things not to try and
see the results of each that you have done .

You have very unique knowledge on oils design and this and your comments on each
will help a lot for other to follow you work here more closely.

 this could empower alot of people to advance to the same page and continue with further.

PLease do documents it and post it for future generations to use.

Dan



HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #108, on July 6th, 2013, 09:20 AM »Last edited on July 6th, 2013, 09:30 AM by HMS-776
Quote from adys15 on July 5th, 2013, 02:13 AM
Thanks HMS!You are saying to charge the cap with more current,that meaning thicker wire on primary and chokes...I though we are charging the wfc with potential..I had better results with thicker wire on chokes.

I know that doc.Stan used 12v because that was his max output of the alternator.
How can you say step up from 300v to 30v?

About the production in your setup at resonance...seems like 30v strait dc?
Cheers!
It's not just thicker wire, it depends on a number of things.
To get a higher voltage you also need a step up transformer.
I never messed with the alternator setup as that seemed like too much work and money to get going.

I used small ferrite cores so I did not have a lot of room for wire. To get the choke inductance I needed required most of the coil former so I had to have two separate coils-one for the step up transformer, and one for the chokes.

Btw, the chokes do not have to be wound bifilar. Winding bifilar just ensures a high coupling between the coils, and equal voltage across each coil. Winding bifilar minimizes leakage inductance but at the cost of a very high coil capacitance. The high capacitance of bifilar coils in the reason why you rarely see it used in any other applications. It's just a trade off, and for most designs a little leakage inductance is better than a very high capacitance. I had the best success with spilt bobbin coil formers in which the coils were separate, not bifilar.




RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #109, on July 6th, 2013, 10:24 AM »Last edited on July 6th, 2013, 10:27 AM by HMS-776
Quote from securesupplies on July 5th, 2013, 11:11 PM
This is excellent work

Well done guys
the scope shot of different designs is very important for education of others.

What you are doing here is re learning the method and why.

It is vey interesting tht you have posted the step and screen shots from different coils.

it help people under stand the progression.

could you consider posting a word file or diary of your current coil design trails and scope shots? to date ,

t would help others  delete a lot of things not to try and
see the results of each that you have done .

You have very unique knowledge on oils design and this and your comments on each
will help a lot for other to follow you work here more closely.

 this could empower alot of people to advance to the same page and continue with further.

PLease do documents it and post it for future generations to use.

Dan
Dan, thanks for the kind words.

Honestly, I should have kept better track of the different coils I used to get the different waveforms. I would post the specs on everything but I would only be misleading people.

There is a lot to getting Meyer's stuff working. In the coil design alone there are too many considerations to even mention here.

As I stated before all the coils I have designed so far are worthless. I cannot step charge to anything over 20V. Most people would tell me to increase the primary voltage to get a higher voltage at the cell, but if I did I would saturate the core. That's just one of a few problems I had.

The problem I see with getting Meyer's stuff working is that there is much more to it than meets the eye. I don't think you could even fit it all in this forum. Right now I am just trying to share what I have learned in a simple way so that others can understand. Once I get things really working I will share more.



adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #110, on July 6th, 2013, 02:24 PM »
    HMS-776

Your chokes have the same number of windings or +choke is larger like stans?About the bif capacitance i think is good because must be higher than the wfc capacitance...I used 24awg bif in most of my tests...what gauge do you use?
Have you try the specs from Stan's patent?the one with the small toroid...
Keep up the good work!


HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #111, on July 7th, 2013, 11:03 AM »Last edited on July 7th, 2013, 11:45 AM by HMS-776
Quote from adys15 on July 6th, 2013, 02:24 PM
HMS-776

Your chokes have the same number of windings or +choke is larger like stans?About the bif capacitance i think is good because must be higher than the wfc capacitance...I used 24awg bif in most of my tests...what gauge do you use?
Have you try the specs from Stan's patent?the one with the small toroid...
Keep up the good work!
The chokes I made had identical specs for each choke coil (equal wire size, # turns, inductance, resistance etc). The ones which performed best were not bifilar but were wound individually on a split coil former.

There is no magic to a bifilar coil. It's a tradeoff. A bifilar coil maximizes coupling and minimizes leakage inductance, but at the cost of a very high coil capacitance.
The coil capacitance is effectively in parallel with the inductance. Forming a parallel LC circuit which will oscillate if the coils resistance is not large enough to damp out the oscillations. If the resistance is not large enough the coils will output AC to the cell. (A problem I had with early designs, I also modeled it in multisim to be sure that was where the AC was coming from).

I don't think bifilar coils are a requirement, perhaps I am wrong. But I see more problems than solutions by using a bifilar coil. I could list off a number of reasons why bifilar coils can cause more problems than they can solve. It's not that they wont work, it's just that they complicate the design considerably. I think Meyer used bifilar coils because then he could ensure an equal voltage across the cell.

The coils I made used wire sizes ranging from 23AWG-34AWG.

I tried to replicate Stan's torroid setup a long time ago but I could never find that core material.

adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #112, on July 7th, 2013, 12:21 PM »
Thanks Hms.I think at resonance of the coils they all output AC....

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #113, on July 7th, 2013, 03:16 PM »
Quote from adys15 on July 7th, 2013, 12:21 PM
Thanks Hms.I think at resonance of the coils they all output AC....
The coils which I used to achieve step charging did not output AC at any frequency.
If the coils are critically damped they will output the unipolar DC pulses which are needed to charge the capacitor.

adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #114, on July 7th, 2013, 04:21 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 7th, 2013, 03:16 PM
Quote from adys15 on July 7th, 2013, 12:21 PM
Thanks Hms.I think at resonance of the coils they all output AC....
The coils which I used to achieve step charging did not output AC at any frequency.
If the coils are critically damped they will output the unipolar DC pulses which are needed to charge the capacitor.
critically damped ?
Before you hit resonance there was any gas prod?cheers!

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #115, on July 7th, 2013, 08:36 PM »Last edited on July 7th, 2013, 08:41 PM by HMS-776
Read up on damping factors in RLC circuits. A critically damped RLC circuit will not oscillate. If the circuit is underdamped it will oscillate and the unipolar voltage pulses can go below zero (preventing the cap from charging).

Gas production occurs outside of resonance but at resonance it increases considerably. However, at 20V there is not a whole lot of production.

geenee

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #116, on July 7th, 2013, 11:09 PM »Last edited on July 7th, 2013, 11:12 PM by geenee
Quote from HMS-776 on July 7th, 2013, 08:36 PM
Read up on damping factors in RLC circuits. A critically damped RLC circuit will not oscillate. If the circuit is underdamped it will oscillate and the unipolar voltage pulses can go below zero (preventing the cap from charging).

Gas production occurs outside of resonance but at resonance it increases considerably. However, at 20V there is not a whole lot of production.
Real great work,HMS-776.
Transient response is Longitudinal wave(come from aether).which one is the best effect for charging capacitor(Underdamped,Overdamped or critically damped)?

thanks
geenee

adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #117, on July 8th, 2013, 05:56 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 7th, 2013, 08:36 PM
Read up on damping factors in RLC circuits. A critically damped RLC circuit will not oscillate. If the circuit is underdamped it will oscillate and the unipolar voltage pulses can go below zero (preventing the cap from charging).

Gas production occurs outside of resonance but at resonance it increases considerably. However, at 20V there is not a whole lot of production.
thanks,HMS,i will....gas prod was prior to 20v strait dc...no?

securesupplies

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #118, on July 8th, 2013, 07:43 AM »

WOW

FIRSTLY CONGRATULATIONS GUYS

Very Advanced work here on Stans Stuff!!!!

I really like the radar ref and this pic
http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/pic/modulator.jpg

============================================

Your idea about getting equipment to further the understanding of different water properties  in hz ranges is a very good direction. LOVE IT
============================================

Can you list models and pricing you need
I suggest we try and help raise funds so you can conduct that measurement work it would help mankind alot!

PLease list pricing of these units so we can see if we can
help out.
================================================
Again the posts on this thread are very advanced and a great read keep pushing very great work so far.

You are shedding new light and knowledge on stans thinking !! Keep it up GReat !!

Dan
www.securesupplies.biz

adys15

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #119, on July 8th, 2013, 04:29 PM »Last edited on July 8th, 2013, 04:31 PM by adys15
 if the coils resistance is not large enough to damp out the oscillations. If the resistance is not large enough the coils will output AC to the cell. (A problem I had with early designs, I also modeled it in multisim to be sure that was where the AC was coming from).

So you say to get unipolar pulses that charge the cap.and not AC waves,we need to have high resistance in the coils,that means to have small  wire diam.....but you said we also need curent to charge the cap.,that means your chokes  wire is thin and your secoundary have a thicher wire size....you canot have high resistance chokes,and provide also more curent to the cap,thats my humble opinion....Cheers!

securesupplies

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #120, on July 10th, 2013, 10:33 AM »
hi

PLease watch this new video, I wish all videos could get posted with out clips or edite, this one is different and does shed new light in several areas, on vic http://youtu.be/OXctY1K4wko

dan
www.securesupplies.biz

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #121, on July 12th, 2013, 11:47 AM »
Quote
So you say to get unipolar pulses that charge the cap.and not AC waves,we need to have high resistance in the coils,that means to have small  wire diam.....but you said we also need curent to charge the cap.,that means your chokes  wire is thin and your secoundary have a thicher wire size....you canot have high resistance chokes,and provide also more curent to the cap,thats my humble opinion....Cheers!
Resistance is not the only thing which limits current in an RLC circuit. Also, the coils do not have to be critically damped, then can be slightly underdamped and still work.

Now your starting to see why coil design is so complex. There are a number of things to consider when choosing wire size. A few are: Inductance, impedance ratio, capacitance, current. There are others but right now I'm too out of it to remember all of them.

Meyer just explained the basics, once you really start digging deep into this tech you start seeing all the rabbit holes. Every time I answer a question I have I find I have 2 more to find answers to.

Ravenous Emu

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #122, on July 12th, 2013, 05:05 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 12th, 2013, 11:47 AM
Meyer just explained the basics... Every time I answer a question I have I find I have 2 more to find answers to.
Well said. LOL!  :D :cool: :P

Webmug

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #123, on July 13th, 2013, 08:30 AM »
Quote from HMS-776 on July 4th, 2013, 07:17 PM
More current, Yes!

If you have a bucket with a small hole in the bottom of it how could you fill it up with liquid? You have to put the liquid into the bucket at a faster rate than it will leak out. (Think of the bucket as the capacitor and the liquid as current).

 Even distilled water is conductive. I did leakage tests at different voltages using a coaxial cell (Meyer's standard 3" tube set) and distilled water. At 60V the leakage current through the water was 150mA!

 So tell me, how can you expect to fill the bucket (charge the capacitor) with 1mA when there is 150mA leaking out? This is why so many of the replications out there see only tiny voltages at the cell, even when your coil outputs several hundred volts or more.

It's not only about resonance! That's just one part of a much more complex system.
I can hit resonance any time I want with my coils. I designed my coils to output around 300V (and they will) but when connected to the capacitor I can only step charge to about 20V.

In the International Independent test report Meyer states the electrical input per tube was 12.5V @ 4.4 Amps! (See pg 60).

This is just the beginning...
I don't think the resonance WFC 3 incher + VIC are pulling 4.4A@12V !!!! Most the prim. wire can handle is 300mA. Since we pulse the prim. it can handle some more current but it will heat-up and burn.

What you are saying about 150mA leak current is called "current" we want "static".

"Static" is a separation; it is a stretching-apart, and it really has little to do with anything remaining static or stationary.

"Current" is a flowing motion. It has little to do with the separation of opposite charges.

In Stans words "restricting current"!!! (We already know)
About "tuning"the neg. choke. I still think the chokes are PFN but the WFC is connected to it and we must recalculate the specs of this neg. choke design. This is the "current restrict" choke! Read above, we want "static" and not "flow".

I know, it's complicated! :)

Br,
Webmug

HMS-776

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #124, on July 18th, 2013, 12:16 PM »Last edited on August 6th, 2013, 07:15 PM by HMS-776
Quote from "Webmug"
I don't think the resonance WFC 3 incher + VIC are pulling 4.4A@12V !!!! Most the prim. wire can handle is 300mA. Since we pulse the prim. it can handle some more current but it will heat-up and burn.

What you are saying about 150mA leak current is called "current" we want "static".

"Static" is a separation; it is a stretching-apart, and it really has little to do with anything remaining static or stationary.

"Current" is a flowing motion. It has little to do with the separation of opposite charges.

In Stans words "restricting current"!!! (We already know)
About "tuning"the neg. choke. I still think the chokes are PFN but the WFC is connected to it and we must recalculate the specs of this neg. choke design. This is the "current restrict" choke! Read above, we want "static" and not "flow".

I know, it's complicated! :)

Br,
Webmug
The 4.4 Amps was for Stan's original tubes that were connected to the alternator.

How do you expect to build up a charge with a small current when the majority of the electrons will leak into the water?

Btw, a PFN stores charge over time and then releases it in a short high current burst. It restricts current but like Stan's circuits the current restriction is not as much as most of us originally thought.

If all my time spent designing,  building,  and testing coils has taught me one thing,  it's that the circuit needs more current to work.
In my previous posts I provided different scope shots that I achieved.  Some of those early scope shots only step charged to about 8V, and my latest step charged to about 20V. The coils which allowed the water cap to step charge to 20V had a higher current (I took current measurements of all the coils).  I did other tests at even higher currents and was able to get 100v spikes across the water cap.