VIC testing (Findings and notes)

Sirgoose

RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #175, on November 24th, 2013, 12:27 PM »Last edited on November 24th, 2013, 09:19 PM by Sirgoose
Quote from securesupplies on November 24th, 2013, 10:38 AM
Quote from Sirgoose on November 23rd, 2013, 09:36 PM
Quote from securesupplies on November 4th, 2013, 01:55 AM
this is a good start we needed this along time ago can we build on the extra value  and add in tab\ for round bobbins

dan
I went ahead once i found the time to finish up the Excel sheet fully. It has no more glitches or problems that i know of just plug in the awg of wire along with the diameter of the wire, which is all included in the excel spreadsheet along with a 3d model of the bobbin i am basing it off of. You are more then welcome to add on to it just cite me as the original creator.

Round bobbin would just require different math equations to figure out the height and width of bobbin, but nothing that difficult.


P.S. If you do run into an error or problem, make sure you have iteration clicked with 100 maximum iterations. You can get to it by going to  Tools -> Options -> Calculations tab ->Look down to center of options menu and click Iteration.

EDIT: Newest version is out so version 2 is outdated. So that is why I am removing it.
RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #176, on November 24th, 2013, 02:27 PM »
 I am currently working on make a Round Bobbin Tab for the Excel Spreadsheet that will be able to calculate the length of wire used, and resistance obtained.

It will be uploaded soon.

Jesus Loves You
RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #177, on November 24th, 2013, 09:17 PM »Last edited on December 6th, 2013, 01:19 PM by Sirgoose
Quote from Sirgoose on November 24th, 2013, 02:27 PM
I am currently working on make a Round Bobbin Tab for the Excel Spreadsheet that will be able to calculate the length of wire used, and resistance obtained.

It will be uploaded soon.
Here is the Updated Version 3 Calculator with Round bobbins


EDIT: I took down version 3 because i now have version 3.1 up!
RE: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #178, on December 6th, 2013, 12:51 PM »Last edited on December 6th, 2013, 01:31 PM by Sirgoose
Quote from Sirgoose on November 24th, 2013, 09:17 PM
Quote from Sirgoose on November 24th, 2013, 02:27 PM
I am currently working on make a Round Bobbin Tab for the Excel Spreadsheet that will be able to calculate the length of wire used, and resistance obtained.

It will be uploaded soon.
Here is the Updated Version 3 Calculator with Round bobbins

EDIT: I took down version 3 because i now have version 3.1 up!
To any one who downloaded my original Version 3 Calculator with round bobbins. The found out the formula was messed up, but i fixed it. So if your using V3 you will want to download V3.1 as it has the Round Bobbin fix.

Plus i added resistance of inductor per layer of wrapped wire & Number of turns per layer as well!

HMS-776

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #179, on January 31st, 2014, 06:15 PM »
This thread got a little off topic so I'm going to share my recent work to get everyone caught back up.

I have been designing VIC's (Pulse transformers with external chokes) for over a year now. I use external chokes because that is the only way I have been able to achieve the doubling effect.

It sucks this site has changed because all my pictures on previous posts showing step charging have been lost. And I don't see any way to add more >:(

It seems with each design I encounter new problems. Let me just say there are a lot of considerations to make.

I have to also say that Stan’s 5 coil VIC is really bad. Anyone who has designed coils can see the problems with it. I tried it about 2 years ago, building it exactly to spec and what was the result? Nothing except a learning experience on what a bad coil design looks like.


My VIC design experiments:

At first I built some high inductance VIC's (several hundred mH per coil). These VIC's would not step charge over about 5 volts. The high L coils limit the current too much. Also, in order to avoid saturation the coils had to have a lot of turns. This limits current, turns ratios, and introduces more parasitic elements that distort the square wave.

So, I reduced the inductance in order to get more current to the cell. Then I achieved step charging up to 20V.

In my most recent design I included the external chokes as part of the secondary impedance calculations. This way I could achieve a high turns ratio and a low secondary inductance (for even higher current). I designed the coil to output 250mA at 150 volts.

In my past designs I calculated the primary coil magnetizing current. There are many considerations in coil design, and for some reason I overlooked it in this design. I was thinking that the choke inductance should be included in the calculations of the secondary coil (even though they are external). This would allow me to achieve a higher turns ratio and secondary current. At least I thought.

Once I tested the latest VIC I realized I forgot to consider magnetizing current. I included the choke inductance as part of the secondary coil, but the chokes were separate so they messed up the impedance ratio of the coil.

The impedance ratio of a coil is the turns ratio squared. This coil has a turns ratio of 1:15, so the impedance ratio should have been 1:225. However, since the coil was designed incorrectly the impedance ratio turned out to be 1:880. This caused the coils to be imbalanced. The secondary current would not increase above 50mA, even when the primary voltage and current were increased.

So, another failed design. Next I thought, perhaps I can just make the choke inductances a fraction of the total secondary inductance. Allowing the secondary coil to take up about 90% of the total secondary L.

So, I quickly redesigned the chokes to a much smaller value. Result, over 100mA at the secondary coil and pulses reaching peaks over 50V. But now I was no longer step charging. What had I done wrong? What did I forget to include in my design?

Well, everyone knows inductors store energy. The amount of energy an inductor stores is W=LI^2. The energy the chokes store is discharged when the circuit is switched off. If designed correctly the current flowing through the circuit rises and falls, but never goes to zero while the cap is charging.
The correct waveform is actually very similar to a Full wave rectified AC waveform. Stan’s early circuits which used autotransformers and FWBR’s produced that exact waveform, and the later VIC’s were designed to do the same.

So, where had I gone wrong? After closer inspection of the waveform I realized that I was still getting the doubling effect, but the second half of the pulse was very weak in amplitude, so it allowed the cap to completely discharge between each pulse.

When I reduced the choke inductance I reduced the amount of energy they store even though the current moving through it increased.

Now I am on to another design. I am considering working on a design in which all coils are on the same core. The problem with this is that the choke coils will act as additional secondary coils instead of chokes. Meaning they will not create the doubling effect we need. So they have to be designed correctly. More considerations to take into account.

I typed a lot here, but if I were to go into the math and considerations on the coil design this forum would be taken over by it. It is not a simple task like I thought when I first started. Each time I think I have the coil design figured out I start testing all the problems show themselves.

Has anyone else here tried to design VIC coils?
Anyone else got the doubling effect?

So far I have only seen 2 replications using hand made coils.
Jon Abel and irondmax (5 coil VIC)

I am not sure about irondmax’s 5 coil VIC replication. He shows it working because he introduced a gap in the core (reducing inductance allows more current to flow). However, I wonder how long it could go before the coils get too hot and burn up.



gpssonar

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #180, on January 31st, 2014, 07:09 PM »Last edited on January 31st, 2014, 07:24 PM by gpssonar
HMS-776 you are correct about the design of the coils. They are very complex, and like you said the math is enormous, and will make you pull your hair out trying to keep everything in order as you design them. I have made one video only, about the 5 coil design without the pickup coil. It can be seen here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5XP93XiSgk The 5 coil design like Stan's, has mutual inductance of aiding and opposing mutual inductance of the secondary coil. I have worked on this for right about 7 years now, It sure has not been a piece of cake for me that's for sure.  If you start with the ampacity of the wire size that Stan used which is 1.2 amps, that will get you started in the design. The same wire size is used on all coils. So no where should the amp draw be more than 1.2 amps. Check into the mutual inductance aiding and opposing, and the math involved. Capacitance of the cells is also very critical. The 5 coil design in the video is not designed for one cell, and at that time I only had a one cell test cell. That's why it is important to design the coils around the Xc of the cells being used. Also if all coils are not on the same core it requires a completely different design. I have worked with the chokes being on a different core but with little success. It is better to try to understand Stan's way of everything being on the same core first.

HMS-776

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #181, on January 31st, 2014, 08:16 PM »Last edited on January 31st, 2014, 08:21 PM by HMS-776
Thanks for the comments and suggestions, and Nice vid btw.

There is one thing for sure, the VIC with all coils on the same core makes the design much easier. The only problem, I have never been able to get the doubling effect with all coils on the same core. Have you?

Today I also figured out how to determine the capacitance of a wfc.

First you calculate the impedance of the cell by measuring the current and voltage peaks across the cell (without chokes connected). Then use Ohm's law to calculate the impedance V/I=Z. In my cell the impedance calculates to 150 ohms.

From here you measure the discharge time of the wfc. My cell discharged in 300uS. t=RC is rearranged to C=t x R

3uS x 150 ohms = 450uF.

This may be a good way to estimate/calculate capacitance. My studies have shown that there are a number of variables that effect capacitance. Future testing will prove this out how accurate this method is in estimating capacitance.

gpssonar

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #182, on January 31st, 2014, 08:39 PM »Last edited on February 24th, 2014, 08:01 PM
Yes I have seen the frequency doubling, but only appears when the cell starts to charge. I will have to try your way on the capacitance and see if it comes out to my numbers when I work it out for my cells. If it does then we have two ways to do it. In the tech. brief Stan shows a formula how to determine the capacitance of the cell. It took me forever to figure out what he was doing. His formula only does the math for one surface area. I think I know why, but I want to be 100% sure before I post about it.

HMS-776

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #183, on January 31st, 2014, 09:02 PM »Last edited on January 31st, 2014, 10:25 PM by HMS-776
Interesting about the doubling effect.

So far it seems the chokes can't be too large or too small. They have to be just right. If they are too big they will limit current too much and prevent the cell from charging. If they are too small they will not store enough energy to produce the necessary current during discharge for the doubling effect which will also limit or prevent charging.

I'm trying to find out if there is a relationship between secondary coil inductance and choke inductance. I have had the best results when they all have equal inductance. But I have not experimented with choke inductance larger than secondary coil inductance yet. I don't think it will work if the chokes are on a separate core as it will throw the impedance ratios off.

Ok, next design....All coils on the same core.

_______________________________
Update: Tonight I designed a VIC with all coils on the same core. Result, no step charging.
There must be some way to get the chokes to act as chokes and not just secondary coils. However, that will require more research.
Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #184, on February 1st, 2014, 03:55 PM »
Just uploaded a video showing step charging and explaining frequency doubling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeqi2SQC8Os&feature=youtu.be

.....Also, in my recent testing I took my chokes and removed the turns in increments. At each increment I tested the circuit with the reduced choke inductance. Result: The voltage at the cell increased with a decrease in choke inductance but only to a certain point. After that the step charging stopped (likely because the chokes were not storing and therefore discharging enough energy). However, I noticed when I increased the frequency about 3 fold I had step charging again, but, it did not build up to the same voltage as the previous tests using higher choke inductance.

Seems the more I learn the more questions I have???

geenee

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #185, on February 1st, 2014, 09:00 PM »
great work,HMS-776.

i like your video.Stan tell the truth.do you think "choke coils act like bridge rectified diode"?8xa version Stan used bridge rectify,imho.

thanks
geenee

HMS-776

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #186, on February 1st, 2014, 10:51 PM »
Yes,

When the circuit is working correctly the current through the inductor looks like a full wave rectified ac waveform.

Just like you said.

securesupplies

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #187, on February 20th, 2014, 11:30 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on January 31st, 2014, 09:02 PM
Interesting about the doubling effect.

So far it seems the chokes can't be too large or too small. They have to be just right. If they are too big they will limit current too much and prevent the cell from charging. If they are too small they will not store enough energy to produce the necessary current during discharge for the doubling effect which will also limit or prevent charging.

I'm trying to find out if there is a relationship between secondary coil inductance and choke inductance. I have had the best results when they all have equal inductance. But I have not experimented with choke inductance larger than secondary coil inductance yet. I don't think it will work if the chokes are on a separate core as it will throw the impedance ratios off.

Ok, next design....All coils on the same core.

_______________________________
Update: Tonight I designed a VIC with all coils on the same core. Result, no step charging.
There must be some way to get the chokes to act as chokes and not just secondary coils. However, that will require more research.
HELLO   

I am Seeing convergence of knowledge all the time,

I have made a Page it is a lot to digest takes about 3 days to watch video sand than think about the effect of what you learn

here is it

http://www.securesupplies.biz/#!tpu-steven-mark-wiki/c1pgy

IT this page 

there are many video explaining how to build and collector and frequency doubler antenna arrange and coils.
I think it is very interesting particulary the

math for the frequency doubling

please off you feed back on if this math and basic amp restricting wiring through magnetics

can explain the core and the cell  and what is happening with the frequency each time

it spikes and bounces  from (magnet) Coil restrictor  on VIc)

Dan





HMS-776

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #188, on February 24th, 2014, 06:44 PM »
All I can say is that the amp restricting and frequency doubling as Stan calls it is basic knowledge. It is used in capacitor charging circuits already. There is no secret there. Those videos show circuits that seem to be much more complex than what Stan was doing. Great site by the way, lots of info!

If you look at the forums online you might notice a common theme. Most of the people are just trolling through Stan's documents and pictures, looking for 'the secret' of Stan's work. Type in 'Stan Meyer's secret' online and you'll find numerous videos, posts and websites. All of them looking to find the answer in a way which will fit into their understanding, then explaining it the same way, and no one is getting anywhere because of it.

IMO we need to look at known science. Without following their standards for progression we are stuck in limbo.

Matt Watts

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #189, on February 24th, 2014, 06:55 PM »
Quote from HMS-776 on February 24th, 2014, 06:44 PM
IMO we need to look at known science. Without following their standards for progression we are stuck in limbo.
That and we also need to identify the areas of science that were deliberately simplified to exclude necessary phenomenology.  Go all the way back to James Clerk Maxwell if necessary.

securesupplies

Re: VIC testing (Findings and notes)
« Reply #190, on March 6th, 2014, 10:36 PM »
 
I think we can see the path to use current past and new amp restricting methods
most are known now.

Dan