Kali_ma_Amar

Sure you can heat water just by putting AC on it (this is actually how most cheap air humidifiers work). But the efficiency is just 100%. In this case the water is just used purely as a resistance, and the AC is responsible so that no electrolysis can take place.
But the Steam Resonator IMHO certainly didn't work on that principle, for the energy input was certainly way too small for this huge array to have any considerable heating effect with a low efficiency as 100% ;-)

IMHO, and as Stan described in the technical briefs, the pulses are always one sided, then discharged again, and then pulses are on the other side. I think, and it's also described like that in the briefs, that you could either pulse one side +, then the other side -, or one side +, then the other side +, or - -> -.
As this coil in the first pic only has 3 windings, my guess would be that he used a switch over circuit for the Steam-Resonator in the buggy.

The discharging is IMHO especially very important, when you have different polarities, for otherwise you would get electrolysis (Dr. Stiffler Circuit). If your would use the same polarity for the elctrodes and if the water is more or less isolated, the water would just one time get the charge of the corresponding polarity and couldn't discharge anymore. So also in this case a controlled discharging does make sense (which is IMHO attained with the help of the 2 NPN Transistors).

But that just my current guess. And IMHO as long as noone was able to really replicate the Steam Resonator (and with replication I mean with an OU factor) every idea is as good as the other. So I do definitely not claim that this guess is in any way correct!

also the pickup circuit could be eiether a opamp or a comparator... i guess the comparator would stabilize the signal to something useable for pin 14 of the PLL chip
any thoughts?

The OpAmp is just used as a Schmitt-Trigger. If the voltage from the pickup-coil is positive, it will output a high signal. If it's negative, it will output a low signal for the PLL. With the 1M/100K feedback you adjust the hysteresis.

Edit:
It's interesting. As I looked again at the original VIC-PCB, I discovered, that not even the LED is connected to the dividers. The LED is directly connected to the signal (the orange/white wire on the bottom left). This actually means, that the 3 divider chips were not used at all.

It's also funny to note, that it seems the Inhibit signal, that's coming in from the external control, seems to have a different voltage level. Therefore he needed to add a level translator (Pullup with a germanium diode, in the lower left).

Edit2:
Seems like the server is having some real problems, the last few days, or is it just me?

I thought again about the strange feedback wiring into the comparator of the PLL, that Stan made (the second blue wire). IMHO there's only one good explanation for this workaround, and why he didn't connect the output of the VCO to the comparator input (like it is usally done, and like in the patent pic). He uses quite a transistor cascade. If the driving delay is too big, then the comparator would already see quite some phase differences between this signal and the pickup-signal. Like that e.g. the Lock-in detector could then detect a not locked-position, although the resonance frequency is hit. If you connect directly the driving voltage of the primary to the comparator, then you certainly get rid of this transistor driving signal delay.
But on the other hand, one must remember, that the voltage on the primary can get quite strongly negative if the VIC is in resonance (it can't get a high positive voltage, due to the freewheeling diode). So this voltage would somehow have to be clamped. Surely the CDs do have internal clamping diodes, but I'm not sure if they could withstand this amount of current, as there's only a quite small resistor in series.
So either the green thing, which looks like a capacitor is a capacitor and is just filtering the input a bit, or it is a varistor. In the first case, the CDs internal diode would have to clamp the signal, but the signal is filtered. in the other case the varistor would do the clamping, but there wouldn't be a filtering.
It's also to mention that this workaround is not really very proper, as it can in some circumstances yield quite some problems in the working of the comparator, as the voltage on the primary could also have some higher harmonics. If he really did it because of the delay, then an usual delay network would probably have been the better solution.


Edit3:
As I thought again about it, I came to the conclusion that it's most probably is a capacitor. For if he really wanted to clamp it additionally he would've taken a diode.


Edit4:
After having some more time to look at the VIC-PCB and do some power-routing coloring I finally realized, that there was no layout mistake. I just thought this at first, but it misled me, that Stan used to wire the gating signal over the connection port and not directly on the PCB. But not to have to wire it externally it seems, that he decided to wire it directly on the PCB by the blue wire.
I'm still asking myself, where exactly the red wire is connected (the one which is connected to the RC-Damper which is the input for the comparator). But it's now past midnight...I will look again at it tomorrow.
If anyone is interested, this is my "modified" version of the VIC-PCB-pic. I take no responsibility for any errors     (especially the power routing around the driving circuit and the analog voltage is a bit weird, there could well be some errors in my pic, and overall the coloring of the power routing is not yet complete!)
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/9059/meyerspics69powerroutin.jpg)

How much energy in watts  per hour (or joules) needed to spend to convert 1 liter of water in gas? I am interested in the efficiency of the cell.

I think nobody knows, how efficient the cell actually really was.


I thought again about the blocking diode and the PIV-rating. Don, when your circuit is oscillating at 2kV, what voltage then, the diode does actually see (e.g. what's the voltage over the diode)? Did you ever measure that? I would have a hypothesis, which would allow a lower voltage over the diode during blocking condition (pulse on). Gee I really have to continue experimenting, but still a lot of work to do in my job...Maybe in a few days...
Unfortunately I've wound my coil with more turns on the secondary, than both chokes together. But as I see it now, this would prevent the actual circuit from working. So I have to wind a new coil, which takes quite some time...

As I was interested, I shortly had a closer look at the primary driving circuit of Stan. For better view, I started to color the power routing (just the obvious ones). Here's the pic if anyone wants to continue.
(http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9059/meyerspics69powerroutin.jpg)
It really looks like he used a 1N4003 as a freewheeling diode and another one as the series diode. Do you know, what type it was? As from the picture you can hardly see it.
I still think it's quite terrible, that he used a 1N4003 for the freewheeling. It's way too slow. You would get a terrible surge on every switch off (especially due to the leakage inductance), which would kill the TIP120. This could also be a reason, why he inserted the parallel resistor in the first hand, as kind of a poor man's snubber. There do exist fast switching 4003s, the UF4003. But he clearly used an 1N4003. IMHO he either inserted the resistors, as a snubber, to prevent surges before the diode switches, or he intentionally made it to lower the losses in the resonator (get a higher Q) or he used it, as a voltage forming network, like in a flyback and intentionally used a slow switching diode. I would guess, the first is most probable.

But what's really strange is, that he connected the primary neg of the coil over an RC-damper to the VCO-Output!
But now, I really have to work...

@newguy: I think this is too late. Don hasn't access to the original VIC anymore.

One guy suggests that WFC is a microwave waveguide.

I'm no  specialist in waveguides, but IMHO the frequencies which would be involved in this theory are that ridiculously high and far from Stans used frequencies (<=10KHz), that I personally do not believe in this waveguide theory. But everybody is free to try.
One thing is strange, though. Although the guy says to have read Stans patents, he says, Stan doesn't indicate the frequencies used, and that he guesses, they were below 50MHz. But Stan actually stated often the used frequencies. So I'm a bit puzzled about that.

Kalli I can see the pictures normally try to check your browser configurations.

That's strange. I tried it with Opera and Firefox. Both are not able to load the picture.
E.g. My browsers are not able to load this picture: http://www.ionizationx.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1513.0;attach=6228
I can load Pic Nr 6227 and 6229, but not 6228. There I just do not get any response from the server...

I personally guess he meant, they were wired in series. 3 220Ohm in parallel would be about 73Ohms. In series with the primary, a maximum of about 145mA through the primary would be achievable, which is really almost nothing?!?
BTW: I think it's funny, that the three resistors happen to have the same value as the three coils together .


But I'm still puzzled by the overall figures. Namely, if the circuit was made like that, the voltage of one coil should never exceed the PIV of the diode, which is 600Volts. So if the circuit would develop any higher voltage, it would kill the diode. Sure the diode can usually withstand a bit more voltage, but not much. The voltage ratings are usually quite tight in semiconductors.
Actually Stan claimed the same in his patent description of this WFC circuit:

The diode, of course, is selected in accordance with the
maximum voltage encountered in the pulsing circuit. A 600
PIV fast switching diode, such as an NVR 1550 high speed
switching diode, has been found to be useful in the
circuit herein.

(As we know, the NVR 1550 is probably a text recognition error. Don told it was a MUR1560)


Or another statement in the same patent:

In a typical operation of the cell with a
representative water capacitor described below, at a
frequency of about 5 KHz at unipolar pulses from 0 to 650
volts at a sensed resonant condition into the resonant
cavity, conversion of about 5 gallons of water per hour
into a fuel gas will occur on average.

(in this sentence I'm still puzzled by the claim of conversion of 5 gallons of water in one hour in one such small cell. For if really that much could have been converted, he wouldn't have needed 10 WFCs of this size to power his car?!? And I would have my doubts if it's actually physically possible to generate that much gas and have the cell still working, as you would actually also have to get this gas out of the cell again. If he meant 5 gallons of gas, this would also be strange, for this, even with 10WFCs would never be enough to power a car. Maybe this was a hypothetical value, which he came upon by measuring the gas output when he just let the cell work for a short time. This would mean, it would be theoretically possible, but not be really practical, therefore he needed more cells.)


Now, if we look at the figures, you have given: A primary to sec/choke ratio of about 1:5, and a switching transistor (TIP120) which can only withstand 60Volts, you get some quite strange results. A 1:5 ratio would mean (without resonance), only 60volts (at 12v input) on the coils. With my circuits I get about a voltage magnification of 1:5 (on resonance), which would result in 300volts on the coils. Maybe by a good design you get higher here, say 10:1. Then you would have 600volts. And this would then also be the maximum of the diode. So in this relation the figures seem to fit. But this would really mean, that there was absolutely no "high" voltage in the circuit!?!?
Additionally, if we look again at the driving transistor: If the resonance-voltage-magnification-ratio would have been more than 1:4, then you would have had to protect the transistor. E.g. with a freewheeling diode, like in the patent circuit.
BTW: If there wouldn't be any resonance (capacities), the coils would now, due to the freewheeling diode also simply have this voltage ratio. E.g. if the voltage drop on the freewheeling diode would be 1.2V, then each coil would have -6Volts on it during off phase. Only due to the capacities in resonance this could be circumvented, and the freewheeling diode would then just draw quite some power again out of the resonator, which would decrease your attainable Q.
It's interesting, that the TIP120 does have an additional diode in reverse, similar to a Power-FET. This means, that an additional diode in series, like in his patent circuit would be needed, not to limit resonance during primary on.


From these figures I can only draw this conclusion: Either he didn't use high voltages in this circuit, but only to about 600volts (maybe a bit more), or he used another circuit-layout. What would have really interested me, would be, how the circuit card for the steam resonator looked alike. If the connectors were also just made for lower voltages, or if there HV-connectors were used?

Just look at the first pic in this thread, where the 5-coil-VIC is shown. The core was 2 U-core halves put together (in the pic, one U is at the top, seen as a n, and the other at the bottom, seen as a u). The red ones on the right side of the picture are the chokes, the blue one on the left the secondary.
But it's obvious that strictly speaking, all three coils are secondaries. The only difference is, that some coils can additionally resonate, and others not. And what exactly resonates with what capacities, is one big part of the mystery...

As I again thought about the 5-VIC-coil layout I discovered an IMHO interesting point.
From the VIC-size and AWG-size, as told by Don, my guesses would be about the following Nr turns of the coils (Primary 100 or 200, Pickup 400, Secondary and both chokes 2'000). Sure the numbers are only guesses, but I think they should be in the right dimension region. What is really interesting is the fact, that the secondary has the same size as each of the choke coils.
If we now look at the wiring, that Don described (same as patent pic, shown before), one thing is very interesting to see: The choke coil voltage (of both coils in series) is certainly 2times as big as that of the secondary. This means, when the primary is energized, no current can flow through the diode. Only when the primary is off, and the chokes are swinging in reverse, a current would flow through the diode. This is quite strange.


Were the pickup windings also wound in 2 coils, as in the patent circuit? Is it just me, or are 400turns for the pickup not abit much...
Did the wire of the primary coil get out of the coil at two different ends, or at the same end of the coil. IMHO this would determine, if it had 100turns or 200turns (so if the ratio primary to secondary/chokes was rather 1:10 or 1:20).
Where were the resistors connected? I think you once mentioned, the 2 smaller ones (220Ohms, which look like connected in parallel) were connected to the pickup, and the big green one was connected to the primary. Is this correct? From the picture, it could also be, that all three were in parallel.

So what i'm saying is that no electrode inside the water is electrically connected direct to the ground only thru the coil or dielectric (forming the capacitance) therefore forming the resonant tank.

What I meant was: There's anyway no "ground" connection on a car. The "ground" on your car, is just a body with a big capacity. And as all the water will have an electric connection to the inner tube, this means, that there's quite a big capacity (in relation to the capacities in the VIC) directly at the neg electrode. So from a pure electrical schematic viewpoint you would describe this equal as having a "ground" connection directly at the inner tube. Basically you would say, that there's a big capacity (in relation to the VIC capacities) connected to the inner tube.
Sure the capacity overall is very small (as usual with single terminal capacities, e.g. as huge as the earth is, it has only about  710 uF), but compared to the VIC capacities it is big. Which means nothing else, than the circuit is surely not able to raise or lower the voltage (of this capacity in relation to the environment) at this point in the circuit by much. As it would have to charge any other smaller single terminal capacity in the VIC to a much higher voltage to be able to do that.


BTW: Can anyone of you read the words where the first choke is (top left), in this handwritten note from Stan?
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/ORIGSKETCH2.jpg)

Don, thanks for this insight. As I see it, if you wire it, like in that patent pic, then you will mainly have ac on the cell (with a slight DC, due to the charging current)
IMHO the only configuration which can show a double pulse on the cell is the one with both chokes with same polarities to the cell, and only if the cell is made in a tubular configuration. 


@sebosfato:
About the showed earth connection in the WFC-pic.
I just thought about the same this morning. And as I remembered and if I understood correctly what Don said, the water was circulated all the time through the cell and back to the tank. But this makes a huge difference in relation to the actual electric circuit. Why? The neg electrode is on the inside and the outer electrode is isolated. The inner electrode has direct contact to the water. Which means, as water itself is a conductor, all the water in the car tank will be part of this electrode potential "capacity". And if this water is not everywhere isolated from the buggy, even the buggy itself will get this potential. This would actually be almost equal to saying, that the neg electrode is connected to "earth". As there's anyway no "earth" on a car. But "earth" just means a big capacity. And the capacity of all the water will surely be quite big in relation to all other capacities in the circuit (even if the water would be completely isolated from the car). So in this manner, this showed (symbolic) "earth" on the inner electrode could make sense. It would surely quite strongly change the picture of how the VIC-circuit is working. For to really get, how this thing works, 2 points need to be satisfied:
1.) You need to know how it was wired.
2.) You need to know, how the "relevant" equivalence circuit is looking like.
And especially the 2nd part is IMHO the harder part, as the capacities involved are all that small, that any parasitic capacity could be relevant.

@Sebosfato:
Yes, that would make really sense, thank you for this argument. It would also explain the gating current differences. But the strange thing is, in a minor version this also happened, when I had 10 volts on the core, where it surely didn't saturate the core.
And I could see clearly with the 500volts on it, that I can get down to almost no current, but then immediately the current again starts to drift slowly away. But if I then adjust the frequency I again get almost no current, and then again the current drifts away. IMHO this observation wouldn't really match the behaviour due to a core saturation.

Kali, yes the red dots you applied are the correct way.Thats just how all my testing of coils ended up,that gave me the highest output of voltage.I tried arranging the coils in every configuration possible,but that arrangement always gave the highest voltage output.
 
Stan showed several different drawings with different coil arrangements,so one of them was bound to be right.

Actually, now I'm a bit puzzled. Why did you test different configurations to look for which yields the highest voltage, if you saw how the real 5-coil-VIC was wired? As I understood, you looked on the real 5-coil-VIC, how exactly it was wired to everything. Or were these tests, before you saw the real VIC?


For as I already mentioned, there do exist 2 circuits which can yield high voltages: One with different polarities to the cell (the one from the patent pic posted before), and one with the same polarities to the cell. And before you mentioned that the real VIC was wired with different polarities, I would have been 90% sure, that it is wired with the same polarities to the cell. But in the setup with the same polarities to the cell it is much more difficult to get the resonant voltage rise, without needing a lot of current in the beginning.
IMHO 4 things would speak strongly for the second variant:
1.) In all available drawings where Stan actually showed the bifilars (only 3), they were wired with the same polarity to the cell.
2.) It would IMHO only make sense, if he really wound the 6-1 VIC bifilar, that then they had the same polarity to the cell. Otherwise the high voltage would have just ripped their isolation.
3.) The resistive wire for the choke coils IMHO only makes sense in this version. And this only, if the WFC itself has a high resistance (is small, like the injectors)
4.) You would actually see a pulse doubling over the cell.

But there surely also do speak things against this variant...(e.g. in this variant it would be beneficial if the circuit is grounded)

Just for better understanding: This is the wiring version which would also make sense:
(http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/3347/fullmeyerbriefsamepolar.gif)
But although both chokes are called here resonant charging chokes, actually only the second (62) would be resonating, not the top one, as they would have different resonant frequencies, due to different capacities seen. And one would be only interested in a resonance of the second choke, as this would then stop the current from flowing from the secondary through the cell.

@Tony: With my current experiments I currently don't use the SCR switching logic, I feed directly the waveform from a FG. So I'm testing just Stan's "Amp Inhibiting circuit".


As I again thought about the whole thing, I realized, that the only explanation is really, that the core losses are that low, which really is strange to me. But what's even stranger is the  fact, that although the coils resonate at AC with the WFC in between, the WFC has only DC on it. IMHO this can only be explained by the huge capacity (supercapacitor) of the WFC compared to the small distributed capacity.
IMCHO (in my current humble opinion) I think that there are only 2 wirings which would make sense. One is a tank circuit with only the second choke (both chokes same polarity to the cell), the other is both coils just resonating in unisono together (different polarity to the cell). And especially for the second variant I would be very very interested on Don's answer on my question a page ago about the orientation. I would be really grateful to you Don, if you can answer this question.


EDIT:
While biking I realized why I needed just such a low current. Not because the loss percentage was so low, but because the oscillating energy is so low. The capacities are so small, that there's almost no energy oscillating. Therefore the needed input power is extremely low. This actually explains why Stan could us a core with such a small core area without saturating it. Although the energy say at 1000 volts will be 10'000 times more, it is still small, as the expected needed input current with the same oscillator would be then around 50mA.

Well, this is what as I said I also already discovered. The WFC capacitance is IMHO completely neglectable in relation to the resonance. It also wouldn't make sense in relation to the actual circuit, due to the diode. It would only make sense if the capacitance in between the bifilars would be important. But as I already yesterday wrote this is IMHO not the case, and as the 5-VIC-COIL shows, this is obviously not the case. This is why I wrote, that I think only the distributed (parasitic) capacitance of every coil itself is important.
First I thought that the capacity of the WFC in relation to the environment is important (single terminal capacity, like the topload of a tesla coil), but this capacity would be very small. And as experiments have shown is completely neglectable. The parasitic capacities of the coils are way much larger.

But hey, we won't find out, 'til we get a lotta gas for (almost) nothing...  
But to mention is, that IMHO the capacity of the WFC does play an important role, but not in the resonance part. It is IMHO important that the capacity gets charged, so that a thick ion layer can develop at the anode. Only then, the "diode" behaviour can occur. ANd this capacitance is btw quite big. Way much larger than what you get, if you look at the capacitor as a normal capacitor (2 electrode at distance d with the dielectric water in it). This is, because the WFC will behave like a super capacitor (EDLC=Electric Double Layer Capacitor).


BTW: Interestingly in his later Memo, he even writes in the text itself, that the important resonance capacity is this distributed capacity. E.g.:

While, the distributed capacitance (Cda xxx Cdn) of each coil experiencing
inductance coupling (619) elevates applied voltage level (Vn) to a higher voltage amplitude
(increasing voltage intensity)

IMHO this is the simple description of a coil resonance with it's own L and C.


Or from his "patent validation report":

Beyond amp restricting characteristics of said Amp Inhibiting Circuit, the spiral-wrapped coils being paired together, also, causes voltage level enhancement beyond applied voltage input since the "Distributed Capacitance"/"Distributed Inductance" of said bifilar wrapped coils encourages the compounding effect (increasing magnetic field-strength during each pulsing cycle) of electromagnetic field-strength when applied Pulse-voltage Frequency passes though the positive energized Resonant Charging choke.

BTW: in this "patent validation report" he also writes, that the VIC is actually nothing but an extension of the "8xA circuit" with an additional Step-Up transformer...
This would explain why he first just used the "Amp Inhibiting Circuit". Then later (see patents) he used a step-up transformer on a separate core, and finally he wrapped alltogether on one core (VIC).


IMHO if the coils are wrapped with the same orientation (different polarity to the WFC), then the secondary delivers the DC necessary to charge the WFC capacity and the coils are responsible for short HV neg pulse to split the water.
Or if the coils are wrapped with the same polarity to the WFC, then the secondary would probably be responsible for the splitting and the bifilars are responsible for developing a thick ion layer, with the Dr. Stiffler principle.


But, I think I write and theorize again too much...Let's go again experimenting. A hole weekend is awaiting
Unfortunately I cannot find my SCRs (I know, I have once bought some)...gee, my chaos...




Edit2:
I just realized why the scope pic of Don didn't make any sense to me: It is upside down. If you look at the left, you see, where the reference potential is. Now, the waveform does make sense...

One side of the secondairy coil is grounded, so never ever ac on his device.

Well, why should AC not be possible, if you ground one side??? Doesn't make sense to me? Would be nice, if you could explain a little farther what you mean. Take a any transformer and ground one wire. You will still have AC. The only difference would be, that now the overall potential is not floating anymore, but has a fixed reference potential.
I think Puharich even states himself somewhere, that the cell has rectifying capabilities. E.g. look at his Blood Patent. The circuit is very similar. And there he shows the equivalence circuit of the media, which is exactly as I would expect it to be: Namely a diode with a resistance in series parallel to a capacitor with a resistance. My guess would just be, that the behaviour is voltage dependent. E.g. for low voltages it is obviously a capacitor. For high voltages it is a resistor and in between probably acts like a diode, if the E-field is inhomogeneous. this is at least my current hypothesis.


@Don:
Thanks for the comment. As I looked again at the pic, I realized my mistake immediately. Let's blame this due to the fact, that it was very early in the morning, when I looked at it...
The big ones definitely look like the rectified AC. But honestly, this pic arises more questions than it answers.
One thing is obvious. The frequency of the coils is definitely quite higher than the 120Hz of the rectified AC. This at least answers one question for me, for I was quite astonished how he could get such a low resonance frequency with just such a small coil, with not that much windings.
Did you make that PIC? It would be interesting if it was made really with just such a low voltage, or if a 10xprobe has been used.
All in all, this now really started my interest in this "8xA circuit". I will definitely now do some more experiments on it.


@Tony:
Hmm looks like I will have to do some experiments to the diode behaviour of the WFC. But one has to be very cautious in measuring a static condition with a multimeter, for a WFC acts also like a battery. And this can very much alter the measurement if you use low static voltages from a Multimeter. I think only a dynamic measurement could really definitely give the answer under what conditions a WFC starts to behave like a diode.

@Tony:
As I see it the main differences between Puharich's circuit and Stan's is the diode, and the voltage (Puharich used very low voltages). Puharich does not use a diode for rectification. This is the very strange thing about Puharich's circuit, namely that he states, that the WFC starts to act like a diode if he connects it to his circuit and rectifies the applied AC-Waveform. The only idea I could have, why this rectification could take place would be the inhomogeneous E-Field in the WFC due to the tubular arrangement.
It would be interesting, if anyone was ever able to replicate this rectification by the WFC. For one thing could be interesting: If you somehow manage, that the WFC starts to act like a diode, then you could suddenly apply a very high voltage to the WFC in the blocking direction of the WFC "diode". In this way the water would suddenly see a very high E-field, but the current couldn't flow.
But my personal guess is, that this rectification only happens at very low voltages, as Puharich used. If the inhomogeneous E-Field is responsible for it, it could be, that the E-Field differences just make the final step if the anode-reaction-potential is reached or not. Which means, the anode reaction could take place at the inner tube wall, as there the E-Field is stronger, but not take place at the outside tubewall, as there the E-Field is smaller. If this is the way Puharich's rectification took place, it wouldn't be possible to use this principle to apply a short HV-burst.
BTW: At these low voltages (below the reaction  potential) the WFC actually really acts like an almost perfect capacitor with a very high resistance. This is actually the basic principle how the low-voltage Super-Caps do work. Therefore it was probably very easy for Puharich to get a resonant circuit, as the WFC really just acted like a capacitor, and if the voltage just reached the critical reaction-potential it started to also act like a diode in one direction.


@Andy:
Actually I don't think the last hypothesis is really reasonable. But it was early in the morning  ...


Sorry again, to get that much Offtopic in this thread. I will again do the experiments with the "8xA circuit", but this time, with the AC waveform on resonance and not the Ton/Toff on resonance. But I will then start a new thread not to get anymore offtopic in here. Sorry!

Kali, basically what Stan's input waveform to the cell is suppose to look like is a full-wave rectification of an AM signal like the 3rd image in the picture below.

This is at least like that in the Puharich-Patent. The question remains, if Stans WFC worked the same way as Puharich's. I doubt that, as the amplitude modulation frequency from Puharich was very very low.
Puharich himself actually never claimed that his process has an overunity which defies current electrolysis laws. And, what maybe some people here might astonish it is theoretically possible even for conventional electrolysis to have more than 100% efficiency (related to electrical input). The remaining energy is coming from the heat of the water. the hotter the water the less electric energy I need for splitting the water. The extreme side to this is the thermolysis of water, where the water splits due to the high temperature without any electricity involved at all.
So as Puharich himself stated, his process is an extremely efficient electric electrolysis process, so that with the help of the additional heat energy one is able to get above 100% in relation to electric input at room temperature. I think he mentioned something like 110 or 120%, don't know exactly anymore.

Thank you very much.


I guess this is the voltage over the WFC? It seems a bit strange, as the top ripples, which should come from the AC-wave look more rectangular than tops of sines, but this could well be due to parasitics. It looks like the SS wasn't in such a good shape anymore, as the base electrode potential is quite high.
Interestingly I just woke up and thinking about why he isolated the circuit and came upon the idea, that in the "8xa circuit" he didn't made the switch on/off at the resonance frequency, but rather the rectified AC was already on the resonance frequency of the circuit.
For what I stated above is surely only true if the Ton/Toff is at the resonance frequency. But it surely also works, to have an unrectified AC to get the coils into resonance. To get them into resonance it is only important, that the input voltage gets higher and lower exactly at the resonant frequency. Surely a square wave would be best, but maybe too complicated for Stan to produce in this early stage.
But this would have been a total pain in the a s s  to make the circuit so, as to exactly hit the resonance frequency with a fixed frequency input.
Why did I come upon this?
I was lying in bed and asked myself: Why did he isolate the circuit. There must be a reason for this. The only reason I could get was, that the overall potential might change during a Ton-Gating sequence, but this you could only measure if you don't make any earth connection with your scope to the cell.


I came upon another functional Hypotheses:
Actually this one, I already had a long time ago, but threw it away as I just couldn't image how one could make the corresponding circuit (if it is doable at all), but it now resurfaced. It is interesting to note that in an electrolysis process the splitting of the water molecule needs a different amount of energy at the 2 electrodes. The final reaction at the cathode (Hydrogen production) needs almost no potential and is therefore actually very "cheap" to produce. But the anode-potential is the real bugger, the oxygen atom in the final OH- molecule just wont let go the last hydrogen atom. There a lot of energy is wasted. This is why in optimizing conventional electrolysis processes, one focuses a lot on minimizing this potential.
But what if one creates a process which just focuses on making an asymmetric electrolysis. Namely we just actively try to get a cathode reaction. But this would obviously result in a rise in potential of the water. And here's the problem. Usually if I still try to get even more cathode reaction, I need more and more voltage (which means more energy), as the water already has that voltage. But if there would be any way, that the actual circuit would also rise in potential together with the water bath, it would work. You would get very cheap hydrogen. But there surely would be a point, where the potential cannot be heightened anymore, due to losses to the environment (therefore with this process it would be extremely important to heavily insulate the WFC). When one then does finally Stop the process, the water potential would come down again, and the anode reaction could now take place (for free, as no energy is needed in this step). This could be the reason for gating.
But I don't think this is really a reasonable idea, as if it would be really possible to make such a circuit you would additionally easily be able to produce electricity out of it for free (at the final anode discharge). Strictly speaking this would be a charging of a capacitor with only a linear dependency to voltage, in relation to the actual energy in the capacitor itself which is square to the voltage. I wouldn't see where here the energy should come from, therefore I don't think it's a reasonable theory.


Sorry, this got a bit offtopic in here. But hey here it's now 5 o'clock in the morning...

I think he actually wanted to pulse the electrodes. You could either directly pulse them, which would waste a lot of energy, or you could use a resonant circuit where the unused pulse energy gets recycled.
And as in this Steam-Resonator application the "WFC" does not contribute any relevant feature in the circuit (as L,C or R) it is neglectable in relation to the resonant frequency of the circuit. Therefore the resonant frequency in this application is IMHO only dependent on the coil properties.

The only problem I see is them getting a patent on it.

Yeah, but that's the good side of it. Stan already patented and described everything. So I don't think anyone can still get any valid patent on it anymore.

BTW: I forgot to answer the question in your first post about whether we think there's a resonance.
I personally think that in this specific usage, the "WFC" does not act like a capacity, as there's only one electrode in usage at any time. Therefore the resonant frequency of the circuit is not dependent on the water properties. And therefore you can work with a fixed one time detected resonance frequency.
But that's just my current guess...

I think he meant the upper two cards in the pic (left of the WFC).
I also think that they probably really are part of the Steam resonator. But what happened to it? It really looks like it has been slaughtered (all the cable connections cut). So from the pic posted in the beginning of this thread there's not much informations anymore available of how this thing was interconnected.

Far more information one can get from the pic of the Home Heating Unit.
Here's the Steam-Resonator Driving Circuit of it:
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4135/steamresonatordrivingbo.jpg)

I just shortly drew the interesting connections (as the Transistor's pre-driving circuit isn't really interesting).
So it looks like that:
The computer tells with 4 bits the amplitude of the primary voltage. This is done with the help of a LM317 and an additional Transistor.
Additionally the computer tells the Impulses and which side to drive.
The actual driving circuit is made of 2 PNP transistors (for driving the primaries), and 2 NPN transistors which make a connection to ground (with a diode in series).
So from this one can get the information, that neither of the two available schematic drawings of the Steam-Resonator is really what he used here. IMHO the lower transistors in the never schematic are only needed, if you wanna drive two different Steam resonators at the same time. But in the Home Heating Unit he powered all as one big unit (all tubes in parallel).
What's really interesting is the voltage rating of the transistors. They are only made to withstand 100 Volts. Also the Diodes used are only rated for 100 Volts.
Well for the primary driving circuit this is surely no problem. But the part which connects the Tubes to ground is problematic. Sure, if the transistor is on, all the voltage will drop over the resistor, and the transistor will be fine. But here's the problem: The other Transistor (on the other electrode) is not turned on during this time. This means it would have the full cell voltages on the transistor.
So my conclusion is: Either the Resonator only worked with very low voltages (< 100V) or the Electrode(s) were coated with some insulator.
Or any other ideas, which could yield an explanation for this?
Edit:
Another IMHO interesting detail: The Transistors are not mounted on a heat sink. This actually indicates, that besides the fact that this thing drives this huge Steam-Resonator, not much energy is needed.

@ HMS-776:
No the clean Tube you see in the WFC wasn't connected. The Steam resonator wasn't in there. It was in the water tank.

I made the core out of a microwave transformer core..

IMHO this core is not really usable for this application, for the laminations are way too thick (as it's designed for 60Hz). You will get too much eddy currents at the proposed frequencies and therefore will have too many losses, which will result in a small q-factor.
As I already mentioned before: If you wanna take a laminated steel core, the laminations have to be thin. Just look at Stans steel-core: There the laminations were also thin. But I think also, that a Ferrite-core is probably a simpler solution. The main difference is, that the steel-core has much higher saturation values, but a smaller permeability, whereas for ferrite, this is usually the opposite (high permeability, low saturation)

How much energy in watts  per hour (or joules) needed to spend to convert 1 liter of water in gas? I am interested in the efficiency of the cell.

Ahh, BTW. I just remembered, that Stan himself calculated the efficiency of his early cell in the independent evaluation report. There he calculated something like an efficiency factor of 300 times (input vs output).

I used 3 4007 diodes in parallel and work fine in the vic...

I absolutely wouldn't recommend using any 1N400X in any power switching supply. They are intended mainly as rectifier diodes for mains applications (60Hz). Their switching time is about 1000 times slower than that of a MUR.
Why not using UF400X diodes, if money is short. They are also quite cheap, and much faster. Or did you already use the UF-types?


EDIT:

I finally found now some time to have another short look at the original VIC-board.
A few things are interesting.
First, it is really exactly the circuit from the patent (WO9207861).
Second. The designer of the board made a layout error. The primary driving circuit, as it is in the patent is correct. But the board layout is wrong. The two resistors for the first transistor are connected the wrong way around. Therefore Stan had to wire the VCO-Out directly to the correct resistor.

I already thought it very strange, that Stan added these dividers for the PLL-Signal in the patent circuit. As this wouldn't make any sense, to divide the signal here, as the pickup-signal and the driving signal have the same frequency. But as can be seen on the original board, he didn't use them. He just used them to divide the signal down for display on the LED, for nothing else...
One thing is still strange. Namely that he wired the neg of the primary over an RC-damper to the comparator input.  First I thought he wired it to the VCO-out, but it only looks like that on first sight (quite hard to differentiate the two blue wires).
Finally one could say, that today, one would really just replace almost the complete board by just one microcontroller. Only the Pickup-Signal, and some driving circuitry would be additionally needed. The driving of the primary one would most probably do with a FET and some special FET-driver-IC (much simpler, than this cascade of transistors).