Kali_ma_Amar

@Tony: Just a little addition. The scope shot you show is wrong in one relation, because you didn't turn the shot upside down, but turned it 180° so the time on your shot is backwards running! Just to mention the difference to my corrected scope shot.
@sebosfato: BTW. What kind of pulsing circuitry are you using. The NE555 Stuff? I would recommend you do it like I did, e.g. I just took a small Microcontroller plugged some VFD to it and soldered a small joystick on it. Finished. Very easy to adjust and to build, and the best part is, the uC already has a comparator on it for easy pickup-coil sensing and self-adjusting. Maybe you can do something similar for yourself.
BTW, when we are just talking about this: When you look at the patent circuit, you see how he designed the circuit, and from this you can definitely say, it is not in a flyback configuration.


Edit: Here's a pic of my driver (on the right side is the coil driver circuit): (as you can see, I'm not a friend of nice packaging )
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/1231/driverp.jpg)

The very short impulses you see when switching in transformers occurs, is usually due to the stray inductances. These are the more extreme, the steeper your dv/dt is. E.g. they occur most badly on rectangular waveforms. Usually you use small snubber circuits to get rid of them, so that they are not able to destroy your parts.

Kali,
the scope shot is correct the way it was.The unipolar pulses are the large humps,and the high frequencies are riding ontop of it,because both signals are meshed together.

I think you don't understand what I mean. It is obviously like I said, as the scope is indicating at the left side it's reference potential. Surely your pic is correct, how could it not be, one ist just not used to the fact, that the zero potential is just somewhere and not in the middle. And it is perhaps a bit unusual to see the voltage waveform in reverse. these 2 things I corrected just visually. It remains the same scope shot.

If you turn off the high frequencies,all you will see are the 120hz pulses from the rectified ac coming out of the vari-ac.

Yes, if you turn off the gating, you will only see the rectified AC. But the gating pulses on the SCR are IMHO not the pulses you see additionally in the pic. But the pulses you can adjust simply either allow these SCR-pulses to happen or not. So the resonance voltage want's to switch the SCR on and off, but the gating is needed to allow this to happen or not.
This would at least be my current opinion. But I'm at replicating the circuit, so we'll see.


@Sebastof:
Now I start to understand what you mean.
It is funny. Already since a long time ago, I had almost the same idea, how the circuit worked. Just until Don trashed my idea, by saying he's sure it wasn't connected like that. But the other variant also makes sense, just in another way.
I got this idea when I first started my research on Stan and wrote my "History of the VIC" back at waterfuelcell.org.
At these times not so much facts were known as now, as in the meantime people like Don could see the real stuff.
Back then I came to the conclusion as you, that the bifilars have to be wired with the same polarity to the WFC.
At that time my thought was, that if you wanna have a high voltage, and if you wire them bifilar, you simply cannot have a high voltage in between the coils. It would just rupture your isolation.
As you I came to the conclusion, that the resonant chokes are just a tank circuit with the WFC, exactly like a Tesla coil.
If you want to go further in this direction, I can tell you some things I already discovered. The capacity of the WFC to ground is so small, in relation to the capacity of the coil, that it is almost completely neglectable. Sure you would still need a Delrin coating around the WFC, either way, as a high voltage is on it. And you would surely want to have an earthed metal around it, for without it, even after 2cm of delrin, you would have quite some static field outside without it.
One question for me, like you now, was: Should the primary be loosely coupled or not to the resonant chokes. As you can see from the SSTCs, if you are able to feed every cycle power into the coil, and if your isolation allows it, it is better to make the coupling as tight as possible. On the other hand, you don't additionally charge the capacity every time with an additionally secondary on a normal SSTC. The problem is certainly your primary driver. Namely how much voltage can it withstand. I think therefore Stand introduced the freewheeling diode in his patent driving circuit. Surely the diode will always eat up some energy, on the other hand it allows the voltage to go higher than the Transistor could withstand, and as it seems, Stans transistors could not withstand a lot of voltage. But the freewheeling loss would still be quite significant and definitely limit your Q-factor to quite a low value. But on ther other hand, I don't think you will get a high Q with such a coil arrangement anyway.
Therefore it could make sense to have a loose coupling between the chokes and the primary. But how can you achieve this, when you have a core? By using SS wire. This will drastically increase the seen "stray inductance" (uncoupled inductance).
Therefore I wound my SS chokes on the outside of the 6-1 coil, as there it would be outside the primary field. Another point, why I thought the chokes were on the outside was, that I thought, that it would be almost impossible to isolate them from the primary, if they were on the inside. And as the chokes are connected to the WFC, they should develop a very high voltage.
Well, let's say, quite some things changed since a few days...Always on the move...Again thanks to Don to share these pics and info with all of us. This is certainly not something everybody would have done!

When you fresearch Tesla's resonant charging circuit, you will see a doubling of frequency, or pulses.
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html

Actually this is one of my hate sites (no offense), when it goes about Stan. Surely everything is correct what Richie says, but it seems most people do not understand what he is explaining. I wouldn't call it a DC-resonance, as it is IMHO simply not a resonance, but rather a correct timing, but on the Tesla-sites this naming has become standard, so be it.  But this is just a matter of definition. It simply says, that by correct timing you can double your DC voltage output without any diode.
On the site he also states, that by introducing the diode, you actually get rid off all these timing problems. Nothing is there anymore of these problems. So, as Stan used a diode, you can forget about it, as having any timing relevance whatsoever. Or simply said: By introducing the diode, it is not a "DC resonant" circuit anymore.

So when the pulse ends the charge accumulated in the cell will discharge thru tx5 so tx5 become a kind of primary that will induce another pulse in the cell restricting the amp.

This sounds a very strange theory to me, as when you do not put anymore externally some energy in it. The core will simply try to get rid of the field, and as all are on the same core, one coil cannot act as a primary for another, for all are just on the same core which is getting rid of his field. Finally this will result in having a completely zero field, but a lot of charged capacitances on the core, which will now again discharge, and there, they act again like a primary which will then again induce a current in the opposite direction (a resonant circuit).
But yes, if you mean, that the stray inductances of the bifilars which are not shared by the secondary could act as a primary, then I understand waht you mean. But then they would have different resonance frequencies. Is that what you mean?
Edit:

Ah now I see, you mean the WFC capacity is discharging again. But this still is IMHO exactly the same situation, just with an external capacity. Did you already try a simulation of your idea?

really shitty doing this with no equip but the lrc meter  will be all that i will use.. and the sound card scope.-

Gee, I admire your efforts at these conditions. I have all I need: Scopes, Frequency Generator, etc. As this is needed for part of my profession...


About the resistive wire:
I made my 6-1 coil with SS chokes. But the usual testing cores are just copper. IMHO the resistive wire is only needed in special conditions, namely when the WFC has a very high resistance (is very small), like e.g. for the injectors. Or the SS wire is also handy for situations where you don't have a core, as the SS will act like a core. But this is just my current opinion.

Just for better understanding. This is the scope pic in the way one usually looks at it. The red line is zero reference.
(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3618/dsc0107modified.jpg)
As you can see, it makes much more sense like that. As I again looked at the "8xA circuit" I realized that he didn't switch the gate as one usually does. This is very clever. As in his way, the SCR switches exactly synchronous with the resonating coils, you only have to do the gating.

the tuned coil will induce the double frequency pulse in the secondary and the choke so they must have a good coupling

I actually don't quite get, what you exactly mean here. From where should the secondary get a second pulse?
IMHO the resonant chokes themselves will do a pulsing. Therefore strictly speaking it would IMHO not be necessary to have the secondary and the chokes on the same core. But it is certainly a big advantage if you do, as like that you will be able to directly push the chokes with the primary, and can so transfer them much more energy every cycle (which will result in much higher voltages), than just by charging their capacity every cycle, like you do if you have them separate.
But as I said, everybody is welcome for his theory...The final outcome is what's important...

 

First about the WFC, and it's diode capabilities:
I thought it is due to an inhomogeneous E-Field. I realized after some experiments this is not the case. I realized it is due to the Helmholtz-Layer! And if you do some experiments you will realize how extremely it reacts as a diode!!! Absolutely no current in the other direction. And if you think about it, you realize it is even quite logical, it is btw extremely similar to the PN-junction of a conventional diode, but just with ions.
Ha, as I was out in the woods with my bike, I always thought about the scope pic Don sent. I always thought, this output just doesn't make sense, if it's wired like that, and then I  finally realized. that the wiring in the pic of the "8xA circuit" is probably wrong.
And as I thought about it, together with the diode fact above, I realized how it could work. And if it is like that, then both Don and I were right and wrong. I was right, when I presumed that the later VIC is just an extension of the "8xA circuit", but was wrong, when thinking that the wiring was like in the pic.


I don't know, if it is really like I think it is, but it would make perfect sense. It would easily explain all the following points:
* it explains why on some WFCs a VIC with resistive wire in the choke coils is needed, and for others not. And it would absolutely not work just to add a resistor in the circuit instead of the resistive wire!
*  It is said, that it was seen that Stan introduced some white powder in the cell, which he demonstrated for the experts in the court case. And this would perfectly made sense. It explains why the cells for the older circuits (8XA) need tap water or even sometimes some electrolyte in it (depending on the tap water).
* It easily explains why the 8XA circuit needs an adjustable WFC plate distance. But not to alter the capacitance...
* It explains why distilled water would work best, but only with the VIC. It wouldn't work with the earlier circuits.
*  it explains why he could change the voltage of the primary in the VIC. I always thought this is strange, as quite some circuitry is need for this and it wastes quite some electrical energy. As if you would like to change the amount of gas produced you would just switch it on and off with a certain duty cycle, so why change the amplitude?. But to be able to change this primary voltage amplitude is according to this theory an absolute must, for the VIC circuit to work correctly to split the water.


Final thought: It would split the water just with an E-field (just as Stan said), and really almost no current would flow in the circuitry. There surely wouldn't be any substantial conventional electrolysis happening...

Looks like I will have something to test this weekend...
Maybe there's something behind this idea, or not. I will see. Probably it's just another theory going down the grave...

@ sebosfato: How does your 6-1 coil look like? Here's a pic of mine:
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6897/my61.jpg)


Edit:
Some tests later...

I realized that the faster waveform you see overlayed actually is the SCR switching frequency. IMHO it is only able to switch there, because the coils are resonating (an SCR can only switch off, if there's no current flowing). This actually means, it can be, that the actual original "8xA circuit", could be really wired like that, and not differently.


@sebosfato:
Up until know, I also always thought, that the two choke coils do have the same polarity to the cell, as this would be IMHO the only solution how you can get high voltages on the bifilars without destroying their insulation. But as Don described, he is sure this wasn't the case. And as can be seen in the 5-coil-vic he surely didn't always wind them bifilar.
Actually for me, both versions do make sense. But now, as I have now my theory, I know what kind of signal I would like to get (low voltage DC on the cell followed by a very short HV negative pulse). So first I will replicate the 8xA and see which coil wiring gives the pic as made by Don and from there on continue...
It is really annoying. To get this waveform would be such easy if there would be any FET which could withstand several KV (just one coil parallel to the WFC). But at about 1'500V is the upper limit for electric switches. If you want more, you need quite a complicated and expensive circuitry with stacked FETs. So IMHO we need a circuit which gets this waveform, in quite an easy way.

BTW: If you wire them with the same polarity to the cell, you actually get a circuit which works exactly as Dr Stiffler's electrolyser.

I realized that just by thinking about or simulating it, you can't get too far, as he obviously needed some parasitic values for the resonance of the coils, and here is the big question, which ones, to be able to really make the correct schemata of the real circuit. My experiments so far tend to show, that the distributed capacitance within the coils themselves is probably the major factor. It is IMHO definitively not the capacity of the WFC. And it is IMHO also not the capacitance between the choke coils, therefore it is not needed that they have to be wound bifilar. They just need to have exactly the same properties (L, R and C), so that they do have the same frequency and voltage (and wiring them bifilar is the easiest way of getting there). But it wouldn't be good to have a high coil capacity, as in a resonating circuit, the voltage gets higher the smaller the capacity. How can you make the capacity smaller? By wiring the coils in sections, like in the 6-1 coil. Surely this wiring in sections is also perfect for insulation purposes, so you get 2 for one...

First: Thank you very very much for your answers, really!

That's just a hole in the bobbin to see that the cores

Could it be, that maybe he made the hole to be able to insert anything in there, so that the core gets a little gap?
For this is surely an important fact for me. If it was really ungapped, I would bet my left hand and right foot, that the core goes into saturation. This would actually mean, that suddenly all the resonance frequencies would drastically increase in the middle of every half-wave, which means the dU/dt values would rise a lot.

The 8xa circuit drives the choke coil with a rectified ac wave and square waves.It gives a totally different output to the coils.

Actually if you test it, it doesn't really make any difference in this setup in relation to the resonance if you use a square wave or a rectified AC wave. You can see this very clearly if you modulate any wave pattern from the frequency generator with the overlaying on off timing. The only important thing would be to correctly time them on and off (namely at the resonance frequency). The kind of wave pattern you switch on and off is actually not really that important (although a square wave pattern can surely boost your resonance to the highest voltage, for obvious reasons). In this crude setup, which was surely one of his earlier ones, IMHO he just still needed the unfiltered rectified AC Signal to be able to switch it with a SCR.
At least this is the conclusion I drew, by experimenting with this early circuit setup.
Surely this is only true in relation to getting the resonance (the coil part). The actual wave-pattern itself is additionally seen directly by the resistance of the WFC. If it then makes a difference in the overall functioning , I don't know, but I don't think so. But as long as not anyone is really able to replicate a working VIC, which yields more hydrogen than it should, IMHO everyone is allowed to have his theory, as how exactly these circuits split water more effectively than "generally allowed" .


I personally would currently have 2 main suggestions how he did split the water:
1.) He used the uneven E-Field distribution in a water cell (Helmholtz-Layer) to get the necessary high E-field for splitting water. The needed E-Field is quite high. According to the Tay-Hee Han patent (US patent 4427512) at least an E-field of 20kV/mm is needed. IMHO he manipulated the Helmholtz-Layer with the help of the "choke coils" in a basic circuit very similar to Dr. Stifflers circuit.


2.) He used a system, as described by the professor in the evaluation report. Namely, that he does let the normal brownian movement do the work to ionize the water, and then separates these ions from each other with the help of an E-field. If he then neutralizes them again (collapsing of the E-Field), you will have an electrolysis which is much more efficient than usual, as the additional energy is coming from the heat energy of the water. But if this system was used, then the WFC should have substantially dropped in temperature. In the smaller 3inch cells, it would have frozen the water, if it would not have been continuously run through the cell to prevent this. But as this is not the case, as I understood Stan, this hypothesis is not that solid.

Hi,
I'm new on this forum and just read through this topic. But some questions/comments arrived:
@Dynodon:

The core was two flat U cores about an 1/8 inch thick and about 1/2 wide

Jesus, was the core area really that small on this 5-Coil-VIC? Is that a screw in between the 2 choke coils on the pic, or is this the core? If it's the core, then from the picture it looks definitely gapped. This would be for me actually the only explanation, how a core with such a small core area could have been used without being saturated. Although if only a small current is flowing, with that many windings (from the pic and AWG size I would guess about 2'000 per bobbin), it would certainly saturate any ungapped Iron-powder or ferrite core. I would even have doubts if a steel core could handle it with such a small core area.
If it is an ungapped core, then the only conclusion I could draw is, that he intentionally let the core go into saturation.

Alan,you can use a voltage divider.Get 10 each  1megaohm resistors and hook them up in series.Hook one end to the cell positive and the other end to ground.Then hook the scope probe between the 9th and 10th resistor.That would be closer to the ground end of the resistor dividers.This will give you a divide by 10 output to the scope.With a probe set on 10x and this divider,you'll get 100:1 ratio.

Just a little correction. I think you accidently made here a mistake by saying only 1MOhm instead of 10, for at the beginning of the thread you explained it correctly. To get a 100:1 with a 10:1 probe you need 9x10MOhm resistors. That means actually a resistance of 90MOhms. Your 10:1 probe has internally a 9MOhm resistor. The oscilloscope has a 1Mohm input resistance. So you will now have in total 90MOhm from your resistors+9Mohm from your probe+1Mohm from the oscilloscope=Total of 100MOhm. As the scope has a 1MOhm input, it will see only 1/100 of the total voltage.
So again in a short version: You need to place 90MOhm (eg. 9pcs of 10MOhm resistors) in between your 10xprobe and the cell to measure at 100:1. Voilà!


Did you actually really exactly look, how the coils were interconnected, or is this just a guess. As I understand you say, they were all connected in series with the WFC in between all in the same orientation. This means: If the primary gets current, then: The pos side of the secondary goes to the diode. The pos side of the first choke coil goes to the WFC. The pos side of the second choke coil is again at the secondary.


Additional question, which I think could be important. Did you see, if he electrically isolated the circuit, or was it grounded. Was the neg side of the secondary anywhere connected except the second choke coil, or was there any other ground connection (E.g. was the diode in the 5-coil-VIC mounted with isolation)?


Additional question: Somewhere here in the forum you state, that the "8XA-Circuit" wasn't a resonance circuit. How did you get to this conclusion?
I don't want to offend you, but I think it actually is. If you simply connect and drive it in the way Stan did, you will clearly see, that at a certain frequency you will get a resonance.
(I attached a small pic of my scope which shows the resonance condition. Unfortunately I could only drive the circuit with 20Volts, as my frequency generator surely cannot output more. I also only made very few windings, therefore the resonance frequency is a bit high (25 KHz), but I think the basic principle remains the same.


If one does look at how he connected the choke coils in this "8XA-Circuit", it is obvious, that if he really connected them like that, then they surely do not limit current in any way, as they cancel each others field out and are only seen as a resistance by the input voltage. But due to the capacitance in the system (and I don't mean the WFC capacitance, as this capacitance is at least for this circuit almost completely neglectable), the system is able to start to resonate and the voltage of the coils rise.
(http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5135/yellowonwfcbluefgsignal.gif)
Blue: Input Signal after the Diode
Yellow: Signal on WFC (first choke coil side)
Red: Voltage over first choke coil


If this is really how this "8XA-Circuit" worked. Then it would make sense, that he introduced the primary/secondary (in a forward converter usage) as a replacement for the direct connection of the input voltage. But if the 5-Coil-VIC really would also have worked on the same basic principle, then the choke coils would have been wired differently (namely the same way, as in the "8XA-Circuit"). Therefore my above question about the wiring and orientation. If you say, that the choke coils in the VIC you saw were definitely (100% sure) not connected like that (same polarity to WFC), then that's OK, but I just wanted to be sure about that.


I would be really grateful if you could shed some light on these points, as you are the only one I know, who actually really saw Stan's originals.

I would go for what stan said, oriented grain electrical steel laminations. This is made to work at high frequencies.

Just to mention: The most important factor, when it goes about laminated steel cores and frequency is lamination thickness. If you go by the frequencies here used, i would say, the laminations should be <= 0.25mm. And to get cores with such thin laminations is not that easy. Audio-Transformers usually have them, as they also operate at these frequencies.

As someone asked in the VIC-Thread about the efficiency of Stans WFC, I remembered, that Stan calculated something in the "Independent Test Evalutation Report". So I looked now again for it, and found it on page 60.
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/1130/stanefficiencycalculati.jpg)


But if you look closer at the values, it gets quite obvious, that Stan is doing some serious mistakes here.
Let's go through his "points":

1) Tested Electrical Power Loading: 12.5VDC@40Amps=500Watts.

I'm quite curious how exactly he measured this. In between the WFC and the alternator???
The main problem here is, that if you don't have a nice known curve, it is very difficult to exactly calculate the real power needed. But let's assume these values are correct.

2) Tested Gas Rate: 1 liter cavity@7lbs/min Gas Production Rate.

The big question is, how exact this 1 liter cavity size is. I would say, it's easily possible to have here quite some tolerances.

3) 1 Liter Cavity = 1000 cc of Gas Volume = 1lb Gas Pressure

Here is one of Stans biggest mistakes. 1psi gas pressure would not equal 1000 cc of gas volume. 1 bar of gas pressure would equal 1 liter more gas. And one bar is about 14.5psi.

4) 1'000 cc x 7lbs/Min = 7'000 cc Gas Volume/min.

As already stated, the actual volume of gas produced, indicated by the pressure of 7lbs, would be much smaller. It would actually be only about 480 cc Gas volume/min.


Now let's go to point 8, where he calculated the conventional "Faraday electrolysis":

1cc Gas Production Rate per (1) amp/hr@2Volts Electrical Power Loading

Unfortunately this is the other big mistake of Stan. Everywhere in his notes he always states, that conventional Faraday electrolysis only produces 1 cc of gas with 1 Amp in 1 hour. But this is far from the true value, and I have no idea how Stan got this value.
The real value for conventional electrolysis is easily calculable. And you get a figure of about 620 cc Gas (H2 + O2) per 1 amp in one hour.

This relativates the figures enormously:
Stans Rotary VIC: One Tube has 12.5V at 4.4Amps and delivers about 53 cc gas volume/min
Conventional electrolysis with 2V at 4.4Amps delivers 45.5 cc gas volume/min

As you can see, the figures are almost the same. If you now take into account, that there were probably quite some tolerances in Stans measurement, it's even thinkable, that it is the same as for conventional electrolysis.
But then Stans rotary VIC would have been much less efficient than conventional electrolysis, as he used 12Volts instead of 2. Which means 6times less efficient.

IMHO there could be some points which could explain this outcome:
First, if the simple rotary alternator VIC, was really that bad in efficiency and actually did nothing else but conventional electrolysis.
Second, if the measurements of his used current were completely wrong. E.g. if you have a resonance circuit and you measure the current in there, you will see a lot of current going in and out, but no actual power needed for that. So if he measured the current from the alternator to the WFC, and if there was a resonance, then it is very likely that the amps rating Stan used was way too high in respect to the really needed input power.

Edit:
Ahh,  think I just realized, why Stan made the pressure error. It looks like his pressure indicator had 1psi offset. So that it displayed 1 psi at ambient pressure. So he thought, that the ambient had 1psi pressure.
This would actually mean, that the produced gas would be only responsible for an increase of 6psi. And if you calculate that, you get 45.7 cc gas volumen/min at 4.4Amps which is really exactly (just a minor tolerance) the same as that of the conventional electrolysis.

Well what this part of the circuit does, is obvious, it is an "inverting summing amplifier". Which means, that it sums up the two inputs. Why he used two inputs, instead of the one in the patent Fig 4 is another question. Both inputs first have a voltage follower for decoupling and then they both go with the same resistance in the inverting summing amplifier. Which means, their input is added equally (summed up).
Maybe he just wanted to have the option to be able to have different circuits telling the VIC at which voltage it should run. If he used it is another question. Did he wire both of the OpAmp inputs to the Sub-D Plug?
But all in all, I don't think that this is really an important point, as it only controls the analog voltage level.


IMHO the really interesting part is the workaround he did with the comparator input, and the fact that he routed 3 different signals from the Q8-region to the connector. The big question is, which signal did he really use to drive the TIP120? And the other question: Where does the red wire, which is connected to the neg of the primary (by the blue wire), really go? It looks like it is going where actually one of the resistors should have been soldered. But it looks like this resistor was not soldered, but instead the ground connection of it was used for a capacitor and the other connection for the red wire. If it was really connected like that, then the actual circuit is a completely different one!!! It would behave completely different, than the one in the patent circuit!