Great! GAS!!! Do your want to share some pictures of your setup and circuit connections? Also what type of core and WFC you used?
Got scope shots?
Br, Webmug
Heh, yah, I'm going to document and label the whole setup so I can recreate it again. I also need to clean up my work area which is a major mess first.
Not sure the scope shots will help too much. It's only single sided so you can't see the 180 on it. But you would be able to see the resonance storm signals as I will call it.
Interestingly, there is no step up from primary to secondary either, straight 1:1:1:1:1 for all the coils. Air core.
Yesterday I pulled out a very crude coil set that I had made for an earlier experiment. I made the coil with 5 wire strands (1 x 28g and 4 x 22g). They are all wound parallel (quintifilar? ). Anyway, since they all share a core, I decided to give it a try with the VIC circuit. It took about 5 different connection combinations before 1. I got gas, and 2. I was able to witness the actual current limiting effect at resonance. I had a small analog ammeter in line with the cell and was able to observe it dropping to 10mA and vibrating at the exact same moments that the VIC circuit was locked in at resonance and then see the current go back up when the circuit was tuned out of resonance. I was sort of shocked by this as this was the first time I could see a steady flow of HHO from the cell using Tony's VIC circuit.
Thought I should share and get some feedback on this.
I have a scope. Not sure what you mean by "VIC pack".
The coils I was using in this instance are: primary 100 22g secondary 44 g resistor wire (450 turns) total resistance 9.6k L1 44g resistor wire (100 to 110 turns) 1.9k L2 44g resistor wire (100 to 110 turns) 2.1k Feedback 44g copper wire (100 turns)
Anyone reporting gas production with Tony's recreation of SM VIC?
My success has been limited, but I have manged to get a minuscule amount of gas production with no visible amps being used. I used a ammeter that measures from 1 to 50 mA only and the meter didn't even register 1mA.
Thanks for the post. I had the same in mind. Only you already took a head start I'm convinced that PC testing will rapidly give away the secrets of the VIC.
About your project setup; I would like to know more about it and assist where possible. Gumstix technology is new for me but programming and setting up a testenvironment shouldn't be an issue.,
I took already a look at the gumstix website but don't know which module you would use/are using? More details would be greatly appreciated.
Just one remakr about the setup you had in mind, instead of silmulating/mimicking the VIC properties I would in a first step suggest to monitor the vics behaviour. This would already reveal a lott of its functionalities. What do you think?
Looking forward for your answer.
Waterfuel
I'm actually more interested in duplicating the description by Meyers. Since nobody has the original VIC operating exactly as Meyers did, there is not really any way to know for sure that a replica VIC is really working correctly anyway. Incidentally, when we talk about the VIC in this context, I presume we are referring to the VIC PWM, not the VIC itself which is simply the coils, diode and water cell.
I will add details to the above subject including which gumstix and modules I use. But essentially, Any of the Overo's can be used along with any module that has the 40 pin breakout (which has 4 PWM pins on it).
This is interesting. I'm also interested to know how most people experiment in here. The use of computers might greatly help in finding a more automated way of testing and eventually come up with a solution. Or am I looking at things way to basic?
Also, instead of building yet another cel and doing the same kind of experiments over and over, why not join forces? Would'nt that be more usefull?
Just my 2 cents.
Grave
I haven't gotten very far with this yet, but you may want to watch this subject. I have a number of elements for this project already and will just need to find some time to put it together.
I've been meaning to do some live experiments with this concept. I just finished up with college (today), so I should have the time in the next few weeks.
I'll have to see about that core issue. Thanks,
Warm regards,
Derek
That core "issue" may not be an issue at all. It may actually be desired. If you look at Bob Boyce's d9.pdf, he specifically uses the toroid core to combine the frequencies. Stan's core already does this just by having everything on one core. I'm suspecting that was the point was so that the beat frequency was creating there.
I haven't dabbled much lately other than theories and simulations.
Timeshell, interesting analogy. With the two different wire lengths in the choke, it brings about a Beat Frequency Effect, like the Water Hammer Effect found in water pipes. That's what I think is going on.
Here's another bug. If the chokes are on the same core, I don't think that they can create differing frequencies. The frequency generated would be dependant on whether the core had a field on it or not. Since both coils would be contributing to the field on the core, the beat frequency would have to be manifest there as the sum of the two frequencies. Only the beat frequency would be present on the WFC.
Just had another thought after considering my last post a little more.
I often try to perceive electricity flow as water flow to visualize how it reacts in a circuit. Let's do this for a second.
Imagine a container with two pipes connected to it to represent our WFC. However, this container is filled with a mixture of electrons and protons, which are naturally attracted to each other. Now , importantly, we have to remember that this container is filled with a mixture of two distinctly different things, protons and electrons, and that we need two different forces to affect them.
Now, let's say one of the pipes coming off this container is bigger than the other pipe AND this pipe only draws protons (yes I know protons don't move, but this is a concept). A volume of protons is drawn out slowly due to a lower pressure exerted from the larger pipe, dragging its electrons that are naturally attracted to it with it. This naturally represents a higher current and lower voltage in electrical terms.
Then let's say the other pipe coming off this container is smaller than the other AND this pipe only draws the electrons. A volume of electrons is drawn out quickly due to the higher pressure exerted on it by the smaller pipe, pulling against the force coming from the pressure of the larger pipe. This naturally represent a higher voltage and lower current in electrical terms.
Then to top it off, the two pipes are being pulsed at different rates.
With this visualization in mind, what do you suppose would be the net effect on the flow on this container of protons and electrons?
Just had a thought to add. Having the two chokes wound on the same core essentially makes them a transformer. As we know with a transformer, the voltage and current between coupled coils are relative. On a 1:1 winding, the voltage and current should be the same across both coils. However at any other ratio one coil will have a higher voltage with a lower current and the other coil will have a higher current with a lower voltage.
What does this mean? This means that 1) there will be a higher or lower voltage across the terminal endpoints connecting to the WFC depending on how it is wired and 2) there will be a higher or lower current across the terminal endpoints connecting to the WFC depending on how it is wired and 3) there may be a power phase difference at both terminals of the WFC.
Point 3) is rather interesting to me. If we are exerting this unsync'd phase approach on the water molecules what would be the effect on them? In theory, shouldn't both sides of the WFC be in sync in order to exert maximum force on the water molecules?
I have to admit, this is sort of bothering me also. He doesn't show a true path for the electrons to go to once liberated from the water. The circuit is left incomplete. The only thing I can think of to complete the circuit is a center tap on the secondary OR that it dissipates as radiant energy, like a Tesla coil.
I have a problem with that explanation. Once we start consuming power from the circuit in this fashion, we no longer have real over unity. We end up with a power in equals power out situation. You will never get more from the system if electron transfer in the system must originate from the VIC. As i understand it, the SM system described doesn't require electron transfer. It requires a voltage at a frequency that is able to exert an attraction force in such a way that the molecule is pulled apart. Since voltage can be exerted without current consumption, this becomes an ability to exploit the properties of water with minimal power.
Here's something else I've been considering for a while and has recurred to me last night. The water doesn't actually need to be in direct contact with the SS does it? I mean, the whole point of this SM's design is to use high charges to pull apart the water molecule, like using magnetic forces. With the water actually being a lossy dielectric, couldn't we just isolate the SS tubes from the water with some sort of sealant; urethane or epoxy or something? This would allow a higher voltage charge on the cell, prevent electron transfer to the water, and create additional resistance in the circuit.
This would possibly produce the same effect as the oxide skin, except be more permanent.
Incidentally, as I am sure everyone aware, it's not the oxidization of iron (in other words what we know as rust) that I have been referring to. Rust is obviously not desirable. I'd very strongly suggest research into the properties of electrolytic capacitors including how they are made to understand why turning the water cell into an electrolytic capacitor would be desirable in this context.
The oxidized elements (nickel and chromium) create a dielectric layer on the cell. This would accomplish 2 things. First it increases capacitance of the cell allowing it to accept a higher voltage charge which is important for voltrolysis. The second is that with an additional dielectric layer you have higher resistance. Both of these would be desirable in replicating SM system (in theory). We can only say otherwise either way when someone does manage to fully replicate the effect.
Using a type of SS that oxidizes appropriately is important as the oxidization creates a secondary dielectric layer in the cell. This in turn creates more resistance in the circuit. 316L does NOT oxidize very well at all. This isn't to say that we want the cell to rust. However, the oxidizing element (can't remember if it was the nickel or the chromium) will create a very thin white film on the outside of the cell. I am pretty sure 304 will create this effect also, but SM may have discovered that 410 does it better.
Essentially, what this does is turn the water cell into an electrolytic capacitor.
I believe the answer to your first question is both yes and no, depending on the quality of the water and level of oxidization. I believe the answer to your second question is 410 may be better to use but I have not actually tested this to be true.
I have updated my original post above with the actual configs of the circuits. I've noticed that if the resistors are not right (if they are too high or too low value) depending on the specific circuit that the voltage is pretty much lost across the "water molecule". I suspect this may be part of the reason for the variable inductor used by Meyers, but only part. So far it seems that the resistor value on the side with the diode may be more important than the other one.
). Anyway, since they all share a core, I decided to give it a try with the VIC circuit. It took about 5 different connection combinations before 1. I got gas, and 2. I was able to witness the actual current limiting effect at resonance. I had a small analog ammeter in line with the cell and was able to observe it dropping to 10mA and vibrating at the exact same moments that the VIC circuit was locked in at resonance and then see the current go back up when the circuit was tuned out of resonance. I was sort of shocked by this as this was the first time I could see a steady flow of HHO from the cell using Tony's VIC circuit.