WFC VIC
Started by unknown · · 434 posts · last reply 2 May 2014
-
#151 · date not recorded
When you fresearch Tesla's resonant charging circuit, you will see a doubling of frequency, or pulses.
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html -
#152 · date not recorded
QuoteKali,
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.
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.QuoteIf 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!QuoteWhen you fresearch Tesla's resonant charging circuit, you will see a doubling of frequency, or pulses.
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.
http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/dcreschg.html
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. -
#153 · date not recorded
Also, the VIC wil only output spikes, because the input is a blockpulse, induced emf = - dPhi/dt (edit minus actually), thus a spike will occur on the rising and falling edge, during high state, the output of the VIC is low.
Some VIC illustrations show a blockpulse on the input, which induces spikes.
Others show pulses with a rounded top, which induces the same signal on the output.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, it's been a while. -
#154 · date not recorded
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. -
#155 · date not recorded
I also thought this recently but is not alan, The transformer must not work in the kick back mode but normal transformer mode. I think.
Meyer gave us calculations for common transformers and not even one kickback calculation. this reinforce what i feel now.
-
#156 · date not recorded
Actually the scope shot is up side down. The reason for this is because of what you are referencing the signal to. I've tested this with my scope and I've had the same thing happen, where my image would be opposite to what it actually is. if you look at the image below you'll see that this is correct.
(http://www.globalkast.com/images/stanmeyer/8XA_Scope_Shot_from_Don.PNG) -
#157 · date not recorded
@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) -
#158 · date not recorded
Cool, what microcontroller ar you using and how do you vary the values? Potmeters or via telnet? -
#159 · date not recorded
@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.
Nice uC and driver you have Kali_ma_Amar!
@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)
I'm using a STM32 (cortex-m3) uC for PULSE and GATE signal generation. For the feedback and scanner I'm using also Stan his PLL circuit.
I'm very interested if you would share your schematics of your boards.
I'm using a MOSFET driver but want it to swap it to transistor.
br,
Webmug -
#160 · date not recorded
I just realized, that I shouldn't have posted this pic in here. It now gets way too offtopic. Sorry for that.
Just in short. To answer the questions, so that discussions about the VIC can continue.
For big projects I also use the cortex chips (LPCs). But this application needs no CPU power, but a good interface chip (which can drive I/Os). For these I always take the AVRs. To interact with the menu (change values, select mode, etc.), there's an analog joystick soldered on the board.
@Webmug: Why do you wanna change to a transistor design? This application is THE application for FETs (hard switching on and off). Doesn't make absolutely no sense to me, to use transistors. Surely in Stans time, good PowerFETs were not yet available. I just used a good PowerFET together with the usual circuitry (IXDD414 for driving, Z-Diode at the gate and Transil-Diode over the FET, and surely the diode in series with the FET (as in Stans circuit) not to limit resonance). If you work with a low 12V voltage like Stan, then IMHO a transistor would just be a waste of additional energy compared to a good FET. Unfortunately the series-diode is also a big waste but I wouldn't know how to do it otherwise.QuoteFor the feedback and scanner I'm using also Stan his PLL circuit.
Why that? If you have a uC, the uC can easily do the PLL stuff. The frequencies used here are so low , that a uC has surely no problems with that. And you can lock-in much faster in SW. For higher frequencies (>50-100KHz) like used in the SSTCs, the usual PLL circuit, as Stan used is needed, but at <50KHz I would surely just do it in SW.
Back to the VIC. On saturday I replicated the 8xA circuit (I finally found my SCRs ). But the results I got puzzle me even more...I really think understanding the functioning of the 8xA circuit, what the coils really exactly do here and how they interact with the SCR and the pulsing, is one major key in understanding the whole VIC.
-
#161 · date not recorded
@Dynodon:
Actually, if, as you said, the chokes are connected with different potential to the cell, there is IMHO only one possible way of wiring. You said, all coils do have the same orientation. But I'm not sure, if we mean the same. Here an example from a patent:
(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3482/patviccircuitwobsmall.jpg)
Is this the way, the 5-VIC-Coil was wired? As you can see all coils are wound counter-clockwise. And are then connected "in series". Now the question to Don (and only to him): According to your understanding, are the coils in the pic all connected with the same orientation or not?
I would be really grateful for an answer. As the correct wiring is certainly the most important factor, for a replication.
Additional question: The side, where the diode was, was connected to which tube of the WFC. The outer or the inner? Could you see that on the originals?
Edit:
Addtion: I always see new pics pop up every now and then. Don't you wanna make a DVD with all the pics you made of Stans stuff together with the videos made (in good quality) and sell it? I for sure would buy it. -
#162 · date not recorded
I think the inner tube must be the resonant one.
Kalli where did you took this fig from? -
#163 · date not recorded
This is the only pic in which the current from secondary to chokes are countered by induced emf in the 2 chokes, induced by the primary's magnetic field.
In other pics this only happens on the second negative resonant choke. -
#164 · date not recorded
BIG SMILE!
If the 8xA is connected as I think, then the "Amp inhibiting effect" is very strong. 10 volts as circuit input voltage, the coils resonating at +/- 5 volts (not much I know, but limited by the input voltage), but now ask me, what the measured DC input current was after the diode...5uA??!!??yes 5 Microampères not Milliampères. As soon as my usual meter just displayed 0.0mA I looked for my special one which measures only from 0 to 100uA. And then I adjusted the frequency until I just got down to 5uA. Then my idea was immediately:
There must be some AC capacitively fed in over the diode, otherwise I just cannot explain this. I mounted a shunt resistor in between. First very low ohmic...nothing...then I increased until I could see some very short millivolt peaks with a 1kOhm shunt. And the measured voltage and the picture actually shows no capacitive feed. It also shows such a low DC current and no AC!!??!!
I've already seen a lot, but from a pure electrical engineer point of view, I just cannot explain this!!??!! What's going on. I just cannot believe, that the losses in the core are that small (but it's the only explanation), so what's going on? But still the bigger question I have is: What the he** is actually resonating here???
Actually I'm currently really speechless and this doesn't happen often to me
-
#165 · date not recorded
I experimented with the 8xa last summer, videos on youtube, and will be doing so again in the future, now I have a scope and some more ideas, Kali, would you like to get yourself a projects section and share a few things about your 8xa? I'd like to learn from your experiences here too -
#166 · date not recorded
@Kali
Do you think the reason for the low current measure is because you haven't reached the threshold voltage or current to turn the SCR on? -
#167 ·
hello kali, if you make a simple diagram of what you are doing i could try help understand what is happening.. from your description i don't know exactly what are you measuring or doing... -
#168 ·
@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. -
#169 ·
@Kali
Do you think the reason for the low current measure is because you haven't reached the threshold voltage or current to turn the SCR on?
seems like he's playin with figure AA of the evaluation report
-
#170 · date not recorded
This 3-23 vic, apparently uses 25 mA out of resonance, and then drops down to 1-2 mA, so not much power being sent through the core. Voltage is unknown, but from the control patent, a guess might be around 650 volts, with mentions of 2000 volts and 5000 volts...
When you say Don you mean Dynodon right? I'f you're looking for me say Donald
Also if you are not using an SCR with this 8xa system you will get a different response, because a SCR is like two transistors in one, changes the interaction, to what end, is up for research. He did switch to a transistor in later systems, but there are also other fundamental changes to accompany that transformation.
Stan also mentions the water molecule as a micro capacitor, and when it is stretched, the dielectric properties increase, because if the lone pair electrons on the oxygen are father away from the hydrogen atoms then the dipole increases. This may be related to the capacitor effect you are referring too. -
#171 · date not recorded
QuoteThis 3-23 vic, apparently uses 25 mA out of resonance, and then drops down to 1-2 mA, so not much power being sent through the core. Voltage is unknown, but from the control patent, a guess might be around 650 volts, with mentions of 2000 volts and 5000 volts...
One thing is for sure, if you look at the 5-coil-vic picture. It certainly didn't develop a very high voltage. I would say, at most about 2-3kV (which would match the values indicated in the patent for this kind of WFC). Why? If you look at the connectors to the cell on the right side, you see that the isolation plastic distance washers are not very thick. If a higher voltage would develop, there would be a spark to the casing. You would also get heavy corona discharges at higher voltages with these connectors. This is very different from the connectors of his 6-1 coil. There he really used High-Voltage connectors. And as far as i understood, these coils actually were meant to get in the xxkV regions.
This is actually IMHO quite interesting. As I have mentioned before, according to the Tay-Hee Han patent, you need at least an E-field of 20kv/mm for water to split just due to the E-field, and it is not possible to develop such a high e-field without having an isolator in between, because the water would arc through already before that. Therefore I personally think his effect is not really splitting the water molecules directly by an e-field, but rather separating the already available ions with an E-field and letting them again neutralize each other, whereas some will then build H2 and O2 instead of again H20. This would still be IMHO the only solution which would actually explain where the overunity splitting energy is coming from.
For ripping apart water directly just by an e-field is not an overunity reaction. Why? Because due to the splitting action, your e-field of the capacitor would loose energy. This is called losses in the dielectric of a capacitor.
So my all time changing guess would be, that you really go to the point where you just would get a water arc. But due to the very small energy in the oscillator, the arc cannot really develop, but just the pre-arc-situation, where the ions get heavily separated. Then you immediately have to stop the oscillator (gating off), for otherwise you would again pump energy in it, and as soon as the ions didn't had time to neutralize, the ion conduction channel would still be there, and then you would get an arc, which would waste your energy just in heat. But just another lame hypotheses... I know...I should really stop with that and continue experimenting...
-
#172 · date not recorded
Kali,
Sorry for the late reply,I was out all day yesterday and didn't get a chance to read theses post.
The VIC was wired just like the figure you posted of the coils.All of the coils were wound in the same direction,and put on the core in the same orientation as you travel around the core.They were wired just like the figure as well.So yes that figure is exactly the same as the VIC was wired and layed out.
The blocking diode goes to the positive choke and always goes to the positive tube (outside tube).
The negative isolated ground wasn't hooked to any ground either.
I haven't though about putting anything together for sale.But as we go along I will keep adding to the info as I feel comfortable releasing.
Don
Don -
#173 · date not recorded
Thank you very very very much!!!!
Although I already guessed that answer!
Actually I would have bet my left arm and right leg, that you would answer that!
You're obviously no electrical engineer (no offense), just like Stan you did make the same mistake! Stan also indicated the orientation wrong in this picture. For in this picture the two choke coils do not have the same orientation as the secondary! Why? Because they are on the other side of the core and therefore have the magnetic field going in the opposite direction!
Here again the pic, but this time with the orientation points as in the original patent (I erased them in the pic before, not to influence you):
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3761/patviccircuitcorrecteds.jpg)
Here you can see, that Stan made exactly the same mistake, namely he put the orientation points on the choke coils in the wrong direction. I added in red the correct orientation points according to the picture.
I thought the same. If the chokes do have different polarities to the cell, this wiring is the only one which does make sense. Now I'm happy.
Again: Thank you very very very much, really!
So actually it is now obvious that the VIC is really just an extension of the early "8XA circuit". For if you don't wire the coils as in the 8xA pic, but the other way around (like I did and as above in the patent circuit) you will have exactly this situation like in the VIC. And just the choke coils alone ("Amp Inhibiting circuit") already resonate wonderfully, and surely inhibit any current except for oscillation losses.
So Stans problem after the 8XA was to get higher input voltages, as the 8XA is limited in the oscillation voltage by the input voltage. So it seems like he first used a separate forward converter for the step up (as indicated in the patent with a small toroid core). But this still limits the voltage by the input voltage (just stepped up).Surely you could let the forward converter resonate to get higher voltages, but it would be very difficult to adjust the resonance frequency of the forward converter with that of the choke coils. But if you mount them on the same core, then the voltage can increase and increase (limited by your Q-factor) and you only have to hit one resonance frequency.
BTW: I just measured the "Amp Inhibiting circuit" through, while resonating on the WFC. An it's really like in every RLC. You see the wonderful 90° shift of voltage vs. current. When the voltage on the coils is high, no current is flowing through the WFC. When the voltage is zero, most current is flowing through the WFC. -
#174 · date not recorded
Don't really think that the representation is wrong, nor in the 3-23 vic nor the patent nor this new pic you came up with... they all show the tuned coil being field subtractive with the secondary and other choke being field adding with the secondary... There are some that are represented wrong like fig 7_1 Vic impedance network, here he shows the north of the coils all being adding fields... also in the sync pulse, even if there actually the amp inhibiting coil has the opposing field again...
Is strange that there was no connection from the bottom of the tuned choke to the electrical insulated housing... however, who knows---
Anyway
Thanks a lot Don for pointing this.
Br
Fabio -
#175 · date not recorded
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.
Don