Are we missing the negative potential?

[mostrander]

I was looking at the D14.pdf comparing Dave Lawton?s replication with the alternator and what most everybody is trying to do with the new circuit and no alternator.

In Dave?s replication using the alternator he is getting a AC voltage off the stator windings, this is feed to 2 diodes which feeds the positive half of the sine wave to the outer tube and the negative half of the sine wave to the inner tube. So when the circuit is pulsed you get a positive potential to the outer tube and a negative potential on the inner tube. It seems to me if you are trying to do work with a voltage potential  wouldn?t a positive and negative voltage potential be more desirable than just a ground and positive potential.
I wonder if we are missing something by not having this negative potential on the inner tube?

[HeairBear]

Stan had addressed this problem by adding a choke to the secondary connected to a center tap. It's basically a voltage divider but is supposed to equalize the potentials on both sides of the cell/s. I think Stan called it "Cross-Over" voltage pulse. You can find drawings of both the alternator and transformer in the tech brief. I am curious though, how he fit the extra coil into the alternator. Or did he just do it to deter people from patenting around the technology like he did with the stainless steel wire?

[mostrander]

By adding the choke would that just make the negative 180 degrees out of phase therefore putting it in phase with the positive side?

[HeairBear]

Yes, but it won't be exact. The negative always seems to be a little behind the positive but close enough. Stan's brother Stephen uses this design with his work in Xogen. Look up his patent(he only has one) and you can see the wave form there too. Is that a simulator generated image you posted?

[HeairBear]

Please excuse me, It's not called the cross-over voltage pulse, but, "Voltage Sync-Pulse Circuit" on page 177 or so in the Tech Brief. My apologies for screwing up the name.