Opposite Polarity Pulses During ON-Time Vs. OFF-Time (Mode of Operation)

SR46:
Prelude: This is a great video. It really shines some light on the Modes of Operation, and exposes an important voltage-threshold phenomenon.
My toroid VIC has some interesting properties. My VIC matrix switcher allows me to run this transformer essentially (as I understand) as Boot or Buck Mode of Operation. By switching the polarities of circuit, (Equal) Opposite Polarity Pulses can be generated either on the input-pulse ON-Time or OFF-Time.
Amperage at the cells is a bit higher when EOP pulses are created during the ON time, but production is higher as well. I theorize that as extremely-high voltage levels are achieved, it will possibly be required to create the pulses during the OFF time, in order to effectively reduce amperage at that level and achieve maximum efficiency.
It is important to note that EOP pulses are note created until a certain voltage level is reached. It is a phenomenon that needs more investigation. I theorize that voltage must be enough to "push back" and/or balance the positive and negative charges at the cell. Here, both blue (positive) and green (negative) waveforms remain "in phase" (having a similar layout and consistent voltage difference between each other) until a certain input-voltage is applied (and therefore output voltage met). Once this output voltage threshold is reached, one of the pulses begin to increase (positive or negative, respectively), opposing the other waveform in a greater value, creating the EOP waveform that is so key to gas production.

[@smbd2010]

I have some knowledge and experience with electric currents in conductive liquids and electrolysis more directly and I might have some insights for you but I can't quite get to that point. I can see several possible scenarios from the waveforms and dialogue but can't see which it actually is. If you are wondering why or wondering why you have no other comments either, then I would suggest two probable reasons:
1. There is too little information provided and, I am sorry and please do not be offended, but a lot of what you say while pointing at waveforms makes no sense. I have designed many smps converters as well as biomedical devices that pulse voltages up to 3kV across electrodes in the heart, so I am familiar with what you are using and what I think you are doing but I still can't work out what you actually are doing specifically.
2. It is not beyond possibilities that we may find at some time in the future some crazy aspect of how the universe and matter work that to us now may appear to be perpetual motion. And there are some very very clever people trying to unlock the secrets of stuff and the universe but you, I and Stan Meyer are not among them. I also doubt your likely success with transformer and transistor technology alone. If there is magic to unlock, you might need more sophisticated apparatus to achieve it.
To be frank, you would be far better paid to simply understand what you are dong now (which does have an explanation that is already known) and take it from there.
Because what you are doing is experiments people have already done and explained the results. I am sorry, but you are not breaking new ground.
I am not trying to rain on your parade. I'd be happy to offer what I can but between the two of us, only you would be trying for perpetual motion.

[@noahauman]

My channel is small and just starting. The algorithm does not favor me and the amount of people actually interested in this tech, let alone take it seriously, let alone actually understand it is miniscule. My technical lingo is not of academia so it may be hard to follow. My purpose is to simply document what I am doing and maybe somehow help others in the field and connect with them.
1. Specifically, what is not making sense? Again, I do not have proper education nor am I using the proper terminology -- I am simply exclaiming what I know in the best way I possibly can. I firmly disagree with you statement about "you, I and Stan Meyer are not among them"... speak for yourself. It's like saying the Wright brothers didn't invent a flying machine. We try, therefore we do. Stan's device was built in the 80's with retro hardware in his garage so I'm sure it can be replicated with today's basic consumer-available hardware.
2. The WFC is not "perpetual motion", as Stan prescribes. Releasing the energy from a substance (just like like oil) is not perpetual motion. Sophistication is a tool of corporations and academia, to which many of the inventions we use and take for granted today did not have the luxury of having when being developed. Stan followed the KISS method, and it is by far the best method for those without millions of dollars in research funds. For his technology there is quite literally not much more needed other than a PWM, transformers, Mosfets, diodes and cells --- basically old tesla / radio technology. My question to you is have you studied any of Stanley Meyer's tech? Just curious.
3. Paid? Who's is getting paid here? Haha. Ok so what explanation am I presenting that is already known? Electrolysis? This is not electrolysis. I do have a firm understanding of what I am doing now, I assure you. I simply lack the in-depth circuit mathematics to take this further, and perhaps the ability explain in 'proper' academic detail. From what I can tell, no one has produced the amount of HHO that I am, with the amp consumption (at the cell) that I am. Especially with my last video only consuming 600mA total input power, I believe I am, in fact, making headway that others have not. I really have yet to see anyone (and I mean anyone presently) produce the results that I have and please correct me if I'm wrong here (links would be great). UA-cam is scattered with laughable WFC contraptions, misinformation, ridiculous explanations, and the same old stories going nowhere. Ultimately, I have to disagree about the "breaking new ground" comment, with the exception that Stanley Meyer already broke that ground in the 80's and 90's.
Further regarding 'perpetual motion': have scientists not recently developed a laser fusion device that creates more energy than it consumes? How can that be true and Stanley's tech not be? My email is in my profile if you would like to discuss further or potentially help me. I certainly will not turn down any expertise and would love to pick your brain. Looking forward to your email.

[@smbd2010]

@@noahauman If you can send me or post schematics I could help you with the power electronics. I can also help with your measurement technique.
There are several possible explanations for what you are seeing. For your channel (and I wish you well) for your channel to have better credibility we need to eliminate the main stream explanations. I will try to help you with that and to maintain an open mind if you want the help.