Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 482289
  • *Total Topics: 14218
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 9
  • *Guests: 195
  • *Total: 204

Facebook

Author Topic: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC  (Read 67712 times)

Offline photonius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Indeed, it is not so simple to measure the power of the pulse formations at the exit of the circuit. First it`s important to know:
"Have we OVERUNITY: yes or no?"
We can check it with a simple test.
We measure the current from the battery into the circuit and the voltage cross the battery. Now, we get the input - power of the circuit. The power of electrolysis by Faraday divided by the input - power of the circuit is the efficiency between both methodes. All measurements are taken by the same gas volumina.
Okay, this calculation isn`t a perfect one; but better than nothing!

Hans (Photonius)
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 10:59:40 PM by photonius »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
Sorry mark this cant simulate current surge capability of SITh thyristor.
Right now only way i see is with array of IGBT in paraller

Anyway we all know that indian reaserch is not best. Thats why i post you Japanese one here.
Very similar one is "Water Electrolysis with Inductive Voltage Pulses ". I think this topic is worth investigating. I dont expect any overunity but it will be nice to have ability to produce more hydrogen with smaller electrolysis without producing lot of heat.
1) There is no high surge current requirement though the primary.  This is a flyback:  Current build up in the primary is slow, and then a rapid voltage voltage spike builds as current is redirected first into the parasitic capacitance and then into the load.
2) Being a cascode flyback, it is the MOSFET rise-time that limits the turn-off and hence pulse generation rise time in the secondary.  That rise time can be made very fast with the correct MOSFET selection.
3) The MOSFET appears in series with the thyristor in all schematics. 
4) Thyristors by themselves have poor turn-off times.  This is why a cascode configuration helps greatly:  The current is turned "off" in the primary by the fast low-voltage MOSFET, while the thyristor or IGBT bears the voltage withstand..

I read the Japanese paper.  The Indians lifted their circuit diagram directly from the Japanese.  The Japanese secondary current waveform should be studied carefully.  Note that current appears to flow at a decaying rate throughout a prolonged discharge.  I would also pay close attention to their plots.  I question that their data supports their claims of significantly improved efficiency.  They were after a legitimate problem of preventing formation of a double barrier.   I question that their data shows success due to both the efficiency plots and the current flow captures.  They did not make any outrageous 31X OU claims, or any OU claims at all as did the Indians.



Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
OK i will give it try (i mean your schematic).

Can you please advice what value of electronic components need to be used to get it work properly?

I am using right now 12v 89A power supply. I want to go up to 100khz.

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
I think what the Japanese 2005 paper is trying to do is to show that a relativley low component count circuit
can support pulsed generation of hydrogen at the 60% of unity efficiency level. Unfortunately they didn't specify
a number of critical parameters in their circuit so that the 2007 researchers could reproduce it correctly.

There are a couple major problems that I see;
1) If your think energy efficiency level is important one should make sure their circuit uses only one easily measurable
source of power. This circuit has two! One is the power supply the other is the pulse generator. What they
should do is use a high speed optoisolator so that the fet is triggered resistively from the system power supply.
Historically Fets have had high capacitance gate circuits. How come only JLN seems to knows how to isolate trigger
inputs correctly in a potentially OU circuit where power readings are critical? I think this is the primary error.

2) If you want something that is repeatable and understandable use a generator + driver non minimized circuit
form so you can clearly see what the driving waveform looks like and then the amplfier/driver isolated final waveform
is separate and comprehensible. Is the double trigger of the STI the function of LC resonance or something feeding
back from the complex physical exectrolysis cell? The author should tell *me*. The author is the researcher.

3) How come there are no specifications on the output pulse transformer. inductance? wire guage? core form? core material?
turns count? If the transformer has a step-up transformer form of the schematic, how the heck does the 2007 paper
get .5Vpp when the above photo shows 118Vpp. result without a tremendous output impedance mismatch?
This is a heck of a lot different. Give me some evidence. It should show the approximate initial cell resistance reading
as well. What ever happened to the standard practice of putting the internal resistance as a resistor in series with the
signal generator?

4) there should be an I current trace/ of voltage across sample shunt resistor/  in the 2007 paper.

5) At higher power you d*mned well better use a transmission line feed to cell at these frequencies.

6) How come I do not see the final diode's function in the 2007 paper's output waveform?

So I think reading these two papers is a bit like playing wip the information tail off the snake. The 2007
paper is loosing in this race *big time*.


:S:MarkSCoffman


Offline itsu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202

Quote
If the transformer has a step-up transformer form of the schematic, how the heck does the 2007 paper
get .5Vpp when the above photo shows 118Vpp. result without a tremendous output impedance mismatch?

Mark, concerning this statement of yours, to avoid any confusion, that "photo showing 118Vpp" is a screenshot of my nano-pulser output, and thus has nothing to do with any of the experiments in the mentioned PDF's.

I just was commenting on the pulse mentioned in the first PDF showing some 200mV ac like pulse.
My understanding was that it needs to be a strong DC pulse and MarkE kind of confirmed this.

To be complete on this screenshot, i was using 12V for the MOSFET driver logic and 24V on the MOSFET (IRFP260N) drain into a KD226D DSRD into a 56 Ohm resistor.

Regards itsu

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379

Thanks Itsu,
 
Itsu I don't dispute what you are saying but it seems impossible to judge the
the rationality of the output waveform of the 2007 circuit without knowing
anything about the output impedance of the transformer of that 2007 circuit.
If the output is low voltage then the input dc voltage would be used more
efficiently used to get the higher COP if it was lower too. Or else operate
at higher voltage then step down rather than up then step transformer
as shown in the schematic. What the 2005 circuit is is an abstract which the
2007 paper abstracts again. While the 2007 paper claims operation at a
particular efficient setpoint for which the abstraction cannot be the correct
form. Two abstraction don't make a concrete.


:S:MarkSCoffman

Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Japanase paper discribing something what is under patent so you cannot expect any full specification. Is same with SITh thyristors what are under patent too so just few companies can manufacture them.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
I finally got a chance to read the Japanese paper. Am I seeing things?

Below I reproduce Figure 3 from the paper. Note that there is only ONE SINGLE datapoint on the Part A part that shows a greater gas evolution from  a pulsed drive than from the DC power at the same power level. One. All the other pulsed power regimes produce LESS gas than straight DC at the same power level. And this at the lowest power level and at 17 kHz.

In the Part B part, only that SAME datapoint shows greater efficiency than DC at the same power level! And the graph shows that as pulsed power is increased, efficiency DROPS just as with straight DC, but is always less than straight DC at a given power level except for that one single trial. Within the pulsed power trials at the same power level, an increase in frequency causes an increase in efficiency and again, this effect is most pronounced on that one single data point, the same one. Again, this is the lowest pulsed power level shown and happens only at 17 kHz.

So what is the big deal? Perhaps they have identified some different mechanism... the text sounds plausible... but the data shows the truth: efficiencies and gas production volumes are nowhere near that of straight DC at the same power level... except for that one point, and it is just barely above DC in both efficiency and gas volume production.

So "Where's the Beef"?  Am I interpreting this set of graphs wrongly? Please enlighten me.

Next: note in the caption how the pulsed power is defined. "Integration of secondary voltage and current multiplied by the frequency". Whaat?

Offline Les Banki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
OK i will give it try (i mean your schematic).

Can you please advice what value of electronic components need to be used to get it work properly?


Marshallin,

Are you serious???

If you want to follow the "advise" of a full time, PROFESSIONAL SABOTEUR, good luck to you but don't say I didn't warn you!!

Just go back to the start of this thread and look WHO was the first to respond to Stefan's opening post!?

Coincidence?
It isn't.

Every time there is a thread which shows great promise, he is right there!  Without fail!

Imagine, just imagine, that this is REAL.
All those experimenters who never could get their engines running on HydrOxy ONLY, would, with this nano-pulse electrolysis method
suddenly have their engines running!
Problem SOLVED.

THAT can't possibly be allowed to happen by the self-appointed CRIMINAL ruling elite controlling mankind from day one!

That is why the most promising electrolysis method of all time MUST be stopped before too many people get hold of this.

Various methods are used.

PROFESSIONAL SABOTEURS on most Forums is one.
Their role is to first gain the confidence of the readers by giving the impression that they are "experts" on the subject and want to help.
Those who are stupid enough to follow their "technical" advice will FAIL, get frustrated and in the end will conclude that everything is a fake and GIVE UP! 
Mission accomplished! ;D

Should you not believe all that I stated above, I can easily demonstrate the GROSS technical blunders those SABOTEURS regularly make.
However, as I don't wish to make this post too long, I will not put the technical proof here.
If you (or others) request it, I will be happy to provide it!

In your previous posts you have made statements about creating short pulses.
You are absolutely correct that those pulses need to have HIGH ENERGY.
On the other hand, you have stated that it is not easy to generate short pulses.
That, in itself, is NOT correct.
But if you mean that generating very short pulses with HIGH ENERGY, that is correct!

I have attached my circuit diagram for using a SITh.

As you will see, you would be hard pressed to get the cost (excluding the SITh and the pcb) to $5.00!!

There will be a second circuit for using a replacement for the SITh, almost identical to the first but with additional circuitry.
(I may also try using a DSRD as an "opening switch".)

By the way, thanks for reminding the readers once again (like I have already done in my document) that this method is Patented and
NO Patent has EVER given full details for duplication purposes!
Period.

Cheers,
Les Banki

Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
I finally got a chance to read the Japanese paper. Am I seeing things?

Below I reproduce Figure 3 from the paper. Note that there is only ONE SINGLE datapoint on the Part A part that shows a greater gas evolution from  a pulsed drive than from the DC power at the same power level. One. All the other pulsed power regimes produce LESS gas than straight DC at the same power level. And this at the lowest power level and at 17 kHz.

In the Part B part, only that SAME datapoint shows greater efficiency than DC at the same power level! And the graph shows that as pulsed power is increased, efficiency DROPS just as with straight DC, but is always less than straight DC at a given power level except for that one single trial. Within the pulsed power trials at the same power level, an increase in frequency causes an increase in efficiency and again, this effect is most pronounced on that one single data point, the same one. Again, this is the lowest pulsed power level shown and happens only at 17 kHz.

So what is the big deal? Perhaps they have identified some different mechanism... the text sounds plausible... but the data shows the truth: efficiencies and gas production volumes are nowhere near that of straight DC at the same power level... except for that one point, and it is just barely above DC in both efficiency and gas volume production.

So "Where's the Beef"?  Am I interpreting this set of graphs wrongly? Please enlighten me.

Next: note in the caption how the pulsed power is defined. "Integration of secondary voltage and current multiplied by the frequency". Whaat?

Point of this article is show diferent method of electrolysis. This metodnt does not depend diffusion "coefficient of ions" , so in normal language - ability of water transfer DC current per mm2. Nothing more ..

quote : "This difference seems to be very important for the practical and industrial application of ultra-short power electrolysis since the electrolysis power can be increased without decreasing the efficiency."


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
Point of this article is show diferent method of electrolysis. This metodnt does not depend diffusion "coefficient of ions" , so in normal language - ability of water transfer DC current per mm2. Nothing more ..

quote : "This difference seems to be very important for the practical and industrial application of ultra-short power electrolysis since the electrolysis power can be increased without decreasing the efficiency."

I did read the article. Can you read the graph? Their DATA does not agree with the quote. Look at Figure 3b. As the power increases (the "legend" gives the power levels of the trials, groups of data points indicated by the little symbols triangle, square, circle etc.) the electrical efficiency goes DOWN and so does the gas volume per watt (Fig3A) and in all cases, except for the lowest actual powerlevel and one frequency at that level.... is BELOW that of the straight DC power. It looks to me, from Figure 3B, that the efficiency of the pulsed power goes down at even greater rate as the DC efficiency does with increasing power levels, and it starts out less efficient in the first place. In other words, I interpret that graph to indicate exactly the opposite of what is quoted above and I see no justification in the Japanese paper for asserting otherwise.

Perhaps you can explain Figure 3, reproduced above, to me so that I understand it better.

Offline Les Banki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80

Perhaps you can explain Figure 3, reproduced above, to me so that I understand it better.


TK,

Sorry to "butt in" your dialogue with 'Marshallin' but I can clarify it for you.
I hope others will benefit also.

First, perhaps you should know that I was the one who tracked down that Japanese article during my research.
(It wasn't easy to find or download!)
I am the one who sent it in private e-mails to 'Marshallin', to my friend in Germany (who sent me the Indian article) and a few other selected individuals.

Have a look at Fig. 3b again.

Locate the short line (with the rectangles) with only 3 frequencies on it - 7.5kHz - 15kHz - 17kHz  (Pulse 7.9V/1.2A)
Note that the line is virtually VERTICAL between 15Khz and 17kHz!

The position of the 17kHz point is WELL ABOVE the DC line!

When my German friend and I were discussing the technical details, he said:
Why did they stop at 17Khz??

Yes, WHY indeed?

Because, if they continued, the line would have gone OFF the 'chart' and give the 'game' away!
Keep in mind that the "frequency" here is just a pulse REPETITION RATE, meaning more power is applied to the cell,
WITHOUT decreasing the EFFICIENCY!

THAT is clearly CONTRARY to DC electrolysis!

Thus, it should be clear to those who can interpret the results that THIS electrolysis method is indeed a different 'mechanism'.
(to use the expression in their paper)

Fig 3b further proves that the highest efficiency figure was obtained with the lowest pulse amplitude used in those tests.

End of story.

Cheers,
Les Banki



Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
OK i will give it try (i mean your schematic).

Can you please advice what value of electronic components need to be used to get it work properly?

I am using right now 12v 89A power supply. I want to go up to 100khz.
I am traveling at the moment. Is your goal to form pulses as close to the Japanese paper as possible or is it most important that the circuit look like theirs?

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5733
Les
Thank you very much for your contribution and the attached circuit!!


needs much more attention and investigative replication !


Short Hard pulses are all the Rage these days......



thx
Chet


Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
I am traveling at the moment. Is your goal to form pulses as close to the Japanese paper as possible or is it most important that the circuit look like theirs?

Thx for reply.

My goal is get pulse form like they have (medium voltage - as much amps as posible), it wont matter how it will look like. Of course no hurry.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: