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

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 488389
  • *Total Topics: 14370
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 235
  • *Total: 238

Facebook

Author Topic: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC  (Read 75776 times)

Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
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.
I will do my best :

3a, hydrogen generation vs input power
with pulses (i - 7.9 v) and (ii - 9.7v) they are able to get same or slightly better hydrogen generation like in DC. They increasing power by increasing frequency.

3b, power effieciency vs input power
again first two experiments are same or slightly better then DC one. Other two experiment do not goes well.

Main catch is that in DC electrolysis you cannot increasing power forever. After diffusion layer is establish, you will always run into the point when ionts stop being able to transfer current properly from one electrode to another. This is reason why heat is produced and efficiency goes down. Only way how to fix it, is with increasing size of electrodes, or adding ionts to do solution.

With pulsed electolysis "in theory" difusion layer is never establised so you can increase current as much as you want (or as your induction core or power source let you).  Again "in theory", this can way we cant create low cost small but powerfull electrolysers. Or we can run electrolysers with salt water since we dont care too much about DC resistance or mineral in solution.

Thats why 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."


But I understand what you mean. I did read the graph. All thes measurment are of course incoclusive. You can even see like some of sentenses are like taken from context.  Like i said before main purpouse of this document is provide just right amount of information to get sameone interest(investor or buyer for patent).

I can say that i did alredy few of experiments, and you can acualy run pulsed electrolysis in destiled demineralized water almost without heating water. Quite strange.

I am not claming any overunity here. I just think that this is worth of exploring. I will be gratefull for any constructive ideas.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13474
I will do my best :

3a, hydrogen generation vs input power
with pulses (i - 7.9 v) and (ii - 9.7v) they are able to get same or slightly better hydrogen generation like in DC. They increasing power by increasing frequency.

No, in every case except for the single data point at the highest frequency used for the 7.9 v trials, the hydrogen generation is WELL BELOW the DC case. Don't forget you are looking at a _log_ scale on the Watts axis. A tiny displacement to the right is a large increase in wattage.

Now, please tell me how increasing the frequency of a pulsed signal increases the power delivered by that signal.

Quote
3b, power effieciency vs input power
again first two experiments are same or slightly better then DC one. Other two experiment do not goes well.
 
NO! Again, only that single data point from a single power level is above the DC efficiency. The same single data point used above, with the same caveats.

If you draw a line through the centroids of the groups, you see that the efficiency DECREASES with increasing power, and the downward slope of this line is steeper than the DC line, which indicates that the pulsed power efficiency DECREASES at a greater rate with increasing power than the straight DC efficiency does. A  much greater rate, actually, since the x-axis is logarithmic.

Quote

Main catch is that in DC electrolysis you cannot increasing power forever. After diffusion layer is establish, you will always run into the point when ionts stop being able to transfer current properly from one electrode to another. This is reason why heat is produced and efficiency goes down. Only way how to fix it, is with increasing size of electrodes, or adding ionts to do solution.

With pulsed electolysis "in theory" difusion layer is never establised so you can increase current as much as you want (or as your induction core or power source let you).  Again "in theory", this can way we cant create low cost small but powerfull electrolysers. Or we can run electrolysers with salt water since we dont care too much about DC resistance or mineral in solution.

Thats why 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."


But I understand what you mean. I did read the graph. All thes measurment are of course incoclusive. You can even see like some of sentenses are like taken from context.  Like i said before main purpouse of this document is provide just right amount of information to get sameone interest(investor or buyer for patent).

Ah... so the measurements are only conclusive if they support the claims. If they do not support the claims, as I have shown that they don't, the measurements become inconclusive. Got it, I'll try to remember that property of OU measurements.

Quote
I can say that i did alredy few of experiments, and you can acualy run pulsed electrolysis in destiled demineralized water almost without heating water. Quite strange.

I am not claming any overunity here. I just think that this is worth of exploring. I will be gratefull for any constructive ideas.

Here's a constructive idea: Set up your experiments so that they are True Experiments, and don't overinterpret your data in order to push your foregone conclusions. This is harder than you might think.


Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
No, in every case except for the single data point at the highest frequency used for the 7.9 v trials, the hydrogen generation is WELL BELOW the DC case. Don't forget you are looking at a _log_ scale on the Watts axis. A tiny displacement to the right is a large increase in wattage.

Now, please tell me how increasing the frequency of a pulsed signal increases the power delivered by that signal.
NO! Again, only that single data point from a single power level is above the DC efficiency. The same single data point used above, with the same caveats.

If you draw a line through the centroids of the groups, you see that the efficiency DECREASES with increasing power, and the downward slope of this line is steeper than the DC line, which indicates that the pulsed power efficiency DECREASES at a greater rate with increasing power than the straight DC efficiency does. A  much greater rate, actually, since the x-axis is logarithmic.
 Ah... so the measurements are only conclusive if they support the claims. If they do not support the claims, as I have shown that they don't, the measurements become inconclusive. Got it, I'll try to remember that property of OU measurements.

Here's a constructive idea: Set up your experiments so that they are True Experiments, and don't overinterpret your data in order to push your foregone conclusions. This is harder than you might think.

If you have fixed lenght of pulse, and increase frequency of pulse occuring you will increase power .... but i will not argue with you.

Comon man there is no reason to insult others way of thinking. Like i said all of this is just theory, and you ask me.

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
Hello Mr. LesBani,

glad to see you here since your last approach concerning your analog-controlled inginition and fuel-Injection-System.

I have just one question: which core-type would you suggest ? Bandwidth 10 MegaHz ?

Regards

Kator01


Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
Kator,what was that guys name that discovered a similar efficiency on his speedboat electrolysis system by accident do you remember.the guy that was dying of some disease

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5959
Bob Boyce




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
Thanks ramset.it seems these methods of current control definitely increase efficiency of gaseous liberation by cleansweeping (removal) of adsorbed species buildup on surface of electrodes drasticly reducing KINETIC and CONCENTRATION OVERPOTENTIAL.I'm not sure if it goes into overunity territory though somebody is going to have to do very careful measurements,rigorous scientific calculation.I won't be surprised if it crosses second law thermodynamics limitations.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Les Banki

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Thanks ramset.it seems these methods of current control definitely increase efficiency of gaseous liberation by cleansweeping (removal) of adsorbed species buildup on surface of electrodes drasticly reducing KINETIC and CONCENTRATION OVERPOTENTIAL.I'm not sure if it goes into overunity territory though somebody is going to have to do very careful measurements,rigorous scientific calculation.I won't be surprised if it crosses second law thermodynamics limitations.

profitis,

With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about??
Did you actually READ the two articles the discussion on this thread is based on?

And all this ABSURD nonsense about "overunity" here!

It is about time that someone (in this case, me) tells you all that running engines on water ONLY has ALWAYS been WAY "overunity",
as it is, without the need for "very careful measurements, rigorous scientific calculation" as you put it!
You don't believe it?
Fine.
Then you better explain HOW and WHY an ICE, with its 26% efficiency, runs beautifully, all day long on nothing but HydrOxy,
generated by  no 'fancy' circuit but quite ordinary electrolysis (but done CORRECTLY)!

The trouble is that most of you have fallen for all the BS "scientific" explanations for WHY this can't be done!
Try to tell that to all those around the world who have done it for several decades already.
Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the
second one (a large van) since 1998, with the "government's" blessing, may I add!

Guys, it is time to cut the BULLSHIT!
You have all been had BIG time!
TRY to snap out of it!

THIS thread is about a new electrolysis method which can achieve 8 times 'Faraday' gas production!
Guys, you want FREE ENERGY, right?
Well, WAKE UP and pay attention!

STOP arguing and theorizing!
Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!

Cheers,
Les Banki

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
Hello Mr. Les Banki,


profitis - I guess - is takling about the Helmholz double-layer builiding up on the electrode-surface. This build-up happens within 3 mykosec which is the reason that the method discussed here becomes efficient - although I am not convinced that pulses below 3mykosec puls-width are the only reason. Znidarsic´s work on quantum transition might give a better answer.

Mr. Les Banki  please bear with me - and profitis - in divigating the subject but Znidarsic´s work is of some importance in regard to this topic. He is an electrical engineer and not a theoretician
You may accept the following Link or skip it. It is for those who want to learn some extraordinary idea which has proven true in Podlenkovs work and in cold-fusion.
We are talking here about the physical dimension of a cell adapted to the quantum-transition constant:

Quote:

" The Z Theory is simple and intuitive once the basic physics and engineering concepts are explained, thanks to enthusiastic fellow physicist Lane Davis [12], who has created an excellent series of more than 20 videos posted on YouTube [13]. Davis takes you from high school electromagnetism and practical everyday engineering through highly controversial cold fusion and anti-gravity research to the elementary algebra that encapsulates the Z theory, proving how all the fundamental constants are reduced to just one, the velocity of sound in the atomic nucleus of about 1 million metres per second, 1.093846 x 106 m/s, to be more precise [12].
Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JiiQ22YC7Y

Now this velocity 1.093846 x 106 m/s can be expressed in Hzm ( 1/s m ) which gives us a tool to choose the correct frequency adapted to the physical dimension ( length ) of a coaxial cell.

We are dealing here with harmonics of these pulses and in this setup they might have come close to the quantum-transition speed found by Mr. Znidarsic.

Its worth a try - at least I will test it.

Nevertheless looking forward to your suggestions for practical work..the real deal.

Regards

Kator01

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5959
Les
You have OUR undivided attention!
Kator
I attached a patent  which touches your topic and was  recently  translated By Peterae and itsu At OUR [over unity research]
.


Thx
Chet

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
Whooooaaar! @les banki,hey, I said I'm open to it mate,I haven't yet dived into the archives around this subject but yes it looks good from where I'm standing.holy shit..

Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
Banki and kator,don't you think these guys might do better with electrolyte in water? Why pure water? I was refering to helmholtz ionic  and  gaseous diffusion overpotential constraints


Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
similar approach short pulse also by Professor Kanarev:


http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/index.html



see [size=78%]LOW CURRENT PROCESS OF WATER ELECTROLYSIS[/size]
http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/lowcurrent/index.htm[/size][/color]


using also a special electromechanical pulse generator

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10238.html

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
water itself is a source of electricity see Doctor Pollack _ University of Washington
http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/research-themes/water-based-technology/
Energy from Water and Light
We found that the solute-exclusion zone is charged, while the zone beyond is oppositely charged. This separation constitutes a battery, from which current can be drawn.
The battery is re-charged by incident radiant energy (see Stanley Meyer LED light at certain wavelengths)
Meyer http://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/GasProcessorfinalassembly008-1.jpg

http://communitycommunique.net/gerald-pollack-the-fourth-phase-of-water-part-1/
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
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.
OK, then in that case, I have one more question:  In their paper it can be seen that hte secondary current has a big spike and then a long tail.  THeir hypothesis was that prolonged current conduction would result in the formation of a double layer that would hinder efficiency. Do you want a circuit that produces a long current tail like theirs, or only a short current pulse that is fully extinguished in half a microsecond or less?

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: