Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 523386
  • *Total Topics: 15584
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC  (Read 143627 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Scenario D continued – “resonance break up” of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.

10. Zero point energy is often referred to the energy that will still be present when the temperature reaches absolute zero degrees.  The assumption is that thermal energy is zero.  However, in any space, there will always be electromagnetic waves and gravitational forces.  I assume that electromagnetic wave is the “Lead-out” or “Bring-in” Energy Source in this case.
More assumptions.  The problem with ZPE is that it is the foundation on which all other energy in our realm rests.  It doesn't "Lead-out" or "Bring-in" any energy.
Quote


11. The “gas mixture” may contain different levels of electromagnetic waves.  At the “resonance frequency”, small stimulus from the outside may excite the “internal set up of the gas mixture” to break up the hydrogen and oxygen bonds.  This break up will release energy much larger than the sum of the outside stimulus.  This is the “Lead-out or “Bring-in” Energy Source.  In other words, the Energy is already available in the surrounding environment and the “water or gas mixture”.  It is a matter of releasing them.  Such energy can easily be replenlished by the electromagnetic waves from the surrounding (or from Zero Point energy as some would like to call it).
This idea is pure speculation on your part that is without supporting evidence.  If you are enamored with your speculation go conduct experiments to see if you can break up water molecules at better than Faraday efficiency by any means that you choose.
Quote


12.  If a “resonance setup” can release such energy, the Stan Meyer car is theoretically possible.  The Stan Meyer device does not use implosion as it deliberately fed exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber – making use of explosion instead of implosion.
If wishes were true ...  This is more pure speculation that is refuted by available evidence.
Quote


13. If the “resonance setup” is to be detected via the “hit and miss” method, the chance of getting a reproducible “hit” and accepted by the scientific community will be like winning the lottery.  Skeptics will keep saying – fraud and scam.
Skeptics will keep saying: "Show me the evidence that supports your extraordinary claims."  It is not the fault of skeptics that you remain empty-handed or that you have an established history of promoting unworkable free energy ideas.
Quote


14. The successful team is likely to be one with Government Support.  They do not need to worry about mortgages and living expenses.  They can buy the most expensive and accurate scientific instruments.  (I learned the lesson of using the US$120 Atten Oscilloscope to try to get accurate results from the tiny Joule Thief Energy experiments).  They can have trained scientists and engineers to tune the equipment and correctly analyze the results.  They can build special scientific apparatus to do mid-stage verifications.  They can focus on “resonance tuning” for months or years without the wife or husband nagging.  They do not need to publish results and get jeered at.  They do not need to worry about venture capitalists or investors wanting to see results for their money or suing them in court.
Even a low cost $60 Hantek oscilloscope yields valid data when used by someone who knows what they are doing.  A $250,000 oscilloscope is perfectly able to yield garbage data in the hands of someone who does not know what they are doing.  Steven Jones used a very nice $10,000. oscilloscope improperly when he reported 8X over unity from his JT circuits.
Quote


15. I would expect the successful team will have to overcome the objections from other scientists who claim that since Perpetual Motion Machine is theoretically impossible, they are waiting their time and the Government Resources.  They may have to use the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory to overcome this first hurdle.  They have to study and re-think electrolysis; implosion; chemical reactions; electron cloud distributions; kinetic theory of gases; confirm the adiabatic energy exchange of the water bottle rocket; structure of “water gas”; resonance and resonance circuits, etc.  A whole research team or a new department at a University may need to be set up.  Many PhD students may be used to check out the hundreds of overunity claims on the Internet.
Extraordinary ideas require hard evidence.  And that is what all over unity claims presently lack.
Quote


16. I expect my contribution will just be the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory.  Other posts will be treated as “speculation” from an old man who spends much time fishing, talking about politics and religion.  These posts will not be taken seriously.  This is perfectly acceptable.  Divine revealation may surprise us all.  A "speculation" may turn out to be the scientific truth.
If you wish to make a meaningful contribution then stop promoting claims before properly investigating them and learn to account for energy correctly.
Quote

More to come later.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Buy a toy water rocket.  Measure its temperature before and after the firing.
A toy water rocket has nothing to do with your erroneous energy balance accounting.

Offline ARMCORTEX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 721
Lawrence I have a question for you.
 
Would it be easier to pulse a wheel with 4 x  (or 2 x) heavy weights and light frame , or a totally uniform mass distribution flywheel with no definite ''frequency'', an infinite number of small pendulums so to speak. While a 4 x mass point could have 1 tapping  (or 2) per weight, as they accelerate already. I have an idea for program controllable hammer like kinetic pulser, not magnet, but blunt mass with retractable high strenght steel solenoid tip.

You say ''to pulse @ wrong time a pendulum is counter productive''. How to identify right time with uniform flywheel ? Would it be simpler to design a stick flywheel with 2 weights @ tips ?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Lawrence I have a question for you.
 
Would it be easier to pulse a wheel with 4 x  (or 2 x) heavy weights and light frame , or a totally uniform mass distribution flywheel with no definite ''frequency'', an infinite number of small pendulums so to speak. While a 4 x mass point could have 1 tapping  (or 2) per weight, as they accelerate already. I have an idea for program controllable hammer like kinetic pulser, not magnet, but blunt mass with retractable high strenght steel solenoid tip.

You say ''to pulse @ wrong time a pendulum is counter productive''. How to identify right time with uniform flywheel ? Would it be simpler to design a stick flywheel with 2 weights @ tips ?
The easiest experiment to determine the right frequency for a swing is shown in the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8
 
If you have an unbalanced wheel, you can pulse it at different rotational speeds.  In the case of the Tong wheel, we determined the best pulsing time experimentally.   The device was adjsted until the current reading was minimum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8
 
We did not experiment with uniform flysheel.

Offline Marshallin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Guys too much theorizing is happpening in this forum.

Please make experimets and share your findings with us(or dont).
There is realy no point od arguing who is right. And so far as I know is not posible to split water just by making post on the internet.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Guys too much theorizing is happpening in this forum.

Please make experimets and share your findings with us(or dont).
There is realy no point od arguing who is right. And so far as I know is not posible to split water just by making post on the internet.
Isn't the incident where Jesus split water into Brown's Gas at much better than Faraday efficiency one of the lost stories of the New Age Testament?

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Guys too much theorizing is happpening in this forum.

Please make experimets and share your findings with us(or dont).
There is realy no point od arguing who is right. And so far as I know is not posible to split water just by making post on the internet.
Thanks. 
 
My focus is now on the Paper.  I am reproducing figure 6 here.  The comparison is a clear winning case for Pulsed DC.  The paper already contained the construction of the equipment, the electrolyte concentration, the DC pulse circuit etc.
 
The same experiment can be reproduced by Government Supported teams.  Visits can be made to the Indian Universities.  The researchers can be contacted.  Scenario D says that theoretically, DC Pulsing may be possible to split the water molecules.  The experiment can be reproduced and improved.  If the results as shown in figure 6 of the paper is possible, cheap hydrogen production on demand will be possible.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
The Indian paper makes extraordinary claims that have not been reproduced by anyone.  It includes oscilloscope screen shots that indicate they did not connect their instrumentation correctly.  The paper lacks any data establishing that they had their instrumentation and experiment controls in order.  In all probability, they have made themselves victims of gross measurement error.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
 Some points from the Indian Paper.

1.    12V DC power supply used.
2.    NaOH used
3.    Frequency in 100 MHz range

I believe the team who got funding used something similar.  I have much more faith in the Indian Scientists than some Forum members.  DC Pulsing may indeed break up the water molecules differently from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds of the gas mixtures are likely to be different.
Publication date:
Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012 pp.129-136.  Email address of author available.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Some points from the Indian Paper.

1.    12V DC power supply used.
2.    NaOH used
3.    Frequency in 100 MHz range
If you believe that then you obviously did not look closely at their oscilloscope plots.  The only thing they had that 100E6 was the sampling rate of their oscilloscope.  The actual repetition rate of their waveforms could not be determined because they failed to show even one complete cycle, but was less than 500kHz.  IE it was at least 200 times lower than what they stated, and you have blindly quoted.
Quote

I believe the team who got funding used something similar.  I have much more faith in the Indian Scientists than some Forum members.  DC Pulsing may indeed break up the water molecules differently from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds of the gas mixtures are likely to be different.
Publication date:
Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012 pp.129-136.  Email address of author available.
Evidence Lawrence:  You can speculate and believe all that you want, but without evidence it is all just speculation. 

The Indians presented figures such as Figure 7 shown below that directly contradicted their manuscript.  They read the horizontal scale and sample rate from the oscilloscope and stated those as the pulse width and operating frequency respectively.  Those are gross errors.  Their Figure 7, is basically useless except for refuting statements made in the manuscript.  Even if their pulses had been 200ns wide, which they weren't, the maximum repetition frequency would have been under 5MHz, 20X less than their reported 100MHz.  Did no one including the authors proof read their paper?  With such gross errors one should take great pause when evaluating the likelihood that either their other reported measurements or their conclusions that rely on their measurements have any basis in reality.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Sorry mark this cant simulate current surge capability of SITh thyristor.
Right now only way i see is with array of IGBT in paraller
Without specifications of the SIT device there is no way to use numbers for an objective comparison.  I point out both that: IGBTs are available with enormous current handling capabilities, and that it is the MOSFET that limits the maximum current handling capacity in both circuits.
Quote

Anyway we all know that indian reaserch is not best. Thats why i post you Japanese one here.
Thanks for that.  The Japanese paper contradicts the Indians.
Quote
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.
There may well be value to pulsing.  I think that if one buys the Japanese paper premise then a CDI method is the way to get the short duration current pulses that they were proposing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
If the osciloscope results are not clear, why not email them to get clarification?  That is the purpose of peer review.
 
It is quite possible that the team who got funded already read and duplicated the Indian Paper results.  Knowing the commercial environment they work in, I am sure that they will not disclose any information until commercialization.  If they did read the paper; replicated or even improved the result, what is the advantage of announcement.
 
The only way to make money is to come out with a product first.  It may not be possible to apply for a patent now.  China has huge foreign currency reserve to spend.  They have the "can do" attitude.  Can they surprise the World in this field?  Spending a few million dollars and training a team of PhDs is acceptable even if the result turns out to be a NO.
 
Scenario D speculation looks better and better now.  I shall revise and polish it more.  It can explain the Indian Paper results and the Stan Meyer water car.  It may even help to further demonstrate the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory.
 
When MarkE cannot see the theoretical significance of the water bottle rocket cooling, I have to doubt his scientific capability.
 
Can someone explain his diagrams?  It looks like he needs help?  Equations need additional explanations.
 

Offline The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52

China has huge foreign currency reserve to spend.  They have the "can do" attitude. 



They sure do, you friggin' idiot. They steal technology from the rest of the world.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
If the osciloscope results are not clear, why not email them to get clarification?  That is the purpose of peer review.
Whyd didn't you even notice that the oscilloscope recording contradicted their text?
Quote

It is quite possible that the team who got funded already read and duplicated the Indian Paper results.  Knowing the commercial environment they work in, I am sure that they will not disclose any information until commercialization.  If they did read the paper; replicated or even improved the result, what is the advantage of announcement.
It is possible but unlikely that a race of invisible unicorns patrols the skies.  We can speculate all manner of things.  When it comes to extraordinary claims such as the Indians make in their very poorly composed paper strong E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E is required.  They failed to provide even weak evidence.  They failed to even superficially proof read their paper before publication.  You of all people should know: Sloppy work leads out nonsense results.
Quote

The only way to make money is to come out with a product first.  It may not be possible to apply for a patent now.  China has huge foreign currency reserve to spend.  They have the "can do" attitude.  Can they surprise the World in this field?  Spending a few million dollars and training a team of PhDs is acceptable even if the result turns out to be a NO.
Taht is yet more pointless speculation.  Try this:  How many times over the years have you personally claimed one scheme or another yields free energy?  How many ever yielded free energy?
Quote

Scenario D speculation looks better and better now.  I shall revise and polish it more.  It can explain the Indian Paper results and the Stan Meyer water car.  It may even help to further demonstrate the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory.
I hope that your polishing activity includes gathering actual evidence.
Quote

When MarkE cannot see the theoretical significance of the water bottle rocket cooling, I have to doubt his scientific capability.
The water bottle analogy has nothing to do with your erroneous math and analysis of the HHO piston scheme you propose.
Quote

Can someone explain his diagrams?  It looks like he needs help?  Equations need additional explanations.
Geez Lawrence, no one else seems to have problems with the equations. 

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
 The following is the email I sent to the Author.
 
E-mail address of author: h2dharmaraj@gmail .com
 
Subject: Paper on Economical hydrogen production by electrolysis using nano pulsed DC

 
Dear Mr. Dharmaraj:
 
Your paper raised much discussion amongst the members in the Overunity.com forum.  One example is reply 159.
 
http://www.overunity.com/14814/overunity-electrolysis-31-times-more-effective-gas-production-than-with-dc/msg414667/#msg414667
 
There appeared to be some confusion related to figure 7 of your paper.  Is it possible for you to comment directly on the Forum?

 
Thank you.
 
Lawrence Tseung

 

OneLink