Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: hartiberlin on July 30, 2014, 02:22:30 PM

Title: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: hartiberlin on July 30, 2014, 02:22:30 PM
Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.
This report is a bit strange.  The authors acknowledge that 70%-80% efficient electrolysis is currently available.  Then they claim a 31X improvement over their control.  Nowhere in the report did I find any sanity check of their control.  So, I cranked their numbers for sanity checking purposes:

Control:  18W yielded 0.58mL/s.
Hydrogen gas density:  0.08988 g/liter
Molar density:  2g/mole
HHV = 572kJ/mole
0.58ml/s = 0.00058l/s*0.08988g/l*mole/2g = 26e-6 mole/s flow.
26e-6m/s*572kJ/m = 14.9Watts HHV
14.9W/18W = 82.8%  This is close to the upper efficiency limit due to the energy trapped in the phase transition.

The authors claim to generate the same volume flow of gas using 0.57Watts using their pulsed set-up.  That would amount not just to over unity, but a staggering 14.9W/0.57W, 26X unity.

The authors errantly describe their drive as "pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in Figure 7."

Figure 7 is a trace sampled at 100Ms/s, that shows two ringing pulses that appear to be the leading and trailing edges of a drive pulse that is approximately 400ns in duration.

There is no mention in the report of the methods used to measure voltage and current for the pulsed set-up and then to calculate energy and power.  It is a virtual certainty that these guys extraordinary results are the result of wildly inaccurate measurements in the pulsed set-up.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on July 30, 2014, 05:07:17 PM
Stefan
This claim was shared here  in another thread,I believe with a "contact phone number" [which is why I remember ]


perhaps we try to reach them for clarity ?


I remember trying to call a few times with no answer ....


thx
Chet



Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on July 30, 2014, 08:17:53 PM
Hi

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.
I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

Right now i am building proper small scale test rig.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 30, 2014, 08:44:10 PM
Hi

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.
I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

Right now i am building proper small scale test rig.
There is no need to go the thyristor route.  Just get a decently rated MOSFET and use a good MOSFET driver.  You will easily be able to realize 50ns or faster rise and fall times. and recreate their staed 200ns pulse which according to their oscilloscope plot was really 400ns, with an unstated repetition rate. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: itsu on July 30, 2014, 09:49:58 PM
This report is a bit strange.  The authors acknowledge that 70%-80% efficient electrolysis is currently available.  Then they claim a 31X improvement over their control.  Nowhere in the report did I find any sanity check of their control.  So, I cranked their numbers for sanity checking purposes:

Control:  18W yielded 0.58mL/s.
Hydrogen gas density:  0.08988 g/liter
Molar density:  2g/mole
HHV = 572kJ/mole
0.58ml/s = 0.00058l/s*0.08988g/l*mole/2g = 26e-6 mole/s flow.
26e-6m/s*572kJ/m = 14.9Watts HHV
14.9W/18W = 82.8%  This is close to the upper efficiency limit due to the energy trapped in the phase transition.

The authors claim to generate the same volume flow of gas using 0.57Watts using their pulsed set-up.  That would amount not just to over unity, but a staggering 14.9W/0.57W, 26X unity.

The authors errantly describe their drive as "pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in Figure 7."

Figure 7 is a trace sampled at 100Ms/s, that shows two ringing pulses that appear to be the leading and trailing edges of a drive pulse that is approximately 400ns in duration.

There is no mention in the report of the methods used to measure voltage and current for the pulsed set-up and then to calculate energy and power.  It is a virtual certainty that these guys extraordinary results are the result of wildly inaccurate measurements in the pulsed set-up.

Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?
Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Regards Itsu
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on July 30, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
Is hard to say.

I think that pulse duration depend on your cell capacity, and voltage on space between elctrodes.

I belive that main trick is not create just short voltage pulse, but have setup what can deliver hight amout of power in short pulses.
Thats why they having big HQ induction in that circuit. 

Look on this one from 2005(attachment).
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 31, 2014, 12:07:52 AM
Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?
Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Regards Itsu
 
There waveform looks like they had issues with grounding.  They did not offer any schematic of their measurement set-up.  So, determining exactly what was going on is basically impossible.  The reason that I think the bursts 400ns apart are two sides of one pulse is because the leading edge of the second burst is the opposite polarity of the first.  Their DC waveform is at about 7.4 Volts which makes no sense for a 12V supply.

Your exponential pulse is the sort of thing one would expect from a flyback which sort of looks like what they wired.  They describe the operation as a flyback as well.  I see no justification for the SCR.  And the SCR gate should be pull-dwon to the cathode.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on July 31, 2014, 04:50:12 AM
Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan & all others,

Please note that the title of this thread is misleading!

It is "only" 8 times 'Faraday'!

I received that Indian article on the 23rd of June, (5 weeks ago) from a friend in Germany.
Since then I have made a VERY thorough, in-debt analysis and extensive research into this method.

I have already designed a drive circuit but at this point in time it looks as if you cannot BUY, BEG, STEAL or BORROW
a single SITh!  (Static Induction Thyristor)

I have e-mailed one of the Indian article authors TWICE, NGK Insulators in Japan once,
(I also contacted the Australian agent for NGK Insutators two days ago), China's Trade Commerce for
names of manufacturers of SITh, etc., etc.

Needless to say, NO replies from ANY of them!

The method is REAL but some of the details are wrong.

I have already written a detailed report and was about to publish it all when I discovered this thread.

So, IF you guys are interested, please read the attached document I named: "Nano-pulse electrolysis"
I have also attached the Patent which EXPLAINS very well how this method works!

To some, like 'MarkE', for example, I have this advise:

Please do some STUDY on "Static Induction Thyristors" and on IES (Inductive Energy Storage) as well as
the difference between Inductive and Capacitive energy storage before you make further comments showing off your ignorance!!

To be blunt, you don't have a bloody clue HOW this method works!

One way or the other, I will get to the bottom of this in (hopefully) record time!

I may also be able to substitute the SITh with some other device (like a MOSFET).

More on all this later.....

Cheers,
Les Banki
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 31, 2014, 06:19:25 AM
The joys of shrill. 
The first document is a set of shouted assertions, many that were pasted into the post above.
The patent document describes using SITs in a cascode configuration to build high voltage capable switches.  An IGBT could be used if the problem of the floating gate were addressed.

The patent describes charging the gate-anode capacitance with a portion of the inductor flyback.  The problem remains that a discharge path for the gate charge is not provided.  The next time that the circuit is to fire, the gate is charged deeply off.  Other embodiments in the patent that use pulse transformers overcome the problem with the cathode to gate winding of each pulse transformer.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on July 31, 2014, 07:09:14 AM
The joys of shrill. 
The first document is a set of shouted assertions, many that were pasted into the post above.
The patent document describes using SITs in a cascode configuration to build high voltage capable switches.  An IGBT could be used if the problem of the floating gate were addressed.

The patent describes charging the gate-anode capacitance with a portion of the inductor flyback.  The problem remains that a discharge path for the gate charge is not provided.  The next time that the circuit is to fire, the gate is charged deeply off.  Other embodiments in the patent that use pulse transformers overcome the problem with the cathode to gate winding of each pulse transformer.


MarkE,

You may have fooled a few readers on this forum in the past with LOTS of empty words in your 2885 posts but I (for one) know who you are and what you are trying to achieve...

You are NOT very good at it.... (are you still getting paid???)

For ONCE, I will call your bluff:

Since you are SOOOOOOOO clever, please provide your EXACT, working circuit diagram for replacing the Static Induction Thyristor in this device!!
If you can't, its time for you to SHUT UP!

Cheers,
Les Banki
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 31, 2014, 11:37:22 AM
MarkE,

You may have fooled a few readers on this forum in the past with LOTS of empty words in your 2885 posts but I (for one) know who you are and what you are trying to achieve...

You are NOT very good at it.... (are you still getting paid???)

For ONCE, I will call your bluff:

Since you are SOOOOOOOO clever, please provide your EXACT, working circuit diagram for replacing the Static Induction Thyristor in this device!!
If you can't, its time for you to SHUT UP!

Cheers,
Les Banki
More shrill, what joy!  You know, if you've been struggling to come up with a circuit, then instead of being shrill you could always just ask for help.  Note that the IGBT gate is properly referenced to the emitter. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
There waveform looks like they had issues with grounding.  They did not offer any schematic of their measurement set-up.  So, determining exactly what was going on is basically impossible.  The reason that I think the bursts 400ns apart are two sides of one pulse is because the leading edge of the second burst is the opposite polarity of the first.  Their DC waveform is at about 7.4 Volts which makes no sense for a 12V supply.

Your exponential pulse is the sort of thing one would expect from a flyback which sort of looks like what they wired.  They describe the operation as a flyback as well.  I see no justification for the SCR.  And the SCR gate should be pull-dwon to the cathode.
Agreed. The paper and the Figure 7 are illustrations of scope abuse. There is no data in the paper that justifies any power measurement except for the DC power level in the control.

Quote
The waveforms of the input power of the electrolytic cell are obtained by the high speed oscilloscope and
found that it is the pulsating pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in
Figure 7.
The input power required for the production of 0.58 mL/Sec with conventional DC source is 18 watts.
But the application of nano pulsed power supply power required is only 0.58 Watts.

It is even possible from this statement that they did their power math calculations on the exact screen data in Figure 7.  In other words, not only are they not depicting the pulse properly, they may not even be considering an entire cycle of the pulse train.
But the paper is so poorly written and lacks the detail that we here are accustomed to, even in a Joule Thief measurement! that one simply cannot tell for sure.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on July 31, 2014, 01:29:27 PM
Everything points to sever measurement error.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 01, 2014, 04:28:44 PM
More shrill, what joy!  You know, if you've been struggling to come up with a circuit, then instead of being shrill you could always just ask for help.  Note that the IGBT gate is properly referenced to the emitter.

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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: photonius on August 01, 2014, 05:29:36 PM
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)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 01, 2014, 07:30:37 PM
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.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 01, 2014, 09:07:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: mscoffman on August 01, 2014, 09:53:17 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: itsu on August 01, 2014, 10:31:28 PM

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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: mscoffman on August 01, 2014, 11:19:28 PM

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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 01, 2014, 11:53:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on August 02, 2014, 03:59:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 02, 2014, 04:37:55 AM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 02, 2014, 08:12:55 AM
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."

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on August 02, 2014, 09:08:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 02, 2014, 12:33:51 PM

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

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 02, 2014, 02:51:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on August 02, 2014, 03:16:44 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 02, 2014, 10:42:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 02, 2014, 11:40:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on August 03, 2014, 01:05:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 03, 2014, 02:23:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Kator01 on August 03, 2014, 10:09:42 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 03, 2014, 11:19:46 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on August 04, 2014, 02:41:13 AM
Bob Boyce



Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 04, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 04, 2014, 09:42:37 AM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Kator01 on August 04, 2014, 11:37:52 AM
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 (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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on August 04, 2014, 12:55:07 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 04, 2014, 09:08:05 PM
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..
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 04, 2014, 09:19:16 PM
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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: wings on August 04, 2014, 09:44:28 PM
similar approach short pulse also by Professor Kanarev:


http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/index.html (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 (http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/Kanarev/Kanarev1.doc)[/size][/color]


using also a special electromechanical pulse generator

http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10238.html (http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/eng/catalog/pages/10238.html)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: wings on August 04, 2014, 10:44:19 PM
water itself is a source of electricity see Doctor Pollack _ University of Washington
http://faculty.washington.edu/ghp/research-themes/water-based-technology/ (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://i1025.photobucket.com/albums/y320/h2opower/GasProcessorfinalassembly008-1.jpg)

http://communitycommunique.net/gerald-pollack-the-fourth-phase-of-water-part-1/ (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 (http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0161/7154/files/FOURTH_PHASE_SAMPLE.pdf)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 04:56:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 05, 2014, 05:23:38 AM
Kator01,

I am aware of Frank Znidarsic but his ideas/theories are based on QM (Quantum Mechanics) which is absolute CRAP!
I have known that (but without proof) for about 30 years.

Recently, however, 'proof' was/is supplied by a guy who is posting on THIS forum as well as on 'energeticforum.com' under the name
of 'TheoriaApophasis'.
His real name is Ken Lee Wheeler.
Check out his numerous posts but be warned, you will never be the same again! ;D


Chet,

Sorry, but Arie DeGues' Patent has little, if anything, to do with the subject being discussed here.
Note the use of hydrocarbon fuels which I am DEAD AGAINST!


profitis,

See?  You are not only admitting that you haven't read the documents ::) but 'proved' it as well with your second statement about using catalyst. ;)
If you have read the articles you would have clearly seen that BOTH experiments used catalyst in the water!

Perhaps now you can see how silly it is to make comments before you read!


wings,

I have been (but others might not be) aware of Professor Kanarev's work for many years.
Note the timing difference on the oscilloscope image.
His timing is in the ms range while the nano-pulse method we are discussing here is in the ns range!
In other words, a difference of two orders of magnitude!

Regards to all,
Les Banki
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 05:55:16 AM
Are you certain about that "real name"?  Are you sure it isn't Denise Anderson?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 05, 2014, 04:02:46 PM
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?

Hi Mark, honestly i am not sure here. I did experiment(unsuccesfull) with theree igbts in paraler (simple circuit driven by DDS with ar), what does short voltage and current spikes. Like induction i have RF ferroxcube rod 200mm with 5 layers (4+1) of winding (0,8 mm smalted wire). Guesing that induction or driver circuit are wrong. I have some old big toroid i will try rewind that beast next weekend.

I want to simulate samehow same osciloscope waveform like they have (without sith). I would be gratefull for any ideas from you or others.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 08:28:33 PM
Hi Mark, honestly i am not sure here. I did experiment(unsuccesfull) with theree igbts in paraler (simple circuit driven by DDS with ar), what does short voltage and current spikes. Like induction i have RF ferroxcube rod 200mm with 5 layers (4+1) of winding (0,8 mm smalted wire). Guesing that induction or driver circuit are wrong. I have some old big toroid i will try rewind that beast next weekend.

I want to simulate samehow same osciloscope waveform like they have (without sith). I would be gratefull for any ideas from you or others.
There are basically two ways to go:
1) As they did with a flyback topology.  The flyback arrangement has long current tails very visible in their oscilloscope captures.  The problem that I see with those long tails is that they defeat the idea of conducting only a large current for a short time.  For low voltage application such as theirs, a MOSFET with a driver that has good pull-down characteristics will do the job.  Turn-on is not so critical because the current is zero at turn-on.  You can use an off the shelf MOSFET driver, or roll one out of a couple of transistors and some discretes.  It depends on what is available to you parts-wise, and what kind of soldering equipment that you have.  The nice thing about the flyback configuration is that the output voltage just builds until current conducts.

2) A capacitive discharge topology.  This will yield very short duration, high power pulses.  For this sort of arrangement, I would charge up a polypropylene or polystyrene discharge capacitor using a flyback converter to a couple hundred volts and then discharge that with a MOSFET, or for higher power an IGBT.  In this configuration, it is the turn-on time that matters much more than the turn-off time.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Acca on August 05, 2014, 10:53:07 PM
 My response to Les Banki,
 
Thanks for the following  post as you are right Overunity dot com is infiltrated with self appointed paid “shills” to kill any idea that has a any potential of any fruition, there is NO DEBATE at all !! It’s just cut and gut the whole idea…
How does one get 10,000 posts like TinselKoala or Milehigh 2900 in a short time ??
Simple that is “Their Job” 8 hours a day.. These “Shills” are the real enemy of “FREE Energy” like TinselKoala, Milehigh, MarkE.. these are the biggest negative influence here !!
 
Acca..
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
MileHigh said:
 
“I watched the whole clip.  The next step would be for someone independent to test the same setup.  The clip is too long and would require too much effort for me to check all the connections and scope settings, etc.”
 
TinselKoala said:
 
“I see that in the video, Alek assumes that his load is completely resistive and produces no phase shift and that the rms values read from the meters can simply be directly multiplied to get the real output power. This is not true.”
 
 
Milehigh said:
 
Supporting his troll brother:
 
“Dead on Mark like usual.  I am surprised that I actually watched a clip that long.  I have lost a lot of the vigor to get into it these days so your comments are welcome.  If you want to be cynical, this was just a rehearsed pitch to a willing audience so he pulled it off quite well.  I was too lazy to see how much difference the variance in the phase angle would cause to the number crunching.”
 
MileHigh said:
 
 ”However, my instincts are still good.  Seeing that hunk of wire and ferrite you could just tell it was the same old story.” 
 
Some one is pissed at the resident trolls !!
 
Steeltpu said:
 
“trolls seen squiming in their chairs and overheard saying: there is always some little detail we can find to turn a mole hill into a mountain.   if not we'll make something up that sounds believable.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Silll…..
 
Quote
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent  of for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology) to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services. Shills are often employed by interests. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, like intelligence organization.
Shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist) for glaring flaws. In this sense, such a critic would be an indirect shill for the industry at large, because said critic's income is tied to the prosperity of the industry.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 11:54:19 PM
The paid internet skeptic conspiracy theory is as ridiculous today as it has ever been.

At the end of the day someone can produce evidence that supports their claims or they do not.  If Bill Alek were delivering on his claims no one would pay attention to anyone saying that his claims are the bunk that they are, because under those circumstances, they obviously would not be bunk, and no amount of argument could change the obvious.  The problem for Bill Alek is the same problem that has plagued countless proponents of outrageous claims:  He cannot produce the goods.  Measurements: indifferent, good, or as in this case: very bad, do not make power supplies that operate for free.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 06, 2014, 01:00:59 AM
Paid or not,shills can be a good thing for one reason: when they do post and are successfully countered,only truth remains. Disinformationists are the dangerous ones,but they too can be quikly put in their place if spotted.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 01:58:17 AM
Paid or not,shills can be a good thing for one reason: when they do post and are successfully countered,only truth remains. Disinformationists are the dangerous ones,but they too can be quikly put in their place if spotted.
Lies are always a problem.  There are lies some tell to others, and there are the worse lies that one uses to fool oneself into believing something one merely wishes.  Fortunately, rational people seek and weigh evidence.  Most often that results in finding the truth of matters.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on August 06, 2014, 05:07:48 AM
Acca...  you must be one of those legendary Paid Lurkers! Long time member but only a few posts and almost all of them insulting someone. Non-contributor! Bad Speller! LURKER!

You are probably collecting everybody's Free Energy designs into your little black notebook, which you will use in your Secret Lurkatory to construct all those items that nobody else has been able to get lurking. Er, working, I mean. I've got YOUR number, Paid Lurker.

 8)

(Don't Paid Lurkers have spelling checkers or dictionaries? Apparently not.)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: profitis on August 06, 2014, 09:10:52 AM
So true @mark E,so true.but even non-self-deception needs criticism. open replicable experiments rule,wether failure or not.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 06, 2014, 02:54:44 PM
Some related information in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2212.msg40863#msg40863 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2212.msg40863#msg40863)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 06, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2212.msg40902#msg40902 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2212.msg40902#msg40902)
Chemical energy is due to the different electron cloud arrangement of the compounds even though the elements are the same.
Can "electrolysised water" or "High Frequency Pulsed water" have different electron cloud arrangements as compared with ordinary water?
 
Divine revelation?
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 07, 2014, 01:19:08 AM
Lawrence,
I would like to offer a slightly different angle on your conjecture, one that relates to your lead-out work with the Joule Theif.  I recall you posting about your team having put a secondary on the JT and then using the secondary's configuration to produce a feedback dynamic resulting in a standing wave, which can be drawn upon to produce excess energy. I believe this is the basic principle that has been spoken of by at least one person who was present at Stan Meyer's disclosure of his method to the Maori people in New Zealand.
 
Some commentators like Bearden will state that the inductive kickback is actually the aether pushing back on the circuit with energy from the vacuum to restore balance from the unbalanced state produced by a voltage spike.  My question is:
 
Does this energy from the vacuum have some kind of unique property which orders water to be more perfectly aligned (at the intra and inter-molecular level) in order that it can produce gases in overabundant quantity as Meyer and others who follow his method have claimed?
 
It is one thing to pulse water with a high voltage spike. But it seems to be quite another to take the inductive kickback from a circuit to produce a standing wave, and then, to use the standing wave's claimed overunity to drive a water-fracturing circuit.  Does the energy from the vacuum in fact constitute a more primeval  and effective ordering force for water to properly align for this kind of superabundant gas production to take place?
 
Here are some of the posts where you dealt with a standing wave in the JT produced by secondary configuration. See this post and subsequent posts further down on page:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html#post136798 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html#post136798)
 
Bob
 
 
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 07, 2014, 01:20:44 AM
A post worth quoting in light of some of the discussion on this thread:
Quote
by sm0ky2 @ http://www.overunity.com/8825/pulsed-dc-transformer-with-embedded-magnets/msg248725/#msg248725 (http://www.overunity.com/8825/pulsed-dc-transformer-with-embedded-magnets/msg248725/#msg248725) :
i know very well the secrecy of the research we do.
ive studied the history of thousands of inventors of the past, and many seem to have eerily similar stories....

i've been around long enough to watch people here in these pages sell out to the industry.

ive seen misinformants come here with no intention other than discouraging us from doing what we do.

im not arguiing the facts you have presented.

only the way you are interpreting them.

you can perform the experiments to verify what i am telling you.
if you want i can even help you do that.
this is not some indoctrinated b.s. i pulled out of the books of the thermodynamically enslaved.

i myself have broken the laws of physics, i have defied the earth's atmosphere, i've proven einstein wrong and done things that would make steven hawking cry all over his wheelchair.
and i understand clearly how these things are able to take place, in defiance of some of the greatest minds mankind has ever known.
perhaps they were too smart for their own good ( and all of ours..)

there are secrets kept from our eyes that make the worlds largest supercomputer array look like child's play.
there are technologies that can play your body like a puppet, and most of the functions of your mind as well.
there are many things that SHOULD be kept secret.

i happen to believe infinite energy sources aren't one of them.

money makes the world go round my friend.
and those that take it from us will pay whatever they must to make sure they can keep taking it.
every day, drivers in the U.S. consume 378 million gallons of gasoline.  @ $2.69 a gallon
electricity, jet fuel, coal, heating oils, natural gas, propane, deisel, rocket-fuels.   <pause   hmmmmmmm>
---------------------------------------------------

When you have a high permeability core (as used in modern electronics) its' resonant frequency is much higher than the components that utilize it are capable of.
you can have your inductance/capacitances in resonance,
which is quite common. with a lower permeability core, you can actually get them all to resonate together.
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 01:56:36 AM
I see lots of allegations and claims.  I don't see evidence that backs either one.  Dr. Hawking is fallible just like anyone else.  It would however be very unexpected and noteworthy should he be found to make a major mistake in his field.  Can the poster you quoted live up to their boasts?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 07, 2014, 11:39:06 AM
 
Lawrence,
 I would like to offer a slightly different angle on your conjecture, one that relates to your lead-out work with the Joule Theif. I recall you posting about your team having put a secondary on the JT and then using the secondary's configuration to produce a feedback dynamic resulting in a standing wave, which can be drawn upon to produce excess energy. I believe this is the basic principle that has been spoken of by at least one person who was present at Stan Meyer's disclosure of his method to the Maori people in New Zealand.
 
 Some commentators like Bearden will state that the inductive kickback is actually the aether pushing back on the circuit with energy from the vacuum to restore balance from the unbalanced state produced by a voltage spike. My question is:
 
 Does this energy from the vacuum have some kind of unique property which orders water to be more perfectly aligned (at the intra and inter-molecular level) in order that it can produce gases in overabundant quantity as Meyer and others who follow his method have claimed?
 
 It is one thing to pulse water with a high voltage spike. But it seems to be quite another to take the inductive kickback from a circuit to produce a standing wave, and then, to use the standing wave's claimed overunity to drive a water-fracturing circuit. Does the energy from the vacuum in fact constitute a more primeval and effective ordering force for water to properly align for this kind of superabundant gas production to take place?
 
 Here are some of the posts where you dealt with a standing wave in the JT produced by secondary configuration. See this post and subsequent posts further down on page:
 [/font]http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html#post136798 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html#post136798)
 
 Bob
 
[/font]
@Bob,
When I returned to Hong Kong from USA two years ago, I got support.  We gave over 150 free samples.  I believe overunity.com, energetic forum and overunityresearch.com moderators got them also.
One important component is the Super Capacitor – 10F.  After the battery was removed, the LEDs continue to light for over 20 minutes.  In some cases, the LEDs blinked and lighted for over 10 hours.
Geoffrey Sun discovered a strange behavior.  Some Boards have the LEDs off and then on brightly again.
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3sSus1-B4&list=UUCzf8o1PPM8ozwNgWyk5lHw&index=12 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3sSus1-B4&list=UUCzf8o1PPM8ozwNgWyk5lHw&index=12)
Some groups started to work on varying the inductance and the capacitance and the Stan Meyer Water Fuel Cell type experiments.  At least one group showed promising results and got funded.  (All information became confidential as to be expected.)
I am reproducing some slides on my thoughts.  (Thoughts only – no experimental confirmation yet.)
Lawrence
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Void on August 07, 2014, 05:01:58 PM
When I returned to Hong Kong from USA two years ago, I got support.  We gave over 150 free samples.  I believe overunity.com, energetic forum and overunityresearch.com moderators got them also.
One important component is the Super Capacitor – 10F.  After the battery was removed, the LEDs continue to light for over 20 minutes. 

Hello ltseung888 my friend. Hope you are doing well.
It should be expected that a 10F super capacitor can run a Joule Thief circuit for 20 minutes or more
after being charged for only 10 seconds with an AA battery (approx. 1.5V). Exact results will depend
on the type of AA battery that is used to charge the 10F super capacitor, but I did a quick test using
my bench power supply set to 1.5VDC (max 3 Amps current), and I was able to charge a 10F super capacitor fully to 1.5V
after 10 seconds of charging.
Here are the calculations:
A 10F capacitor at 1.5V = 11.25 Joules of stored energy
20 minutes run time of the Joule Thief circuit  = 20 mins x 60s/min = 1200 seconds
1 Watt = 1 Joule/second so, 
11.25J /1200s = 9.38 mW average power consumption over the 20 minute period.
Since a Joule thief's power consumption falls off as the supply voltage falls, and a joule thief
only consumes maybe about 10mW to 5mW max or so in the voltage range of 1.5V to 0.4V supply voltage,
then it is an expected result that the 10F capacitor can run the joule thief circuit for at least 20 minutes
when charged to around 1.5V. This appears to be quite normal behavior.
All the best...



Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 07, 2014, 07:40:10 PM
Hello ltseung888 my friend. Hope you are doing well.
It should be expected that a 10F super capacitor can run a Joule Thief circuit for 20 minutes or more
after being charged for only 10 seconds with an AA battery (approx. 1.5V). Exact results will depend
on the type of AA battery that is used to charge the 10F super capacitor, but I did a quick test using
my bench power supply set to 1.5VDC (max 3 Amps current), and I was able to charge a 10F super capacitor fully to 1.5V
after 10 seconds of charging.
Here are the calculations:
A 10F capacitor at 1.5V = 11.25 Joules of stored energy
20 minutes run time of the Joule Thief circuit  = 20 mins x 60s/min = 1200 seconds
1 Watt = 1 Joule/second so, 
11.25J /1200s = 9.38 mW average power consumption over the 20 minute period.
Since a Joule thief's power consumption falls off as the supply voltage falls, and a joule thief
only consumes maybe about 10mW to 5mW max or so in the voltage range of 1.5V to 0.4V supply voltage,
then it is an expected result that the 10F capacitor can run the joule thief circuit for at least 20 minutes
when charged to around 1.5V. This appears to be quite normal behavior.
All the best...
@void,
Thanks for the estimation.  The direction I took was - what makes something a super capacitor?  Can I assume that the "electron cloud" distribution is responsible?
If so, electric field applied to water dipoles should be able to change the "electron clouds".  Different electron clouds can be stable and contain different energy.
Lead-out energy then becomes a matter of using such energy.
Divine Revelation?
God Bless,
Lawrence
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Void on August 07, 2014, 09:12:15 PM
@void,
Thanks for the estimation.  The direction I took was - what makes something a super capacitor?  Can I assume that the "electron cloud" distribution is responsible?
If so, electric field applied to water dipoles should be able to change the "electron clouds".  Different electron clouds can be stable and contain different energy.
Lead-out energy then becomes a matter of using such energy.
Divine Revelation?
God Bless,
Lawrence

Hello Lawrence. The thing to consider is, does a super capacitor at 10 Farads provide more
run time (more energy storage/energy delivery) for a device such as a joule thief than if we take a bunch of
regular electrolytic or other type capacitors and parallel them together to make 10 Farads total? There
is no reason to think there would be any difference. 10 Farads is 10 Farads, so the result should be the same.
A 10 Farad capacitor at 1.5V charge will power a joule thief circuit for about 20 minutes at least, whether you are
using a super capacitor or whether you are using a bank of capacitors made from other type capacitors. Whether you
are using a super capacitor or not should not make any difference.  In that sense there should be nothing special
about a super capacitor except that they have a larger capacitance in a much smaller package than other
types of capacitors. They are able to store more charge in a smaller package, but for a given capacitance
the amount of energy storage is the same as with capacitors of another type of the same capacitance.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there is nothing unusual about running a joule ringer circuit for twenty minutes
using a 10F capacitor charged to about 1.5V. That is a normal and expected result.
All the best...

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 07, 2014, 11:36:21 PM
 [font=][/font]
[font=](http://www.overunity.com/file:///C:/Users/Jen/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif)[/font]
Principle construction of a supercapacitor; 1. power source, 2. collector, 3.polarized electrode, 4. Helmholtz double layer, 5. electrolyte having positive and negative ions, 6. Separator.  See diagram.
 
Electrochemical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemistry) capacitors (supercapacitors) consist of two electrodes separated by an ion permeable membrane (separator), and an electrolyte connecting electrically the both electrodes. By applying a voltage to the capacitor an electric double layer at both electrodes is formed, which has a positive or negative layer of ions deposited in a mirror image on the opposite electrode.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor)
 
***** supercapacitor itself has elements of electrolysis.  Can "ordered water" store electrical energy in similar fashion?
If it all boils down to the electron cloud arrangements, such may be possible.  Such research has scientific backing.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 08, 2014, 09:32:24 AM
One question asked was:  How is Pulse Force different from Steady Force?
In Physics, work = force x disploacement.  Energy is required to do work.  The units of work and energy are the same.
When one has two equal and opposite Steady Forces F1 and F2 acting on an object, there can be no displacement.  No work is done or no energy is involved.
 
When one has two Pulsing Forces F3 and F4 acting on the same object, there will be displacement.  Much work is done and much energy is involved
 
Study the attached diagram.  Thus Pulsing DC Voltage is expected to be different from Steady DC Voltage.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 08, 2014, 01:31:33 PM
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.   
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 01:54:58 PM
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.   
Not only is it not needed, the flyback topology results in a long lasting current tail that is counter to the stated hypothesis of the researchers.  A CDI topology would be more faithful to their idea of delivering all the energy in pulses so narrow that a double barrier cannot form.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 08, 2014, 03:00:38 PM
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.   
Sorry about that. I do agree with you - that winding type and size are crucial to obtaining this effect.
Bob
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 09, 2014, 10:25:48 PM
I am not sure whether the following research is closely linked with this topic.
http://phys.org/news187622107.html (http://phys.org/news187622107.html)
In nature, Methane can be "trapped" by water as Methane Hydrate or combustible ice.  This ice can burn when ignited.
 
(CH4.5.75h20) methane hydrate contains a large amount of methane trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.
 
Different structures of water can contain different quantity of energy.  DC Pulsing may give energy causing the "water particles" to turn to a different structure.  This can explain the result of the Meyer and other experiments.
 
   [/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: mscoffman on August 10, 2014, 01:43:02 AM
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.   

One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes that might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer these bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I would really like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating.  ;D

:S:MarkSCoffman

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 01:57:11 AM
One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer those bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I really would like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating.  ;D

:S:MarkSCoffman
What thyristors do well is: hold off large voltages, pass large currents with modest voltage drops, and turn on fairly quickly.  What they don't tend to do is turn off very quickly, or pass current with sub 1V voltage drops.  The Japanese tam were looking for a circuit to ostensibly produce short duration current pulses so as to avoid double layer formation.  Their waveforms suggest that they did not succeed with that circuit, which is why I suggest a CDI topology would be a better choice as far as their idea goes.  The Japanese team was looking at performing electrolysis on a large scale where average currents would be large and due to concentrating the current into narrow pulses, the peak currents would be enormous.  they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity.  They were seeking to overcome some loss mechanisms that are known to reduce efficiency well below the theoretical energy conservative limits.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 10, 2014, 06:51:17 AM
All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.

 
Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.


Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.


Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.


Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!


Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).


In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.

 
Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.


That is 16.47 g per litre.

 
Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.

 
Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.
 
To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.


Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

 Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the “tail” current through the cell.


Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:


ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)

 
Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!

 
The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m3, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.


Needless to say, it is all done to “help” you!!  You should be grateful......!  ::) ::)
Yeh,...right!


they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity. 



As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

“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 theorising!

Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!”


More to come.....


Cheers,
Les Banki

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 07:50:59 AM
All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.

 
Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.


Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.


Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.


Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!


Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).


In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.

 
Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.


That is 16.47 g per litre.

 
Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.

 
Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.
 
To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.


Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

 Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the “tail” current through the cell.


Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:


ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)

 
Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!

 
The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m3, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.


Needless to say, it is all done to “help” you!!  You should be grateful......!  ::) ::)
Yeh,...right!

 


As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

“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 theorising!

Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!”


More to come.....


Cheers,
Les Banki
Shrill seems to be your standard posting style.  So be it.

The Japanese paper proposed a hypothesis that delivering current entirely within short pulses would over come degradation in electrolysis efficiency particularly in large throughput cells.  The long tails shown in their report are counter to their concept as stated.  Their measurements did not show the improvements they theorized.  this leaves several choices:  Drop the concept.  Attempt to test the concept a different way.  Or, ignore the data and pretend it says things that it does not.  I have proposed that a CDI method as a way to test the concept in a different way.  CDI systems work by charging  modest capacitors to significant voltages, and then discharging into the load typically through an isolation transformer.  Where a flyback delivers I2*L/2 Joules per cycle, a CDI delivers V2*C/2 Joules per cycle.  The principle advantage of a CDI here would be to concentrate the charge and energy delivery into shorter periods of time as proposed in the Japanese paper.  The practical details of any power circuit design are a matter of competency.  While a flyback will theoretically rise to whatever voltage is required to maintain current flow, the right components must be selected or else at a minimum the efficiency will be poor, or worse components will fry.  See for example, John Rohner's many different design iterations.  A CDI is more complex a design undertaking than a typical flyback.  But just as one can't get blood from a turnip, one cannot get a rapid current pulse from an inductor discharging into a low resistance.  That point is reiterated by the most recent paper you've linked from the 2011 World Hydrogen Technologies Convention.

You are free to claim that the Japanese researchers selected inappropriate dimensions and/or electrolyte concentrations.  If you believe that, then repeat their experiments altering them in any way you like to see if you improve upon their results.  I have already provided you with a circuit that overcomes your inability to find the SITs that they used.

H2 is a useful fuel. H2 and CO are the components of syngas.  Each has a faster flame propagation speed and higher combustion temperature than pentane.  The trouble wiht H2 is it isn't something that we find just lying around.  We have to convert some other feed stock, and doing so uses more energy than we are able to extract oxidizing the H2

If when you proclaim:  "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, ..." you are suggesting that water is the fuel for either vehicle: then let's see either of these vehicles.  Let's see how they have broken the laws of physics as they are presently understood.  Of course if you can't actually produce either of these vehicles then your shrill proclamations fall flat.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 10, 2014, 09:08:58 AM
MarkE,

As I told you before, you are NOT very good at this.....you should TRY to find a different occupation....!

Oh, so you are here to teach me about CDI, eh??
Perhaps you should have checked out my Water Fueled Generator Project (WFGP) before you shoot your big mouth off!

Most people on this Forum had enough of your ravings.

I have worked with "water fuel" for 20 years.
Perhaps you want to teach me about electrolysis, too??
How many electrolysers have you made?

Unlike you, I have NO problem running engines on water.
But YOU have a problem explaining THAT away!

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

Cheers,
Les Banki


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 09:52:55 AM
MarkE,

As I told you before, you are NOT very good at this.....you should TRY to find a different occupation....!
More shrill, more ad hom.  It's boring.  It does not add to any scientific discussion.
Quote

Oh, so you are here to teach me about CDI, eh??

If you are familiar with CDI then you would know that contrary to your stated claim that it is limited to the input supply voltage, that it normally includes a boost voltage converter to charge the capacitor.  So were you uninformed, or being deliberately dishonest when you complained incorrectly that CDI is limited to the input supply voltage?
Quote

Perhaps you should have checked out my Water Fueled Generator Project (WFGP) before you shoot your big mouth off!

Most people on this Forum had enough of your ravings.

I have worked with "water fuel" for 20 years.
Perhaps you want to teach me about electrolysis, too??
How many electrolysers have you made?
If you are an expert at electrolysis then you should be able to deliver on your claims.
Quote
Unlike you, I have NO problem running engines on water.
But YOU have a problem explaining THAT away!

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

Cheers,
Les Banki
So is that a big no go on producing the water powered cars?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 10, 2014, 12:04:19 PM
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=86492


I give my hydrogen circuits, perhaps it may be of some use.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 11, 2014, 05:16:34 PM
 
I actually met and worked with the late Yull Brown in the 1980s.  One of the most interesting properties of the Browns Gas is IMPLOSION.[/font]
 
 
 
When I first got involved, I was worried about explosion as I knew that Hydrogen and Oxygen were used as fuel in rockets.  The hydrogen airships could explode.[/font]
 
 
 
Mr. Brown convinced me that his Browns Gas was harmless if handled properly.  One of the properties not well understood is implosion.  When a volume of Browns Gas is ignited, a partial vacuum will be created.  Dennis Lee used this feature to demonstrate the lifting of a weight in his Energy Conference.  This actually is a clear case demonstrating that Energy comes from outside.[/font]
 
 
 
The significance did not hit me until now – when the Indian Scientists and others successfully produced much more hydrogen via pulsing.
 
 
 
The attached slide comparing electrolysis and pulsing is significant.  Most people assume that the gas structures from electrolysis and from Pulsing or Browns Gas are identical.  That is a false assumption.[/font]
 
 
 
Please review and comment on the Slide (comment 8) .  Browns Gas does have the property of implosion.  This implies energy can be brought-in from the environment.  Water can be used as fuel in a very funny way.  Some energy is used (pulsed in?) to change the water molecules into the Browns Gas structure (or some form different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas form).  This new structure implodes or gets energy from outside to get back to normal water.[/font]
 
 
 
Divine Revelation?
 
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 08:13:00 PM
Your chart is incomplete.  The implosion is simply a result of energy in the surrounding gas volume acting on the volume reduction that results because at ordinary atmospheric pressure liquid water is much denser than the gaseous H2 and O2 reacted to make it.  You have not taken the energy in the local atmosphere into account.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 11, 2014, 08:22:13 PM
Lawrence,
I'd like to offer a thought for your consideration:
 
Instead of the term implosive, I believe we could also use the term centripetal or counter-spatial.
This centripetal/counter-spatial attribute is a key characteristic of the dielectric field in relation to permanent magnets, according to the emerging work of Ken Wheeler (user theoriaapophasis) on this forum.
 
I'd like to suggest that pulsation (as opposed to electrolysis) produces better gas production because it is tapping the dielectric field (aether), whose nature is counter-spatial (implosive).  The pulsing sets up a kind of imbalance between charge and discharge, which the dielectric rushes in to restore balance from its own vast and much more highly energetic universal reservoir - again, in a way that is counter-spatial/implosive.  In this same way then, Brown's gas is produced with its implosive properties.
 
If I may be so bold, I believe this same aether/dielectric inrushing dynamic might also may speak to your lead-out theory.
 
Respectfully,
Bob
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 09:37:11 PM
Bob with all due respect the implosion is very simple:  1 mole of gas at STP occupies ~22.4 liters.  2 moles of H2, and 1 mole of O2, weighing ~18 grams occupy ~67.2 liters.  When they combust to form 18 grams of liquid water: The water occupies ~18ml.  ~67.18 liters of gas has been removed from the working volume.  The local pressure drops and surrounding gas rushes in to fill the void re-equalizing the pressure.

The 2005 Japanese paper proposed that pulses if they are fast enough would avoid losses due to overcoming a double barrier that forms on the order of microseconds.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 11, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
 The basic Physics of the lead-out or bring-in energy machine is in the attached slide.
 
If energy can be brought-in from outside the system and made to do work, there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
 
The question then becomes:
1.    Is there such a thing as IMPLOSION as in the case of Browns Gas?
2.    Can the IMPLOSION be made to do work?
3.    The total energy used to do work will be the sum of the energy to start or maintain the implosion PLUS the energy coming in from OUTSIDE as a result of the implosion.  When there is external energy added from OUTSIDE, overunity is guaranteed!
 
We do not need to worry about the exact mechanism of the IMPLOSION at this theoretical stage.  All we need to ask is whether the three above points are TRUE.  From the experimental evidence so far, the three above points are TRUE.  Thus research in this area is very worthwhile.[/font]
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 11, 2014, 10:59:34 PM
Bob with all due respect the implosion is very simple:  1 mole of gas at STP occupies ~22.4 liters.  2 moles of H2, and 1 mole of O2, weighing ~18 grams occupy ~67.2 liters.  When they combust to form 18 grams of liquid water: The water occupies ~18ml.  ~67.18 liters of gas has been removed from the working volume.  The local pressure drops and surrounding gas rushes in to fill the void re-equalizing the pressure.


Work can be done by the surrounding gas rushing in to fill the void.  This is EXTERNAL energy supplied by the environment or Lead-Out Energy in my terms.  (Some asked me to use the term Bring-in.  They are the same thing.)
 
In any Lead-Out Energy System, if we can Bring-in FREE environmental energy to do work for us, we burn less fuel or use less electricity.  If part of the "work" can be fed back, we can keep the system going with such environmental energy.  The Lead-Out Energy System is NOT a perpetual motion machine as it will NOT violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.  However, it can continue to run forever with the environmental energy.  In this case, the surrounding gas rushing in to fill the void will get colder.  In Physics, we can treat this as a case of using the kinetic energy of the air molecules.

Instead of Global Warming, we get Global Cooling.
 
Divine Revealation?
 
Hydrogen and oxygen (in the form of atoms, ions, molecules or what-so-ever) collide and turn into water in liquid form immediately.  This happens if the proportions and conditions are right.  If not, (or in the presence of impurities) EXPLOSION will occur.  It is a dangerous experiment...
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 01:02:26 AM
The basic Physics of the lead-out or bring-in energy machine is in the attached slide.
 
If energy can be brought-in from outside the system and made to do work, there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
 
The question then becomes:
1.    Is there such a thing as IMPLOSION as in the case of Browns Gas?
2.    Can the IMPLOSION be made to do work?
3.    The total energy used to do work will be the sum of the energy to start or maintain the implosion PLUS the energy coming in from OUTSIDE as a result of the implosion.  When there is external energy added from OUTSIDE, overunity is guaranteed!
 
We do not need to worry about the exact mechanism of the IMPLOSION at this theoretical stage.  All we need to ask is whether the three above points are TRUE.  From the experimental evidence so far, the three above points are TRUE.  Thus research in this area is very worthwhile.[/font]
Bad accounting does not create exploitable energy.  It just makes for funny written sums.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 12, 2014, 01:11:45 AM
The Brother of Stan Meyers ( Stephen ) admitted in an interview that Stan didnt know what was happening.

To this day, not a single witness has popped up to confirm the achievements of Stan, nor did anybody replicate his work.

The company xogen is the only company who was making an actual product, they seem to have dissapeared.

Regarding Stan, It is my belief that he was milking money as he was still in research phase.

His brother said in a radio interview that he further researched this, and that his sytem was more refined, his sytem is described in his patent, wich was rejected.

His system revolved around dual 3 phase generator, with phase cancelling interference antennas, and somekind of ringing network.

There was also a switch of polarity, by relay.

6 sets of tubes, these sets were composed of 3 tubes each.

The frequency was in the 400 hz range, I originally thought that for experimental work, an electronic emulation of 3 phase would be more suitable.

So I built the circuit above. What advantage does this hold over simple pulsing, this answer is deep within the research mind of Stephen Meyers.

Having worked all his life in radar, having invented all his life, Stephen Meyers is certainly one of the most knowledgeable figures on the planet.

If one of you thinks he has the engineering skill to pull it off, circuit is there. I doubt even doctor of EE can do this, difficulty level is AAA, multi-domain.

Edit: it seems like xogen is going strong, they re-appeared now.



Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 01:38:30 AM
The Brother of Stan Meyers ( Stephen ) admitted in an interview that Stan didnt know what was happening.

To this day, not a single witness has popped up to confirm the achievements of Stan, nor did anybody replicate his work.

The company xogen is the only company who was making an actual product, they seem to have dissapeared.

Regarding Stan, It is my belief that he was milking money as he was still in research phase.

His brother said in a radio interview that he further researched this, and that his sytem was more refined, his sytem is described in his patent, wich was rejected.

His system revolved around dual 3 phase generator, with phase cancelling interference antennas, and somekind of ringing network.

There was also a switch of polarity, by relay.

6 sets of tubes, these sets were composed of 3 tubes each.

The frequency was in the 400 hz range, I originally thought that for experimental work, an electronic emulation of 3 phase would be more suitable.

So I built the circuit above. What advantage does this hold over simple pulsing, this answer is deep within the research mind of Stephen Meyers.

Having worked all his life in radar, having invented all his life, Stephen Meyers is certainly one of the most knowledgeable figures on the planet.

If one of you thinks he has the engineering skill to pull it off, circuit is there. I doubt even doctor of EE can do this, difficulty level is AAA, multi-domain.

Edit: it seems like xogen is going strong, they re-appeared now.
Things we know:
Stan Meyer made extraordinary over unity claims.
Stan Meyer never proved his extraordinary claims.
Stan Meyer was found by an Ohio judge to have perpetrated an "egregious fraud" against his investors.
Stan Meyer's claims have not been successfully reproduced.

That's not a very encouraging set of facts.  If Stan's surviving brother or anyone else can show greater than Faraday efficiency electrolyzing water, they stand to become very rich.  If they break unity, that changes to incredibly rich.  If someone succeeds at managing what the Japanese paper from 2005 was trying to do which is maintain Faraday efficiency in a scalable way they still stand to make a lot of money.  I don't know why anyone who could manage any of these objectives would sit on such a wonderful discovery.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 12, 2014, 01:50:04 AM
Not very encouraging I agree.

But it looks better for Stan`s brother, who is engineer with much experience.

Navy engineer, wich much much background. Are you saying he is not credible ? He is zeus like, crusher.

Im sure he went farther than what the university researcher go.

No doubt he knows of the effect of this document.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 02:35:40 AM
Not very encouraging I agree.

But it looks better for Stan`s brother, who is engineer with much experience.

Navy engineer, wich much much background. Are you saying he is not credible ? He is zeus like, crusher.

Im sure he went farther than what the university researcher go.

No doubt he knows of the effect of this document.
Whatever he may or may not know or claim, he has not presented an electrolyzer that exceeds Faraday efficiency.  In a way this is sort of like the Papp engine and the two Rohner brothers.  John Rohner has been caught lying so many times it isn't funny including claims to multiple PhD's when under oath he has admitted to only a high school education.  He's fighting a lawsuit by the SEC, and faces a DoJ criminal action behind that.  Then there is his brother Bob Rohner who is an accomplished mechanical engineer with a real degree.  Bob's been trying for many years but still has never publicly shown that he can get any excess energy out of noble gasses.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 12, 2014, 03:11:20 AM
No doubt, he has the qualifications, background to replicate this document.

Why dont we see implementation of that document, I dont understand.

It is identical to the xogen patent

I was following the xogen thing when they had their test plant, but they just dissapeared prior to that.

What were results ? Nothing is known.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 12, 2014, 03:19:42 AM
The thing that strikes me the most about Stephen`s patent is first of all, why he chose 6 cells, why he chose such complex signals.

This is structure buiding IMHO. His only clue in his interview, was, why is snow white, and some unrelated mention of radiation, cell radiates.

But from other prior designs not necessary.

What I think is necessary, as Ltseung says, is kinetic energy. In patent application of Stephen there is mention of mechanical vibration of the cell itself.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 12, 2014, 04:11:23 AM
Bob with all due respect the implosion is very simple:  1 mole of gas at STP occupies ~22.4 liters.  2 moles of H2, and 1 mole of O2, weighing ~18 grams occupy ~67.2 liters.  When they combust to form 18 grams of liquid water: The water occupies ~18ml.  ~67.18 liters of gas has been removed from the working volume.  The local pressure drops and surrounding gas rushes in to fill the void re-equalizing the pressure.

The 2005 Japanese paper proposed that pulses if they are fast enough would avoid losses due to overcoming a double barrier that forms on the order of microseconds.
Mark,
I do understand the logic of your approach. I'm looking at this through the lens of a different paradigm. Time will tell...
Bob
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 04:22:09 AM
It always does.  Thanks for being civil.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 04:26:00 AM
The thing that strikes me the most about Stephen`s patent is first of all, why he chose 6 cells, why he chose such complex signals.

This is structure buiding IMHO. His only clue in his interview, was, why is snow white, and some unrelated mention of radiation, cell radiates.

But from other prior designs not necessary.

What I think is necessary, as Ltseung says, is kinetic energy. In patent application of Stephen there is mention of mechanical vibration of the cell itself.
Data ultimately resolves uncertainty.  There have been many ideas proposed along the lines of splitting water and getting OU.  Despite many claims, none so far have been shown to work. I suggest that means that none of the techniques hold up.  Either a different technique is needed or there is no way to get there.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Paul-R on August 12, 2014, 04:34:47 PM
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=86492 (http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=86492)


I give my hydrogen circuits, perhaps it may be of some use.
That site bans the discussion of overunity. Why choose them to disclose?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 12, 2014, 08:41:50 PM
Go ahead, try my drive(s) on water. Whatever floats your boat. It would be great if you succeed. Do you wanna pulse by dc or by ac, single phase or 3 phase.

Donut with that ?

The pulser, is an electronic traffic switch of sort, a gated signal from an independent oscillator will in high likelyhood overlap and either cut short or prolonge a gate, an offbeat. This will prevent that in any situation, even on the first pulse, it is very robust.

My 3 phase signal and amplifier, well, you are quite lucky to even witness this. I disclosed my circuit in a manner that is hidden, half hearted divulgation.

So this circuit right there, is quite a devotion, very large. But it works. Its 100% useless for anything other than Stephen Meyers or something that requires 3 phase emulation in 25 khz range.

Its far too large to be of any commercial value, this could all be replaced by a single chip, or 2. It was a doable way, it is atomic and not software so quite fast and robust, snappy.

I would love to collaborate with somebody who has a 18 tube cell arrangement in hexagonal fashion as per Stephen patent, I believe I have an pcb for this circuit

Some sine wave shaping, back in the day I used only old school logic gates, and switch cpacitor filter is a chip that allows for sine wave generation. Then the glitch is filtered.

My amplifier, Efficiency is 50%, but this is just for experimental, flexible, nice waveform, capable of driving capricious and bizarre loads.

There is a complication in the circuitry, as the 7474hc chip needs inversion. the 74cmos doesnt.

You need, +- 22 volts dual rail power supply (control ), and battery or high power smps as main driver. Its a question of ruggedness and quality that I chose dual rail.

Transformer is middle tap, differential transformer. Equal and opposite dc dont effect transformer, so this technique has many advantage, over A/B, , or single ended. Transformer will not saturate.

Yes, there is always wasted DC (heat is still useful), bur that is price to pay for linearisation of mosfet, we are always in conduction mode, signal integrity is goal.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 12, 2014, 10:05:05 PM
Go ahead, try my drive(s) on water. Whatever floats your boat. It would be great if you succeed. Do you wanna pulse by dc or by ac, single phase or 3 phase.

Donut with that ?

The pulser, is an electronic traffic switch of sort, a gated signal from an independent oscillator will in high likelyhood overlap and either cut short or prolonge a gate, an offbeat. This will prevent that in any situation, even on the first pulse, it is very robust.

My 3 phase signal and amplifier, well, you are quite lucky to even witness this. I disclosed my circuit in a manner that is hidden, half hearted divulgation.

So this circuit right there, is quite a devotion, very large. But it works. Its 100% useless for anything other than Stephen Meyers or something that requires 3 phase emulation in 25 khz range.

Its far too large to be of any commercial value, this could all be replaced by a single chip, or 2. It was a doable way, it is atomic and not software so quite fast and robust, snappy.

I would love to collaborate with somebody who has a 18 tube cell arrangement in hexagonal fashion as per Stephen patent, I believe I have an pcb for this circuit

Some sine wave shaping, back in the day I used only old school logic gates, and switch cpacitor filter is a chip that allows for sine wave generation. Then the glitch is filtered.

My amplifier, Efficiency is 50%, but this is just for experimental, flexible, nice waveform, capable of driving capricious and bizarre loads.

There is a complication in the circuitry, as the 7474hc chip needs inversion. the 74cmos doesnt.

You need, +- 22 volts dual rail power supply (control ), and battery or high power smps as main driver. Its a question of ruggedness and quality that I chose dual rail.

Transformer is middle tap, differential transformer. Equal and opposite dc dont effect transformer, so this technique has many advantage, over A/B, , or single ended. Transformer will not saturate.

Yes, there is always wasted DC (heat is still useful), bur that is price to pay for linearisation of mosfet, we are always in conduction mode, signal integrity is goal.

I dont see reason why to try something so complex like it is stephen meyer patent.
If his idea work why you dont make small scale experiment with one cell?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 10:11:03 PM
Go ahead, try my drive(s) on water. Whatever floats your boat. It would be great if you succeed. Do you wanna pulse by dc or by ac, single phase or 3 phase.

Donut with that ?

The pulser, is an electronic traffic switch of sort, a gated signal from an independent oscillator will in high likelyhood overlap and either cut short or prolonge a gate, an offbeat. This will prevent that in any situation, even on the first pulse, it is very robust.

My 3 phase signal and amplifier, well, you are quite lucky to even witness this. I disclosed my circuit in a manner that is hidden, half hearted divulgation.

So this circuit right there, is quite a devotion, very large. But it works. Its 100% useless for anything other than Stephen Meyers or something that requires 3 phase emulation in 25 khz range.

Its far too large to be of any commercial value, this could all be replaced by a single chip, or 2. It was a doable way, it is atomic and not software so quite fast and robust, snappy.

I would love to collaborate with somebody who has a 18 tube cell arrangement in hexagonal fashion as per Stephen patent, I believe I have an pcb for this circuit

Some sine wave shaping, back in the day I used only old school logic gates, and switch cpacitor filter is a chip that allows for sine wave generation. Then the glitch is filtered.

My amplifier, Efficiency is 50%, but this is just for experimental, flexible, nice waveform, capable of driving capricious and bizarre loads.

There is a complication in the circuitry, as the 7474hc chip needs inversion. the 74cmos doesnt.
You need, +- 22 volts dual rail power supply (control ), and battery or high power smps as main driver. Its a question of ruggedness and quality that I chose dual rail.

Transformer is middle tap, differential transformer. Equal and opposite dc dont effect transformer, so this technique has many advantage, over A/B, , or single ended. Transformer will not saturate.

Yes, there is always wasted DC (heat is still useful), bur that is price to pay for linearisation of mosfet, we are always in conduction mode, signal integrity is goal.
74HC74 is a CMOS D FLOP, both Q and /Q come out, and both swing rail to rail.  If you post a pdf of yor schematic and I will see about any recommendations.  I am not a member of all about circuits.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 01:15:41 AM
Bob with all due respect the implosion is very simple:  1 mole of gas at STP occupies ~22.4 liters.  2 moles of H2, and 1 mole of O2, weighing ~18 grams occupy ~67.2 liters.  When they combust to form 18 grams of liquid water: The water occupies ~18ml.  ~67.18 liters of gas has been removed from the working volume.  The local pressure drops and surrounding gas rushes in to fill the void re-equalizing the pressure.

Dear MarkE,
You have provided the information on the calculation of the amount of Lead-out or Bring-in Energy.  That energy is simply Pressure x Volume(PV).  Pressure is atmospheric Pressure.  Volume is the Volume of Partial Volume Created.  You have now provided the information for that Volume.  Thank you.
 
If there is IMPLOSION, there is Energy coming from the OUTSIDE.  This energy is considered as Lead-out or Bring-in Energy.
Every Implosion brings in PV units of energy.  The Power is just the number of Implosions per second.  With the theoretical understanding clarified, we can now:
1. Design the Implosion machine to be as efficient as possible.
2. Calculate the amount of Power it can produce.
3. Calculate the mass of Water required.
4. The Good thing about the machine is that the water can be reused.
5. If properly designed, there will be NO emission of Carbon dioxide.  Or no pollution of environment.
6. There will be Global Cooling instead of Global Warming.  We do not need to worry about ice caps melting.
All the HHO or Stan Meyer methods need to be re-examined in this new light.
 
All top Universities should be informed as soon as possible.  I shall write up a full presentation so that the whole theory is in one place.  Thanks to all who spent years on this Forum and others.  Your efforts have not been in vain.
 
Divine Revelation?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2014, 01:36:39 AM
Dear MarkE,
You have provided the information on the calculation of the amount of Lead-out or Bring-in Energy.  That energy is simply Pressure x Volume(PV).  Pressure is atmospheric Pressure.  Volume is the Volume of Partial Volume Created.  You have now provided the information for that Volume.  Thank you.
 
If there is IMPLOSION, there is Energy coming from the OUTSIDE.  This energy is considered as Lead-out or Bring-in Energy.
Every Implosion brings in PV units of energy.  The Power is just the number of Implosions per second.  With the theoretical understanding clarified, we can now:

The assumptions that you seem to be making are really bad.  First you seem to be overlooking that the energy available is slightly less than the energy that it took to compress the surrounding gasses by injecting the H2 and O2 gas masses into the confined volume the first place.
Quote

1. Design the Implosion machine to be as efficient as possible.
Buy a soup can.
Quote
2. Calculate the amount of Power it can produce.
Long term the value is zero.  There is no net energy that can be had from compressing and relaxing a spring, including a gas spring.
Quote
3. Calculate the mass of Water required.
It can be any amount you like, because all energy that goes through the system has to be supplied from the outside.
Quote
4. The Good thing about the machine is that the water can be reused.
Springs recycle.
Quote
5. If properly designed, there will be NO emission of Carbon dioxide.  Or no pollution of environment.
As there is no net work performed, there is also no value.
Quote
6. There will be Global Cooling instead of Global Warming.  We do not need to worry about ice caps melting.
Nope, this process doesn't yield any net energy to offset fossil or atomic fuels, or displace the cost of building and maintaining alternative energy generation such as wind and solar.
Quote
All the HHO or Stan Meyer methods need to be re-examined in this new light.
No, this is no more workable than any of the many other unworkable free energy schemes that you have promoted over the years.   At least you know Stan Meyer's last name is Meyer and not "Meyers".
Quote

All top Universities should be informed as soon as possible.  I shall write up a full presentation so that the whole theory is in one place.  Thanks to all who spent years on this Forum and others.  Your efforts have not been in vain.
Do what you like.  Don't expect this unworkable idea to get a better reception than your other unworkable ideas before it.
Quote

Divine Revelation?
No, it's just bad assumptions and flawed logic on your part as many times before.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 07:39:18 AM
The new understanding using Implosion and Lead-out or Bring-in Energy is in the attached file.
 
Stan Meyer might have done one thing right accidentally - fed exhaust gas back  increasing Pressure.
 
Please review and understand your physics before commenting.
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2014, 08:05:23 AM
Your nine slide presentation doesn't actually offer any explanations or new understandings.
Slide 1 Title
Slide 2 Table of Contents
Slide 3 Executive Summary:  People claim that water can be burned as a fuel, and the confused idea that burning water causes an implosion.  Oxidizing H2 gas with O2 gas implodes.
Slide 4.  Incorrect assertion that a machine that is externally powered is a free energy device.
Slide 5. Somewhat correct description of the gas volume reduction, IE implosion from oxidation of H2 gas with O2 gas.  Invalid assumption of infinite pressure volume source.  Invalid oversight of the fact that cycle by cycle the combustible feed stock has to push out the externally supplied gas that filled the implosion void.
Slide 6. Invalid claim that implosion volume is constant.  The volume depends on pressure and temperature.
Slide 7. Assertion of adiabatic expansion which runs counter to the earlier assumption of an infinite source.  Again neglects the volume that must be displaced back to the source in order to complete one cycle.
Slide 8. More of the discredited conspiracy theory that Stanley Meyer was murdered.  He suffered an aneurism.  Link to a different idea about electrolysis.  Link to discussion of the unestablished claims from the Indian report.
Slide 9. Claim that the silliness above is "Divine Revelation".

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 08:59:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlbb_ojAdI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlbb_ojAdI)
 
Experimental comparison of implosion and explosion.
 
The first implosion was caused by HHO or Browns Gas.  Please examine the first few frames frame-by-frame as suggested.  The bag and the grass was shredded on the ground.  Surrounding air rushed in to cause the effect.  More comes from the top.  Listen to the sound carefully.
 
The second explosion was casused by HHO or Browns Gas mixed with water vapor.
 
With the addition of water vapor, the water vapor rapidly changed into steam.  The resulting steam (as gas) rapidly expands and causes the normal explosion behavior.
 
Can anyone dig up the old demonstration from Dennis Lee where he showed the lifting of weights using the implosion of Browns Gas?  Thank you.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Simple attempt to explain IMPLOSION working principle.  Practically no exhaust gas comes out!
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2014, 11:22:18 AM
Lawrence, springs do not make working free energy machines.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 01:03:41 PM
Lawrence, springs do not make working free energy machines.

We do not use springs.  We use the kinetic energy of air molecules.  We cool the environment.
 
God provides us with the Environmental Energy.  We must employ our Physics Knowledge to use it...
 
God also provides us with sunlight.  At one time, we did not know solar panels...
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Paul-R on August 13, 2014, 04:59:06 PM
Simple attempt to explain IMPLOSION working principle.  Practically no exhaust gas comes out!
I remember disclosing this idea in the hydroxy yahoo group years ago, (I was pleased that Smack of Smack's Booster fame was impressed) and although I am sure it would work, the noise would be so dreadful that it would never get off the ground. Also, I proposed that the firing stroke should generate work as well as the suction.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 06:03:59 PM
 
I remember disclosing this idea in the hydroxy yahoo group years ago, (I was pleased that Smack of Smack's Booster fame was impressed) and although I am sure it would work, the noise would be so dreadful that it would never get off the ground. Also, I proposed that the firing stroke should generate work as well as the suction.
 
@Paul-R,
 
One problem with HHO implosion is that it requires relatively pure mixture of the gases in the right proportions and with little impurity.
 
If we introduce water vapor as in the continuous Implosion example, the result will be explosion.  See the Youtube video mentioned in reply 101:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlbb_ojAdI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqlbb_ojAdI)

At present, I focus only on the theoretical aspects of “Implosion giving rise to Energy being brought-in from the OUTSIDE environment”.   Some engineering ideas include
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3)
 
I have not studied them fully yet.



There is likely to be many more hurdles to overcome before the final successful implementation.  Please do share your ideas and experience.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Paul-R on August 13, 2014, 06:41:49 PM
It is the stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 that does the business, and of course, the end product, a very small amount of water, is what results in the high vacuum which does the suction.

Introducing water vapour will make everything more manageable, but may well ruin the performance of the suction.



(People should remember that the stoichiometric HHO mix of gases is VERY DANGEROUS INDEED and should not be stored, only generated as needed).
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 13, 2014, 08:05:26 PM

We do not use springs.  We use the kinetic energy of air molecules.  We cool the environment.
 
God provides us with the Environmental Energy.  We must employ our Physics Knowledge to use it...
 
God also provides us with sunlight.  At one time, we did not know solar panels...
Whether you realize it or not, yes what you propose is a gas spring.  Work out a complete cycle in some ultimately finite volume:

Some amount of energy stored in a gas spring at the operating temperature:  PV = nRT, where n = sum of H2, O2, and other gasses, we'll just call that N2.

Ignite the mixture and the energy increases by QCOMBUSTION, increasing T and as a consequence P.

The gas quantity n decreases by the the number of moles H2 and O2combusted.  P now falls from its elevated value.

To complete the cycle, the water has to be converted back into H2 and O2 gas either by draining the water and introducing fresh gas, or electrolyzing the water.

(n1 N2 + 2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T => n1 N2 + n2 H2O + QCOMBUSTION - (2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T => (n1 N2 + 2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T

The starting and ending conditions are the same with the same number of moles gas in the same volume at the same temperature with the same energy.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 13, 2014, 11:37:27 PM
 
Whether you realize it or not, yes what you propose is a gas spring. Work out a complete cycle in some ultimately finite volume:
 
 Some amount of energy stored in a gas spring at the operating temperature: PV = nRT, where n = sum of H2, O2, and other gasses, we'll just call that N2.
 
 Ignite the mixture and the energy increases by QCOMBUSTION, increasing T and as a consequence P.
 
 The gas quantity n decreases by the the number of moles H2 and O2combusted. P now falls from its elevated value.
 
 To complete the cycle, the water has to be converted back into H2 and O2 gas either by draining the water and introducing fresh gas, or electrolyzing the water.
 
 (n1 N2 + 2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T => n1 N2 + n2 H2O + QCOMBUSTION - (2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T => (n1 N2 + 2n2*H2 + n2 O2)*R*T
 
 The starting and ending conditions are the same with the same number of moles gas in the same volume at the same temperature with the same energy.
 

If the result at some stage is a colder temperature of the initial air and apparatus, there will be an exchange of energy from the surrounding air to the apparatus. This is regarded as Lead-out or Bring-in energy.
 
 
The simple water bottle rocket gets colder after firing. The Physics says - the rapid expansion of the compressed air used some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules. The molecular velocity will be lower. Hence the temperature becomes cooler. This is referred to as adiabatic expansion. Energy will be Brought-in from the surrounding to restore the temperature.
 
 
The initial pumping of the compressed air uses X unit of energy. In the firing, the total energy used is X + Y units.  Y is initially borrowed from the sir molecules – making the air and apparatus cooler. Y units of surrounding energy come to the "Lead-out Energy" system to restore the temperature.
 
Please study the attached lead-out energy system diagram more.  It is correct Physics.
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2014, 12:13:05 AM
 
If the result at some stage is a colder temperature of the initial air and apparatus, there will be an exchange of energy from the surrounding air to the apparatus. This is regarded as Lead-out or Bring-in energy.
It is silly to speak of energy balance in only a portion of a cyclical process.
Quote

 
The simple water bottle rocket gets colder after firing. The Physics says - the rapid expansion of the compressed air used some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules. The molecular velocity will be lower. Hence the temperature becomes cooler. This is referred to as adiabatic expansion. Energy will be Brought-in from the surrounding to restore the temperature.
That is all fine and well but just like the simple water bottle rocket, if you are looking for a power generator, you need to evaluate the entire cycle.
Quote

 
The initial pumping of the compressed air uses X unit of energy. In the firing, the total energy used is X + Y units.  Y is initially borrowed from the sir molecules – making the air and apparatus cooler. Y units of surrounding energy come to the "Lead-out Energy" system to restore the temperature.
 
Please study the attached lead-out energy system diagram more.  It is correct Physics.
You keep neglecting to evaluate the entire cycle.  Your proposal does not lead to a workable free energy machine.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2014, 12:28:36 AM
One experiment that needs to be confirmed is:
 
If Browns Gas were to be left alone for some hours in an enclosed bottle, it will no longer show the Implosion Effect.
 
One explanation is that the Browns Gas absorbs Electromagnetic Wave of some sort to convert itself to more like a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases.  Browns Gas can be thought of as a "half-way" product of electrolysis.  It will require additional energy to become a "full electrolysis" product.
 
Can anyone confirm that?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2014, 02:20:29 AM
It is silly to speak of energy balance in only a portion of a cyclical process.That is all fine and well but just like the simple water bottle rocket, if you are looking for a power generator, you need to evaluate the entire cycle.You keep neglecting to evaluate the entire cycle.  Your proposal does not lead to a workable free energy machine.
The complete cycle for the water rocket is:
1. Fill bottle half full with water at room temperature.
2. Pump air in at room temperature (isothermal process) until pressure is P.  Energy supplied X units is PV.  V is the remaining volume of bottle.
3. Fire water rocket.
4. Get water bottle back and allow temperature to warm up to room temperature.  Energy (Y unit) is brought-in from the surrounding to warm up the bottle and the escaped cold air.
5. Back to step 1 to repeat the experiment.
 
The most important step to note is number 4.  External energy comes in to complete the cycle.  The Hidro (James Kwok) of Australia works on this principle.
http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/ (http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/)
A chamber is pumped with air isothermally.  It is fired up inside a water tube.  Energy is extracted.  The chamber is allowed to fall back, warmed by surrounding and repeat the cycle.  The isothermal pumping supplied X units of energy.  The Energy extracted theoretically can be X + Y where Y is the brought-in energy.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2014, 05:09:39 AM
The complete cycle for the water rocket is:
1. Fill bottle half full with water at room temperature.
2. Pump air in at room temperature (isothermal process) until pressure is P.  Energy supplied X units is PV.  V is the remaining volume of bottle.
3. Fire water rocket.
4. Get water bottle back and allow temperature to warm up to room temperature.  Energy (Y unit) is brought-in from the surrounding to warm up the bottle and the escaped cold air.
5. Back to step 1 to repeat the experiment.
 
The most important step to note is number 4.  External energy comes in to complete the cycle.  The Hidro (James Kwok) of Australia works on this principle.
http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/ (http://pesn.com/2011/04/17/9501811_James_Kwoks_Hidro_Tech_Floating_to_the_Top/)
A chamber is pumped with air isothermally.  It is fired up inside a water tube.  Energy is extracted.  The chamber is allowed to fall back, warmed by surrounding and repeat the cycle.  The isothermal pumping supplied X units of energy.  The Energy extracted theoretically can be X + Y where Y is the brought-in energy.
James Kwok's device does not work.  Where did you get the idea that it does?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2014, 11:51:17 AM
 
James Kwok's device does not work. Where did you get the idea that it does?
 

James Kwok had a tough engineering job. I, as a Physicist, can just write equations on paper and talk about the adiabatic expansion.  He had to capture the energy on the way up and make sure that the losses were as low as possible.
 
 
 
He built a massive machine to capture a small amount of energy.  I congratulate him for his efforts. 
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2014, 12:14:13 PM
 
James Kwok had a tough engineering job. I, as a Physicist, can just write equations on paper and talk about the adiabatic expansion.  He had to capture the energy on the way up and make sure that the losses were as low as possible.
 
 
 
He built a massive machine to capture a small amount of energy.  I congratulate him for his efforts.
He built a machine that did not and does not operate as he claims.  He set-up a very creative corporate structure that was not shall we say: investor friendly.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Paul-R on August 14, 2014, 01:38:52 PM
He built a machine that did not and does not operate as he claims.
What is the evidence for this claim of yours?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 14, 2014, 07:26:34 PM
 Let us talk about the different scenarios that may be possible to use water as fuel.  We shall use entire cycles in every scenario.

A.    The complete cycle for a normal electrolysis can be:
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a normal electrolysis setup.
3.    Use X units of Energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen gases in the normal electrolysis way.
4.    Feed the hydrogen and oxygen gases into a fuel cell (reverse electrolysis) and generate X units of electricity.  Or feed the hydrogen and oxygen gas as fuel for combustion.  X units of energy will be available to do work.  (Ideal case with no loss assumed.)
5.    The result of 4 will be water again in the case of combustion. The result of 4 will be water as electrolyte in the case of fuel cell.
6.    Repeat from 1 or 2 again.
The above is a well known process.  Water can be changed into hydrogen and oxygen gases as fuel.  The problem is the large amount of X energy needed for electrolysis and the danger of transporting hydrogen and oxygen gases.
 
B.    DC Pulsing can break up the water molecules into some form of HHO with much less energy.
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.
3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some “HHO gas mixture” that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X as in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)
4.    The “HHO gas mixture” is used as fuel, releasing X1 units of energy.  This “HHO gas mixture” is then turned into water.  (There is some justification that the “HHO gas mixture” may be different from Hydrogen and oxygen mixture in that – Browns Gas, if left for hours, will lose its implosion property.  One explanation is that electromagnetic waves from outside will alter the structure of the Browns Gas.)
5.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
In this case, the amount of energy X1 to turn water into some “HHO gas mixture” can be much less than X.  There may be some electrical energy source needed to supply X1.  This is still acceptable as it makes it practical to use water as fuel.
 
C.    Scenario B PLUS lead-out or bring-in energy Y1 via Implosion
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.
3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some “HHO gas mixture” that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)
4.    The “HHO gas mixture” is used as fuel in an Implosion fashion.  The Implosion will bring in Y1 Units of Energy.
5.    The total energy available to use is X1+Y1.  This Bring-in System may be able to self-sustain.  X1 units of energy is fed back to generate the “HHO gas mixture” and Y1 units used to do work. The “HHO gas mixture” is then turned into water.
6.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
This becomes a very attractive option.  The additional Y1 energy from the Implosion process may be able to supply the electrical energy in step 3.  The System becomes a Bring-in Energy System continuously bringing-in the kinetic energy of air molecules to do work and cool the environment at the same time.
(More to follow)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TheCell on August 14, 2014, 07:29:12 PM
<The most important step to note is number 4.  External energy comes in to complete the cycle. 
 The Hidro (James Kwok) of Australia works on this principle.>

http://www.rosch.ag/index.php/de/entwicklungen/aufriebskraftwerk
buoyancy power plant (Auftriebskraftwerk)

While the shovels, that are mounted on a large chain rise up to the surface,
the air in each of them expands and therefor drops in temperature.
If the air , that is pressed into the lowest shovels has the same temperature
as the surrounding water a steady heat flow from the water to the air occurs
while rising to the surface thereby resulting in additional buoyancy.
(Special kind of heat pump)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2014, 11:11:47 PM
What is the evidence for this claim of yours?
In 2011 he changed the company from FTD Corporation Ltd to Centium Electric.  In late 2012 he changed his company Centium Electric to Hidro Co.  In late 2013 Hidro Co withdrew their investment prospectus. Hidro Co has been moribund for months.  They have removed all mention of Kwok's free energy machine claims:  http://www.hidroco.com (http://www.hidroco.com)

His claim is for a perpetual motion machine.  PMM's have never worked for reasons that should be obvious:  Energy/matter is concserved.  You might also be interested to know that Kwok was convicted of securities fraud a few years ago:  http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/07-32+Former+director+of+Sydney+power+company+jailed?openDocument (http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/07-32+Former+director+of+Sydney+power+company+jailed?openDocument)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 14, 2014, 11:27:33 PM
Let us talk about the different scenarios that may be possible to use water as fuel.  We shall use entire cycles in every scenario.

A.    The complete cycle for a normal electrolysis can be:
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a normal electrolysis setup.
3.    Use X units of Energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen gases in the normal electrolysis way.
4.    Feed the hydrogen and oxygen gases into a fuel cell (reverse electrolysis) and generate X units of electricity.
No Lawrence get at most 5/6ths X.
Quote
  Or feed the hydrogen and oxygen gas as fuel for combustion.  X units of energy will be available to do work.  (Ideal case with no loss assumed.)
This is a recurrent problem with your unworkable free energy proposals:  Invalid assumptions.
Quote
5.    The result of 4 will be water again in the case of combustion. The result of 4 will be water as electrolyte in the case of fuel cell.
6.    Repeat from 1 or 2 again.
You must add new energy each cycle.
Quote
The above is a well known process.  Water can be changed into hydrogen and oxygen gases as fuel.  The problem is the large amount of X energy needed for electrolysis and the danger of transporting hydrogen and oxygen gases.
The bigger problem is that the process is lossy.  This is a lossy energy storage method.
Quote

B.    DC Pulsing can break up the water molecules into some form of HHO with much less energy.
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.
3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some “HHO gas mixture” that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X as in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)
The Indian paper claims are completely over the top and have not been validated by anyone.  They contradict the results of the Japanese paper that they are based on.
Quote
4.    The “HHO gas mixture” is used as fuel, releasing X1 units of energy.  This “HHO gas mixture” is then turned into water.  (There is some justification that the “HHO gas mixture” may be different from Hydrogen and oxygen mixture in that – Browns Gas, if left for hours, will lose its implosion property.  One explanation is that electromagnetic waves from outside will alter the structure of the Browns Gas.)
You are stating yet more assumptions Lawrence.
Quote
5.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
In this case, the amount of energy X1 to turn water into some “HHO gas mixture” can be much less than X.  There may be some electrical energy source needed to supply X1.  This is still acceptable as it makes it practical to use water as fuel.
You are premising this all on an unvalidated claim from a poorly prepared paper.
Quote

C.    Scenario B PLUS lead-out or bring-in energy Y1 via Implosion
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.
Instead of "special" why don't you say what you mean: "magic"?
Quote
3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some “HHO gas mixture” that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)
You are pleading a special case without evidence.
Quote
4.    The “HHO gas mixture” is used as fuel in an Implosion fashion.  The Implosion will bring in Y1 Units of Energy.
Energy stored in advanced in the form of compressed gas (spring) rarifying due to the H2 combustion gets utilized by the unspecified machine.  In order to repeat the cycle you need to compress the gas volume (spring) again.  This has no more opportunity for free energy than the lifts in your car's boot.
Quote
5.    The total energy available to use is X1+Y1.  This Bring-in System may be able to self-sustain.  X1 units of energy is fed back to generate the “HHO gas mixture” and Y1 units used to do work. The “HHO gas mixture” is then turned into water.
No, it cannot.  Because to raise the pressure so as to be able to extract work in the next cycle, the work extracted as the gas rarified has to be replaced by pumping in new hydrogen and oxygen gas, at an energy cost at least equal to the total energy difference generated by the implosion.
Quote
6.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
This becomes a very attractive option.  The additional Y1 energy from the Implosion process may be able to supply the electrical energy in step 3.  The System becomes a Bring-in Energy System continuously bringing-in the kinetic energy of air molecules to do work and cool the environment at the same time.
Once again you rely on oversights and faulty assumptions.
Quote
(More to follow)
This is just one of many unworkable free energy schemes that you have promoted over the years.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 15, 2014, 12:15:22 AM
No Lawrence get at most 5/6ths X.This is a recurrent problem with your unworkable free energy proposals:  Invalid assumptions.You must add new energy each cycle.The bigger problem is that the process is lossy.  This is a lossy energy storage method.

*** Scenario A does not use any Bring-in or Lead-out Energy.  It is just a "reversible" reaction.  A large number of X units of energy is involved in this process.  If we want to do any useful mechanica work W, we need to supply W units of energy from some other means. ***

The Indian paper claims are completely over the top and have not been validated by anyone.  They contradict the results of the Japanese paper that they are based on.You are stating yet more assumptions Lawrence.You are premising this all on an unvalidated claim from a poorly prepared paper.

*** Scenario B: When a paper is presented for peer review, we should give it a chance.  As Physicists, we should consider whether it is theoretically possible.  Theoretically, different electron clouds can be associated with the same group of atms and molecules - making the energy content different.  This is the basis of X1 units (much smaller than X) can be used to turn the same water into some "HHO gas Mixture".  The "HHO gas Mixture" electron cloud can be very different from that "gas mioxture" obtained from classical electrolysis.
** This Scenario B will also need an external supply of energy to do W units of work.  The advantage is that X1 is much smaller than X.

*** Scenario C: Instead of "special" why don't you say what you mean: "magic"?You are pleading a special case without evidence.Energy stored in advanced in the form of compressed gas (spring) rarifying due to the H2 combustion gets utilized by the unspecified machine. 

** Implosion is NOT magic.  It has been and can be demonstrated in all Physics laboratoris all over the world. **

In order to repeat the cycle you need to compress the gas volume (spring) again.  This has no more opportunity for free energy than the lifts in your car's boot.No, it cannot.  Because to raise the pressure so as to be able to extract work in the next cycle, the work extracted as the gas rarified has to be replaced by pumping in new hydrogen and oxygen gas, at an energy cost at least equal to the total energy difference generated by the implosion.

** Please understand the Physics.  When a Pison goes to fill a vacuum, it does NOT compress any gas.  The Work is contributed by External Pressure or the Kinetic Energy of the air molecules.  In my diagram of the vertical piston, work is actually done to lift the picton upwards.  When the "HHO gas intake is open", the weight of the Piston will help to draw in the HHO gas. **

** The situation is NOT like a spring where the compression stores the energy.  The gas "disppears" and will not push back.  Please think about this comparison more. Do not use an invalide comparison.  **

Once again you rely on oversights and faulty assumptions.This is just one of many unworkable free energy schemes that you have promoted over the years.
I do not mind personal attacks.  Someone once commented: "Edison tried many thousand times before the success of the light bulb.  Before his success, there were geers."  Your comments do contain some science.  At the research stage, we can make assumptions so long as they are "possible".  So continue.  We can identify the pitfalls and misunderstandings.  The World will learn from our discussions.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2014, 12:34:27 AM
I do not mind personal attacks.  Someone once commented: "Edison tried many thousand times before the success of the light bulb.  Before his success, there were geers."  Your comments do contain some science.  At the research stage, we can make assumptions so long as they are "possible".  So continue.  We can identify the pitfalls and misunderstandings.  The World will learn from our discussions.
Lawrence I have pointed out material flaws in your claims.  I have noted your history of promoting many unworkable free energy claims.  Those are established facts.  If you are genuinely interested in finding some new energy source, then you would be well advised to make drastic improvements in your methods.

One can speculate possibilities.  It is absolute folly to assume things are true that have either been refuted or are not supported by strong evidence.  It is absolute folly to determine an energy balance without considering the entire cycle.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 15, 2014, 06:47:45 PM
   If the cell forms a water capacitor and an inductance is added to the circuit then the circuit will reach resonance at some frequency.  Theoretically the energy supplied to the system is either stored in the magnetic field about the inductor or in the potential across the plates of the capacitor.
The voltage across the capacitor can be maximal while the magnetic field about the inductor is minimal and vice versa.   This condition can be maintained by input from a voltage source to overcome resistive losses in the circuit.   So a pulsed input will ring down at the resonant frequency.   This provides a pulsed voltage to appear across the cell as compared to a continual dc potential as in conventional electrolysis.  There is no current flow through the cell as this would represent a shorted capacitor.  There is however an electric field established through the water which stresses the covalent bonding of the water molecule.  As it is water is self-ionizing due to thermal movement of the molecules randomly stressing the hydrogen oxygen bond.  (This forms hydroxide and hydronium ions giving us the ph of pure water rising with increased temperature.)  If the field strips all 8 valence electrons from a water in a pulse-  the water molecule could actually blow up due to the high amount of positive charge.   This would cause two protons to be expelled from the water molecule.  Relaxation of the field and the electrons come back but now the condition for forming hydrogen and oxygen gaseous are more favorable than formation of water due to the columb explosion of the water molecule.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 15, 2014, 08:40:12 PM
   If the cell forms a water capacitor and an inductance is added to the circuit then the circuit will reach resonance at some frequency.  Theoretically the energy supplied to the system is either stored in the magnetic field about the inductor or in the potential across the plates of the capacitor.
The voltage across the capacitor can be maximal while the magnetic field about the inductor is minimal and vice versa.   This condition can be maintained by input from a voltage source to overcome resistive losses in the circuit.   So a pulsed input will ring down at the resonant frequency.   This provides a pulsed voltage to appear across the cell as compared to a continual dc potential as in conventional electrolysis.  There is no current flow through the cell as this would represent a shorted capacitor.  There is however an electric field established through the water which stresses the covalent bonding of the water molecule.  As it is water is self-ionizing due to thermal movement of the molecules randomly stressing the hydrogen oxygen bond.  (This forms hydroxide and hydronium ions giving us the ph of pure water rising with increased temperature.)  If the field strips all 8 valence electrons from a water in a pulse-  the water molecule could actually blow up due to the high amount of positive charge.   This would cause two protons to be expelled from the water molecule.  Relaxation of the field and the electrons come back but now the condition for forming hydrogen and oxygen gaseous are more favorable than formation of water due to the columb explosion of the water molecule.
One could apply AC at any frequency they like, but then have the problem that H2 and O2 would both evolve at each electrode.  The energy required to completely strip eight electrons is huge.  The likelihood that any such process would improve efficiency is next to nil.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 15, 2014, 09:15:39 PM
@lawrencetseung

I think its time to be practical, why dont you propose an evolved technique, a definite schematic or assembly

Now that would be quite a donation. Without this, there will be no action

The passion for electrolysis has been long gone now, we need something big, something very impressive.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bob Smith on August 15, 2014, 10:57:39 PM
I don't think the process of producing Brown's Gas involves electrolysis per se. I believe something else is happening that has to do with the short duration DC pulses accessing a form of energy which essentially transmutes water and produces Brown's Gas with a new atomic structure.  The implosive nature of BG bubbles is an indication to me that we are dealing with the diectric medium, whose nature is centripetal and implosive.  I also believe that this is what is behind what Lawrence Tseung has described as lead-in phenomenon. 
 
The problem with my explanation is that it involves a different paradigm for examining certain electrical phenomena and their effects.  We see vestiges of it in statements by some researchers regarding anomalies produced by their apparatus, phenomena which have and could be described as a form of transmutation.  Like all new paradigms, they present a new way of approaching a problem with new terminology, concepts and bring their share of dissent. 
 
I respect the logic and careful explanations above, and have no wish to argue.  I do believe their explanations are largely correct when referring to electrolysis. But this may not be about electrolysis. 
This is simply my point of view, and I throw it out for readers' consideration.
Respectfully,
Bob
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 01:24:42 AM
I don't think the process of producing Brown's Gas involves electrolysis per se. I believe something else is happening that has to do with the short duration DC pulses accessing a form of energy which essentially transmutes water and produces Brown's Gas with a new atomic structure.  The implosive nature of BG bubbles is an indication to me that we are dealing with the diectric medium, whose nature is centripetal and implosive.  I also believe that this is what is behind what Lawrence Tseung has described as lead-in phenomenon. 
 
The problem with my explanation is that it involves a different paradigm for examining certain electrical phenomena and their effects.  We see vestiges of it in statements by some researchers regarding anomalies produced by their apparatus, phenomena which have and could be described as a form of transmutation.  Like all new paradigms, they present a new way of approaching a problem with new terminology, concepts and bring their share of dissent. 
 
I respect the logic and careful explanations above, and have no wish to argue.  I do believe their explanations are largely correct when referring to electrolysis. But this may not be about electrolysis. 
This is simply my point of view, and I throw it out for readers' consideration.
Respectfully,
Bob
Bob if there is something different, then how do you account for all the HHO generators that are ordinary electrolysis units:  DC applied across electrolyte filled cells?
What Lawrence has described is ordinary and well understood behavior:  H2 and O2 gasses react resulting in release of heat, and state change with commensurate volume reduction from gas to liquid.  What Lawrence ignores is that to complete one cycle and be ready for the next: pressure in the volume has to be restored.  IE the work that was taken out must be performed again.  That work associated with the phase change from liquid to gas is limits the chemical bond energy one can impart through electrolysis to about 5/6ths at room temperature.  IOW, if one could recover 100% of the implosion energy one still couldn't break even.  That means that getting over unity relies on getting free energy out of fiddling with the bonds in the water.  Although many people have claimed to get more energy out of water than they used to electrolyze it, no one has proven that they could.

Until someone actually shows reliable, repeatable results that support a claim of excess energy, such claims fail.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 01:25:12 AM
 
If the cell forms a water capacitor and an inductance is added to the circuit then the circuit will reach resonance at some frequency. Theoretically the energy supplied to the system is either stored in the magnetic field about the inductor or in the potential across the plates of the capacitor.
 The voltage across the capacitor can be maximal while the magnetic field about the inductor is minimal and vice versa. This condition can be maintained by input from a voltage source to overcome resistive losses in the circuit. So a pulsed input will ring down at the resonant frequency. This provides a pulsed voltage to appear across the cell as compared to a continual dc potential as in conventional electrolysis. There is no current flow through the cell as this would represent a shorted capacitor. There is however an electric field established through the water which stresses the covalent bonding of the water molecule. As it is water is self-ionizing due to thermal movement of the molecules randomly stressing the hydrogen oxygen bond. (This forms hydroxide and hydronium ions giving us the ph of pure water rising with increased temperature.) If the field strips all 8 valence electrons from a water in a pulse- the water molecule could actually blow up due to the high amount of positive charge. This would cause two protons to be expelled from the water molecule. Relaxation of the field and the electrons come back but now the condition for forming hydrogen and oxygen gaseous are more favorable than formation of water due to the columb explosion of the water molecule.

@sparks
 
Your explanation is very close to what I learned from the team who claimed some success and got funded.  All information is now confidential until their official announcement.  From the early “bits and pieces” of conversation and guesses, I believe their method involves:
1.    DC Pulsing with car battery type voltages.
2.    The DC pulsing is via resonance circuits.
3.    The water cell contributes much to capacitance.
4.    The inductance is via multiple choking coils.
5.    They have monitoring equipment of many descriptions.
6.    It took them over 12 months to find commercially exploitable “sweet spots”.
7.    The team consists of PHD Chemists, Electronics Engineers, Car Mechanics, and Industrial Designers with facilities in USA, Taiwan and China.
8.    I introduced the Bring-in or Lead-out Energy theory to them and showed them Stan Meyer and Browns Gas information on the Internet.
9.    They worked with joule thief circuits and supercapacitors.  They were the ones who told me that supercapcitors have elements of electrolysis.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 16, 2014, 02:00:20 AM
who claimed some success and got funded.  All information is now confidential until their official announcement

Probably they are lying just to get funding and to not loose face.

Tell them to come out, make a video, prove measurement. Then they will show the world, and will get even more funding.

Then it will be worth attention.

Now, let this thread die a slow death, to ever be, ''unproven''.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 02:13:29 AM
This is another bit of undisputeable Physics.  MarkE kept saying that the energy required to fill in the chamber was about the same as energy brought-in by Atm Pressure (That was how I interpreted his remarks).
 
I modified the Implosion diagram to clarify.  Hope that this will remove the confusion.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 02:19:57 AM
who claimed some success and got funded.  All information is now confidential until their official announcement

Probably they are lying just to get funding and to not loose face.

Tell them to come out, make a video, prove measurement. Then they will show the world, and will get even more funding.

Then it will be worth attention.

Now, let this thread die a slow death, to ever be, ''unproven''.
I believe that some influential persons are talking to the Chinese and Indian Governments on the Indian Scientists papers.  With such powerful funding and resources, the research can go far beyond the resources of the forum members here.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 03:30:02 AM
Lawrence, once again you have not done your accounting correctly and have reached an erroneous conclusion.  When one does the accounting correctly, one finds that they have an elaborate gas spring as I have already explained to you several times. The correct state diagram below has the pertinent equations.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 16, 2014, 03:49:48 AM
A gas spring sounds interesting. Now you brg a new jpeg, never seen this one.

Thx Lawrence.

Reciprocating gas springs ! How about pendulum reciprocating gas springs ?

But really, so where does high tech research of one year come into play.

In breaking water or this gas spring, I am confused ?


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 08:48:21 AM
Lawrence, once again you have not done your accounting correctly and have reached an erroneous conclusion.  When one does the accounting correctly, one finds that they have an elaborate gas spring as I have already explained to you several times. The correct state diagram below has the pertinent equations.
@MarkE,
Thank you very much for spending much time in doing the diagram.  I obviously do not understand some of your terms or accounting.  Thus I simplified it to my understanding.  Please explain your diagram in detail so that all can benefit.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 16, 2014, 08:48:59 AM
One could apply AC at any frequency they like, but then have the problem that H2 and O2 would both evolve at each electrode.  The energy required to completely strip eight electrons is huge.  The likelihood that any such process would improve efficiency is next to nil.


  The potential between plates would have to be intense and brief.   The accelerating force is the electric field between the capacitor plates.  Electric fields tend to accelerate electrically charged particles like electrons.  The energy used to charge the cell is used to create the electric field.  This energy is in potential form.  The discharge of the capacitor into the inductance converts it from potential energy stored in the capacitor to potential energy stored in the magnetic field surrounding the inductor.  The cell voltage could reach very high potential creating a very intense electric field permeating the fluid.   This voltage threshold depends on the smoothness of the plates and the k of the insulating film as well as the time of the imposed emf.  We need only to deform the electron orbitals enough to lay the hydrogen protons bare.  We need not ionize them but move them within their orbitals.  The hydrogen nuclei without the electronic insulation effect are accelerated away from each other and the oxygen neucleus  due to like charges repel.  The hydrogen atoms don't need ionization energy to remove themselves from the oxygen bond.  The coulumb force becomes the force driving the molecular fracturing not the applied emf.  Monatomic hydrogen would form first as the hydrogen proton meets electron.  Then hydrogen gas.  The oxygen would now be left with too many electrons in it's deformed valence shell and upon field relaxation become stable as monatomic oxygen until it reacted to form o2 or o3. 
   
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 10:39:16 AM
In normal electrolysis case 1, the cathode and anode plates are well separated so to facilitate the collection of gases.
 
In Browns Gas production, the cathode and anode plates are often placed close together.  The gas coming out is "mixed".
 
Can the Browns Gas have a different composition (or electron cloud distribution) as case 1?  This will have very important implications.  Different Browns Gas production methods may have very different gas compositions.
 
More on this later.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 10:49:38 AM

  The potential between plates would have to be intense and brief.   The accelerating force is the electric field between the capacitor plates.  Electric fields tend to accelerate electrically charged particles like electrons.  The energy used to charge the cell is used to create the electric field.  This energy is in potential form.  The discharge of the capacitor into the inductance converts it from potential energy stored in the capacitor to potential energy stored in the magnetic field surrounding the inductor.  The cell voltage could reach very high potential creating a very intense electric field permeating the fluid.   This voltage threshold depends on the smoothness of the plates and the k of the insulating film as well as the time of the imposed emf.  We need only to deform the electron orbitals enough to lay the hydrogen protons bare.  We need not ionize them but move them within their orbitals.  The hydrogen nuclei without the electronic insulation effect are accelerated away from each other and the oxygen neucleus  due to like charges repel.  The hydrogen atoms don't need ionization energy to remove themselves from the oxygen bond.  The coulumb force becomes the force driving the molecular fracturing not the applied emf.  Monatomic hydrogen would form first as the hydrogen proton meets electron.  Then hydrogen gas.  The oxygen would now be left with too many electrons in it's deformed valence shell and upon field relaxation become stable as monatomic oxygen until it reacted to form o2 or o3. 
 
"We need only to deform the electron orbitals enough to lay the hydrogen protons bare.  We need not ionize them but move them within their orbitals. "  Do you mean you want to ionize the hydrogen?  How else are you going to increase the polarization?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 10:51:25 AM
In normal electrolysis case 1, the cathode and anode plates are well separated so to facilitate the collection of gases.
 
In Browns Gas production, the cathode and anode plates are often placed close together.  The gas coming out is "mixed".
 
Can the Browns Gas have a different composition (or electron cloud distribution) as case 1?  This will have very important implications.  Different Browns Gas production methods may have very different gas compositions.
 
More on this later.
If there were a unique gas composition that could have been shown by spectral analysis a long time ago.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 16, 2014, 05:01:52 PM
      Actually want to increase the water molecule polarization.  The two "shared" electrons move within the oxygen valence orbital.  So you could say the hydrogen and oxygen atoms become ionized.  The hydrogen atoms take on a plus one charge while the oxygen atom takes on -2 charges.  [size=78%]The oxygen atom itself becomes polarized with excess electrons moved towards the positive plate. This leaves the two hydrogen protons and the positive pole of the oxygen atom all working to fracture the molecule.[/size](http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/SDPS/graphics/PolarWater.GIF)
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 06:57:14 PM
 Let me quickly review our discussion here.

1.    The Lead-out or Bring-in Energy Machine diagram is in reply 109.  It is the most important slide in our discussion.  The Lead-out Energy Machine is NOT the impossible Perpetual Motion Machine.  It requires energy to run.  It brings-in energy from the environment to run and contributes to Global Cooling.
The simplest example is the water bottle rocket where the temperature of the bottle is cooler after firing.  James Kwok tried to build a machine Hidro (reply 112) to take advantage of this principle.

2.    Browns Gas has the property of Implosion.  On ignition, the gas mixture implodes instead of explodes.  However, adding water vapor or other gases will turn the gas mixture to exhibit explosion.
A simple Implosion working diagram was presented on reply 130.
Some engineering ideas on how to modify the standard 4 stroke engine to use implosion is in reply 106:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3)

3.    Three scenarios related to electrolysis and Browns Gas are presented in reply 117.  Scenario A is the classical electrolysis where the cathode and anode are well separated to collect the resulting gases.  The reaction can be reversed by feeding the resulting hydrogen and oxygen gases into a fuel cell.  No Lead-out or Bring-in Energy from the environment is involved.  Energy for combustion must be supplied to do the electrolysis.  Scenario B is to use DC Pulsing to break the water molecule up into some form of HHO gas with much less energy.  Again, no lead-out or Bring-in Energy from the environment is involved.  Scenario C is to add Implosion to Scenario B.  Implosion brings-in the kinetic energy of the air molecules, cooling the environment.  Scenario C can become the basis of a Bring-in Energy machine running forever after starting as in reply 109.  However, there is much engineering difficulty in ensuring that Implosion does not change into Explosion.

In the next post, I shall describe the more interesting Scenario D of “resonance breaking” of the dipole water molecules.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 11:18:13 PM
@MarkE,
Thank you very much for spending much time in doing the diagram.  I obviously do not understand some of your terms or accounting.  Thus I simplified it to my understanding.  Please explain your diagram in detail so that all can benefit.
Lawrence, ATM are quantities of the surrounding atmosphere environment, CYL are quantities of the cylinder, ST1 are quantities at State 1, ST2 are quantities at State 2, and ST3 are quantities at State 3.  P is pressure, V is volume, E is energy.  You incorrectly misaccount the amount of work performed displacing the air in the cylinder in State 1 with HHO in State 2.  The actual work that must be performed is not just the change in energy state within the cylinder, but the change in energy state of the SYSTEM, which includes the environment. 

It is total nonsense that you count on the environment for energy as part of your system to provide what you call LEAD IN energy, but ignore the energy that you have to drive into the environment when filling the cylinder with HHO.  When you drive the HHO into the cylinder, the energy in the cylinder increases by only the pressure difference times the cylinder volume, but the energy in the surrounding atmosphere into which you expel an identical volume of air increases by the starting pressure of the air times the cylinder volume.  By filling the cylinder with HHO you compress a gas spring in the surrounding atmosphere.  When the HHO burns and the gas volume changes to a many times smaller liquid volume, the atmospheric gas spring pushes the piston back to the top of the cylinder and in doing so relaxes.  Ignoring the water volume, the system: volume, pressure, and energy at State 3 is the same as at State 1.  I have explained your error a number of times now.  The diagram explains the actual energy relationships in each state in sufficient detail that any high school physics student can easily understand.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 11:32:43 PM
      Actually want to increase the water molecule polarization.  The two "shared" electrons move within the oxygen valence orbital.  So you could say the hydrogen and oxygen atoms become ionized.  The hydrogen atoms take on a plus one charge while the oxygen atom takes on -2 charges.  [size=78%]The oxygen atom itself becomes polarized with excess electrons moved towards the positive plate. This leaves the two hydrogen protons and the positive pole of the oxygen atom all working to fracture the molecule.[/size](http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/SDPS/graphics/PolarWater.GIF)
Well I think you have a big problem.  You can apply so much field that you partially or fully ionize the molecule.  What I don't see any means to do is to apply an external field that increases the polarization within the molecules.  How do you think that you can increase the polarization within individual molecules by applying an external field?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 16, 2014, 11:39:25 PM
Let me quickly review our discussion here.

1.    The Lead-out or Bring-in Energy Machine diagram is in reply 109.  It is the most important slide in our discussion.  The Lead-out Energy Machine is NOT the impossible Perpetual Motion Machine.  It requires energy to run.  It brings-in energy from the environment to run and contributes to Global Cooling.
The simplest example is the water bottle rocket where the temperature of the bottle is cooler after firing.  James Kwok tried to build a machine Hidro (reply 112) to take advantage of this principle.
Post 132 clearly illustrates the fallacy of post 109. James Kwok was convicted of securiteis crimes.  His HidroCo is moribund and no longer promotes his claims.
Quote

2.    Browns Gas has the property of Implosion.  On ignition, the gas mixture implodes instead of explodes.  However, adding water vapor or other gases will turn the gas mixture to exhibit explosion.
A simple Implosion working diagram was presented on reply 130.
Some engineering ideas on how to modify the standard 4 stroke engine to use implosion is in reply 106:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8&list=PL7AF455C0A317C691&index=3)

3.    Three scenarios related to electrolysis and Browns Gas are presented in reply 117.  Scenario A is the classical electrolysis where the cathode and anode are well separated to collect the resulting gases.  The reaction can be reversed by feeding the resulting hydrogen and oxygen gases into a fuel cell.  No Lead-out or Bring-in Energy from the environment is involved.  Energy for combustion must be supplied to do the electrolysis.  Scenario B is to use DC Pulsing to break the water molecule up into some form of HHO gas with much less energy.  Again, no lead-out or Bring-in Energy from the environment is involved.  Scenario C is to add Implosion to Scenario B.  Implosion brings-in the kinetic energy of the air molecules, cooling the environment.  Scenario C can become the basis of a Bring-in Energy machine running forever after starting as in reply 109.  However, there is much engineering difficulty in ensuring that Implosion does not change into Explosion.

In the next post, I shall describe the more interesting Scenario D of “resonance breaking” of the dipole water molecules.
The energy associated with the difference in energy between the gas volume at any pressure and disassociated water is a source of energy loss in any electrolysis system.  In the most ideal case of a machine that were to completely recover that energy difference, an electrolysis / combustion machine would be limited to the Carnot efficiency of the heat engineutilysing the hydrogen combustion as its input heat source.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 16, 2014, 11:56:58 PM
 
Lawrence, ATM are quantities of the surrounding atmosphere environment, CYL are quantities of the cylinder. P is pressure, V is volume, E is energy. You incorrectly misaccount the amount of work performed displacing the air in the cylinder in State 1 with HHO in State 2. The actual work that must be performed is not just the change in energy state within the cylinder, but the change in energy state of the SYSTEM, which includes the environment.
 
 It is total nonsense that you count on the environment for energy as part of your system to provide what you call LEAD IN energy, but ignore the energy that you have to drive into the environment when filling the cylinder with HHO. When you drive the HHO into the cylinder, the energy in the cylinder increases by only the pressure difference times the cylinder volume, but the energy in the surrounding atmosphere into which you expel an identical volume of air increases by the starting pressure of the air times the cylinder volume. By filling the cylinder with HHO you compress a gas spring in the surrounding atmosphere. When the HHO burns and the gas volume changes to a many times smaller liquid volume, the atmospheric gas spring pushes the piston back to the top of the cylinder and in doing so relaxes. Ignoring the water volume, the system: volume, pressure, and energy at State 3 is the same as at State 1. I have explained your error a number of times now. The diagram explains the actual energy relationships in each state in sufficient detail that any high school physics student can easily understand.
 

@MarkE,
 
Thank you for your explanation. 
 
 
 
From a pure Physics point of view of work performed by the piston, it is clear:
 
1.   Work done by the piston to fill the cylinder with HHO is the (HHO-Atm)pressure x Volume of the Cylinder.  HHO pressure can be 101% of Atm pressure.  The work done can then be 1% of Atm x Volume of Cylinder.
 
2.   Work done by the piston to fill the vacuum in the implosion process is Force x Displacement.  The force is Atm, Pressure x area of the Cylinder.  The Displacement is the height of the cylinder.  The work done is then equal to Atm pressure x area x height which is equal to Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is 100% times of stage 1.
 
From the pure Mechanical Consideration, the work done by the HHO gas to fill the cylinder is 1% of the work done by the Atm Pressure.  We assume the HHO gas has been generated and stored in a tank with HHO pressure 1% more than Atm.  The Energy used to generate the gas is NOT considered in this example.
 
 
 
May be we should let others comment on such calculations.  I consider the subject closed.  The work done or energy supplied by the Environment in one cycle = Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is the Bring-in Energy.
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 12:40:34 AM
 
@MarkE,
 
Thank you for your explanation. 
 
 
 
From a pure Physics point of view of work performed by the piston, it is clear:
 
1.   Work done by the piston to fill the cylinder with HHO is the (HHO-Atm)pressure x Volume of the Cylinder.  HHO pressure can be 101% of Atm pressure.  The work done can then be 1% of Atm x Volume of Cylinder.
Once again, you stubbornly focus on a subset of the system and ignore the system as a whole leading to your accounting error.  The ideal gas law still holds.  One does not get to displace the volume of air that one displaces with HHO without performing work on the external atmosphere equal to Patmosphere_initial*V of the cylinder.  Your fundamental error on which your false conclusions are based is easily seen by accounting for the identical loss of PHHO*VCYLINDER from whatever source you use for the HHO that you drive into the cylinder.  Why do you present yourself as unable to understand these obvious facts?
Quote

2.   Work done by the piston to fill the vacuum in the implosion process is Force x Displacement.  The force is Atm, Pressure x area of the Cylinder.  The Displacement is the height of the cylinder.  The work done is then equal to Atm pressure x area x height which is equal to Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is 100% times of stage 1.
The work released is (ignoring the water volume) identical to the work performed above.  The surrounding atmosphere acts as a gas spring Lawrence.  No more and no less.  The atmosphere is passive.  It does not generate energy.  It stores energy that you stubbornly refuse to account.
Quote

From the pure Mechanical Consideration, the work done by the HHO gas to fill the cylinder is 1% of the work done by the Atm Pressure.  We assume the HHO gas has been generated and stored in a tank with HHO pressure 1% more than Atm.  The Energy used to generate the gas is NOT considered in this example.
You insist on this absolutely incorrect accounting.  You are dead wrong Lawrence for the reasons that I have explained repeatedly.
Quote

 
 
May be we should let others comment on such calculations.  I consider the subject closed.  The work done or energy supplied by the Environment in one cycle = Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is the Bring-in Energy.
Then you insist on rejecting obvious fact in favor of a fantasy that you wish to entertain.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 12:53:00 AM
 Scenario D – “resonance break up” of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.
 
This is the most controversial part of the discussion.  Let me first quote assumptions that will not violate the Laws of Physics.  These assumptions may or may not have been verified experimentally.
 
1.    Water Molecules are electrical dipoles.  The oxygen end is more negative than the hydrogen end.  These dipoles can be compared with magnetism in an iron rod.  Tapping an iron rod in the North and South direction can turn the iron rod into a magnet.
2.    DC Pulsing water can be compared with tapping the iron rod.  The electric field is externally supplied by the DC voltage.  The pulsing is similar to tapping.  It will change the Electron Cloud distribution of the “water particles”.  I consider “water particles” as any cluster of ions, atoms, molecules, crystal structures etc.
3.    The frequency of the Pulse is important.  In the field of Physics, there is the occurrence of resonance.  A continuous small external stimulation or vibration may build up to a huge internal vibration (resulting in destruction of structure in some cases.
4.    I assume that the DC Pulsing at the right frequency may alter the Electron Cloud Distribution and even break the hydrogen and oxygen bonds of the water particles.  This DC Pulsing may be done by an external Pulsing Source or may be via LCR resonance circuits. L is inductance or coils, C is capacitance and R is resistance.[/font]
5.    Radio stations rely on our tuning to the right frequency.  Missing that frequency means not receiving that station.  If we miss the “resonance frequency”, we may not generate much gas.  The parameters governing such “resonance frequency” have not been scientifically laid out yet.  It is a “hit or miss” operation.  One technique by experimenters is to observe the sudden increase in rate of “gas mixture” production.
6.    The Indian paper claimed such a behavior.  There are at least 10 other similar claims on the Internet.  Most readers are familiar with claims related to the Stan Meyer or the Browns Gas generators.  The Indian paper is done in a more traditional scientific fashion with peer reviews and details of the establishment.  The results can be checked with access to the actual source.
7.    My assumption is that the “gas mixture” generated in the Stan Meyer type device where the cathode and anode are placed very close to each other is different from the hydrogen and oxygen gases generated from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds are different.  The “gas structures” are different.  Thus the energy contents associated are different.
8.    I further assume that the microscopic level or mechanism of breaking up of water molecules in classical electrolysis is different from DC Pulsing.  The classic Faraday energy model does not apply.
9.    I took the hint that – Browns Gas will lose its unique properties such as implosion when left for hours in a jar unused.  One explanation is the receiving of electromagnetic waves from the environment.  I assume the “gas mixture” has less energy than the hydrogen and oxygen gases from classical electrolysis.
 
Let me pause at this point and wait for comments.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 01:01:48 AM
Scenario D – “resonance break up” of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.
 
This is the most controversial part of the discussion.  Let me first quote assumption that will not violate the Laws of Physics.  These assumptions may or may not have been verified experimentally.[/font]
 
1.    Water Molecules are electrical dipoles.  The oxygen end is more negative than the hydrogen end.  These dipoles can be compared with magnetism in an iron rod.  Tapping an iron rod in the North and South direction can turn the iron rod into a magnet.[/font]
2.    DC Pulsing water can be compared with tapping the iron rod.  The electric field is externally supplied by the DC voltage.  The pulsing is similar to tapping.  It will change the Electron Cloud distribution of the “water particles”.  I consider “water particles” as any cluster of ions, atoms, molecules, crystal structures etc.[/font]
3.    The frequency of the Pulse is important.  In the field of Physics, there is the occurrence of resonance.  A continuous small external stimulation or vibration may build up to a huge internal vibration (resulting in destruction of structure in some cases).[/font]
4.    I assume that the DC Pulsing at the right frequency may alter the Electron Cloud Distribution and even break the hydrogen and oxygen bonds of the water particles.  This DC Pulsing may be done by an external Pulsing Source or may be via LCR resonance circuits. L is inductance or coils, C is capacitance and R is resistance.[/font]
5.    Radio stations rely on our tuning to the right frequency.  Missing that frequency means not receiving that station.  If we miss the “resonance frequency”, we may not generate much gas.  The parameters governing such “resonance frequency” have not been scientifically laid out yet.  It is a “hit or miss” operation.  One technique by experimenters is to observe the sudden increase in rate of “gas mixture” production.[/font]
6.    The Indian paper claimed such a behavior.  There are at least 10 other similar claims on the Internet.  Most readers are familiar with claims related to the Stan Meyer or the Browns Gas generators.  The Indian paper is done in a more traditional scientific fashion with peer reviews and details of the establishment.  The results can be checked with access to the actual source.[/font]
7.    My assumption is that the “gas mixture” generated in the Stan Meyer type device where the cathode and anode are placed very close to each other is different from the hydrogen and oxygen gases generated from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds are different.  The “gas structures” are different.  Thus the energy contents associated are different.[/font]
8.    I further assume that the microscopic level or mechanism of breaking up of water molecules in classical electrolysis is different from DC Pulsing.  The classic Faraday energy model does not apply.[/font]
9.    I took the hint that – Browns Gas will lose its unique properties such as implosion when left for hours in a jar unused.  One explanation is the receiving of electromagnetic waves from the environment.  I assume the “gas mixture” has less energy than the hydrogen and oxygen gases from classical electrolysis.[/font]
 
Let me pause at this point and wait for comments.
You rely on a series of assumptions and claims made over the years none of which have ever been successfully proven.  come up with a reliable replication of the claim of your choice and then there will be evidence worth talking about.  The Indian paper is poorly written, lacking a host of data that is necessary for the claims made to hold any credibility.  Stan Meyer was found by an Ohio court to have committed an "egregious fraud".  Nearly 20 years later, no one has successfully reproduced what Stan Meyer claimed to have done.  You do your own credibility no favors when you insist on invalid accounting and keep adding to a history of promoting unworkable ideas.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 02:58:40 AM
 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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.
 
More to come later.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 03:19:08 AM
You rely on a series of assumptions and claims made over the years none of which have ever been successfully proven.  come up with a reliable replication of the claim of your choice and then there will be evidence worth talking about.  The Indian paper is poorly written, lacking a host of data that is necessary for the claims made to hold any credibility.  Stan Meyer was found by an Ohio court to have committed an "egregious fraud".  Nearly 20 years later, no one has successfully reproduced what Stan Meyer claimed to have done.  You do your own credibility no favors when you insist on invalid accounting and keep adding to a history of promoting unworkable ideas.
Buy a toy water rocket.  Measure its temperature before and after the firing. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 03:44:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 03:45:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 17, 2014, 04:23:53 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 07:14:24 AM
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 (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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8)
 
We did not experiment with uniform flysheel.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 17, 2014, 11:26:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 11:44:26 AM
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?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 12:23:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 12:40:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 02:42:45 PM
 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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 03:52:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 17, 2014, 04:12:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 17, 2014, 07:44:05 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: The Boss on August 17, 2014, 11:34:16 PM

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.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 18, 2014, 12:25:57 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 18, 2014, 01:34:36 PM
 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 (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
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 18, 2014, 01:44:06 PM
Good luck with that.  The paper is so fundamentally flawed that it should have been rejected. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on August 21, 2014, 10:42:28 PM
Speculation:
 
Can electrolysis and DC Pulsing be different mechanisms?  Can the Electron Clouds associated with the elements, molecules or "water particles" be different?
 
Can Browns Gas have different "Electron Clouds" from Hydrogen and Oxygen gases obtained from normal electrolysis?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 22, 2014, 04:34:43 AM
Speculation:
 
Can electrolysis and DC Pulsing be different mechanisms?  Can the Electron Clouds associated with the elements, molecules or "water particles" be different?
 
Can Browns Gas have different "Electron Clouds" from Hydrogen and Oxygen gases obtained from normal electrolysis?

Lawrence,

You are also a member of the OUR Forum.

May I suggest that you leave this Forum/thread which has been allowed to be over-run by professional saboteurs
and join the technical discussion at OUR Forum, in the thread I started:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41130;topicseen#msg41130 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41130;topicseen#msg41130)

May I add that what you call "speculation" are in fact REALITY, which many have discovered long ago!!

Cheers,
Les Banki




Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 22, 2014, 05:10:10 AM
Lawrence,

You are also a member of the OUR Forum.

May I suggest that you leave this Forum/thread which has been allowed to be over-run by professional saboteurs
and join the technical discussion at OUR Forum, in the thread I started:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41130;topicseen#msg41130 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41130;topicseen#msg41130)

May I add that what you call "speculation" are in fact REALITY, which many have discovered long ago!!

Cheers,
Les Banki
Les, please don't descend into silliness.  Evidence stands on its own.  Show a repeatable method of electrolyzing water at better than Faraday efficiency and you stand to make enormous amounts of money.   People with extraordinary claims cloister themselves when they lack evidence that supports those claims.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Marshallin on August 24, 2014, 03:17:41 PM
Guys ... i wanted post here so update about my experimets, but after i read last few pages i realized that it will have no affect.

Noone will care here about trying and testing. Looks like noone perform any real test in few months. Looks like you just hunting for bigest post count with theoretical chick chat.
Why you even spent your time here guys? You all waiting until someone build and test everythnig for you?

I am really disappointed, but is my stupidity that i expected anything more then this.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 03:40:53 PM
Experiments are always good for something.  If you are predisposed that experiments must lead to only one conclusion then no there isn't much point. If you are open to letting the data tell the story, then experiments may: tell you something new, or show you various ways of getting bad data, or just reinforce the status quo.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 24, 2014, 06:53:46 PM
  In electrolysis at the cathode the water molecule gets an electron from the external voltage supply.  This electron takes the place of the shared electron of one of the hydrogen atoms.  This yields h gas (monatomic) plus oh-aq.   Monatomic hydrogen is highly reactive due to electron pairing.  What happens is that a neighboring water molecule picks up the h and forms an ionic bond becoming h30+.   The monatomic h can also form a covalent bond with another h (again due to electron pairing) and you get h2gas.   The oh-ion will migrate through the solution until it gets to the anode.  There it gives up an electron to the external circuit to form monatomic oxygen plus monatomic hydrogen.  Oxygen forms covalent bonds with other oxygen atoms to form oxygen gas.  The hydrogen formed at the anode is monatomic and as stated before highly reactive forming water hydroxide and hydronium.  All these reactions compete with the formation of hydrogen gas and you get the faraday efficiency.  A lot of work has been done to form catalyst and membrane technology to favor the formation of oxygen and hydrogen over the aqueous ions as well as high temperature electrolysis. 
  The claimed efficiency in this paper is because they are pulsing the electrodes.  The electrons are not being sourced and extracted.   They are being sourced by the atoms in the dielectric.  The high potential external field is probably established using the reaction vessel as a capacitor in a tank circuit that rings down.  The work function of the electrodes increases with frequency so at higher frequencies no electrons are emitted or absorbed by the metal.  They remain in the metal at high density on the negatively charged plate and low density on the positively charged plate.  This permeates the liquid with an electric field.  The electrons normally pumped by the external power supply are coming from the water itself.  Ionization occurs as the electrons from one molecule collide with electrons of other molecules.  The rf currents these people were using is really high and result in all the inefficiencies involved with rf radiation of energy from the system.  Lower frequency using plates with a thin passivated layer deposited on them would allow the lc tank to operate at lower frequency and higher voltage across the water cap.  This is all endothermic.  The  electrons don't want to get squeezed into the negative plate or leave the positive plate.  If the voltage and current are totally out of phase the input power becomes apparent power which allows for very high voltage to develop across the capacitor with a q dependent on the inductor saturation parameters.  You could have 3000 volts across the capacitor and 20amps on the inductor buss.  This would be a kva of 60kva.  The power factor of course would be infinitely low at 90 degrees out.  But still some punch through the electronic fog.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 24, 2014, 07:26:47 PM
  In electrolysis at the cathode the water molecule gets an electron from the external voltage supply.  This electron takes the place of the shared electron of one of the hydrogen atoms.  This yields h gas (monatomic) plus oh-aq.   Monatomic hydrogen is highly reactive due to electron pairing.  What happens is that a neighboring water molecule picks up the h and forms an ionic bond becoming h30+.   The monatomic h can also form a covalent bond with another h (again due to electron pairing) and you get h2gas.   The oh-ion will migrate through the solution until it gets to the anode.  There it gives up an electron to the external circuit to form monatomic oxygen plus monatomic hydrogen.  Oxygen forms covalent bonds with other oxygen atoms to form oxygen gas.  The hydrogen formed at the anode is monatomic and as stated before highly reactive forming water hydroxide and hydronium.  All these reactions compete with the formation of hydrogen gas and you get the faraday efficiency.  A lot of work has been done to form catalyst and membrane technology to favor the formation of oxygen and hydrogen over the aqueous ions as well as high temperature electrolysis. 
Let's stipulate at least for the moment that all of that is true.
Quote

  The claimed efficiency in this paper is because they are pulsing the electrodes.  The electrons are not being sourced and extracted.   They are being sourced by the atoms in the dielectric.  The high potential external field is probably established using the reaction vessel as a capacitor in a tank circuit that rings down.  The work function of the electrodes increases with frequency so at higher frequencies no electrons are emitted or absorbed by the metal.  They remain in the metal at high density on the negatively charged plate and low density on the positively charged plate.  This permeates the liquid with an electric field.  The electrons normally pumped by the external power supply are coming from the water itself.  Ionization occurs as the electrons from one molecule collide with electrons of other molecules.  The rf currents these people were using is really high and result in all the inefficiencies involved with rf radiation of energy from the system.  Lower frequency using plates with a thin passivated layer deposited on them would allow the lc tank to operate at lower frequency and higher voltage across the water cap.  This is all endothermic.  The  electrons don't want to get squeezed into the negative plate or leave the positive plate.  If the voltage and current are totally out of phase the input power becomes apparent power which allows for very high voltage to develop across the capacitor with a q dependent on the inductor saturation parameters.  You could have 3000 volts across the capacitor and 20amps on the inductor buss.  This would be a kva of 60kva.  The power factor of course would be infinitely low at 90 degrees out.  But still some punch through the electronic fog.
I order to form H2 and O2 gas one still has to break the bonds in the water molecule either all at once which would be an interesting trick, or by stripping one H atom first which gets you pretty much back to the original process.

The Indian paper has massive flaws that strongly suggest metrology error.  Additionally, their results are contradicted by the 2005 Japanese effort that they largely copied.  A contradicted, extraordinary result obtained on the basis of metrology that as reported was all screwed up is just junk.  If any of the sponsoring parties took the research seriously they would very likely be spending the time and money to do the experiments properly with well controlled metrology.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Les Banki on August 25, 2014, 07:04:01 AM
Guys ... i wanted post here so update about my experimets, but after i read last few pages i realized that it will have no affect.

Noone will care here about trying and testing. Looks like noone perform any real test in few months. Looks like you just hunting for bigest post count with theoretical chick chat.
Why you even spent your time here guys? You all waiting until someone build and test everythnig for you?

I am really disappointed, but is my stupidity that i expected anything more then this.

Well, you are now experiencing it.  I told you so.
Both here and in private.

I am sure you have already discovered that I am publishing technical stuff elsewhere, where SABOTEURS are only allowed to READ!

ALL readers here SHOULD be aware of the following:

MarkE IS a professional SABOTEUR who has been allowed to over-run not only THIS thread but virtually the entire Forum!

He joined this Forum only 228 days ago and has managed to spew fort 3228 posts of dripping negativity CRAP!

That translates to 14.15 posts per DAY.


Would ANY of you reading this have time to do that?
If you could, WHAT would be your REASON??
One could ask: WHAT's in in for you to make that many posts?????

Would any of you do this for "free"????  All day, every day???  Averaging 14 posts a day.....!?

Do you remember the NAME of this Forum?
Just to remind you:  OVERUNITY.com

Cheers,
Les Banki
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 25, 2014, 09:12:35 AM
Well, you are now experiencing it.  I told you so.
Both here and in private.

I am sure you have already discovered that I am publishing technical stuff elsewhere, where SABOTEURS are only allowed to READ!

ALL readers here SHOULD be aware of the following:

MarkE IS a professional SABOTEUR who has been allowed to over-run not only THIS thread but virtually the entire Forum!

He joined this Forum only 228 days ago and has managed to spew fort 3228 posts of dripping negativity CRAP!

That translates to 14.15 posts per DAY.


Would ANY of you reading this have time to do that?
If you could, WHAT would be your REASON??
One could ask: WHAT's in in for you to make that many posts?????

Would any of you do this for "free"????  All day, every day???  Averaging 14 posts a day.....!?

Do you remember the NAME of this Forum?
Just to remind you:  OVERUNITY.com

Cheers,
Les Banki
Let's recap:  You don't have a working unit.  You can't point to a working unit, but you say the problem is me.  So, let me ask you:

Prior to when I posted here, about how many free energy devices discussed here were proven to work?
About how long a period of time did that occur over?
And since I came here about eight months ago, how many free energy devices discussed here have been proven to work?
How has the rate of proven free energy device per month changed since I began posting here?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 25, 2014, 04:51:18 PM
I would like to join this overunity research.com small forum.

Not to discuss hydrogen, but my various mechanical mechanisms
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 26, 2014, 12:52:11 AM
Quote from: MarkE
Let's recap:  You don't have a working unit.  You can't point to a working unit, but you say the problem is me.  So, let me ask you:

Prior to when I posted here, about how many free energy devices discussed here were proven to work?
About how long a period of time did that occur over?
And since I came here about eight months ago, how many free energy devices discussed here have been proven to work?
How has the rate of proven free energy device per month changed since I began posting here?


It is true that nearly every device discussed here
is incapable of the much sought after "free energy"
or "overunity."  The discussion is for the most part
just echo chamber "noise" or evidence of adrenalin
stimulation.

There are, however, certain processes which are presently
in use which "establishment science" is unaware or has
been convinced are fraudulent or impossible.

Not all who have knowledge of such processes are able
to reveal "proof" for security reasons, or are simply
unwilling to cast their "pearls" before swine.

Water is a remarkable substance;  simple in its makeup but
very complex in its properties.  While it is not yet time for
you to comprehend or be made aware of some of those
properties relative to this topic, in due time you will be.
Providing, you are prepared to step outside the box.

Conducting your own experiments could open that doorway.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 01:13:18 AM

It is true that nearly every device discussed here
is incapable of the much sought after "free energy"
or "overunity."  The discussion is for the most part
just echo chamber "noise" or evidence of adrenalin
stimulation.

There are, however, certain processes which are presently
in use which "establishment science" is unaware or has
been convinced are fraudulent or impossible.

Not all who have knowledge of such processes are able
to reveal "proof" for security reasons, or are simply
unwilling to cast their "pearls" before swine.

The standing contradiction of course is that a number of people choose to proclaim that one thing or another is OU, but fail to produce supporting evidence.  If they had security concerns it is very odd that they would expose themselves by making the claim without protecting themselves by supplying the evidence.  Once the secret's out, silencing someone can't retroactively make what's been exposed a secret once more.
Quote

Water is a remarkable substance;  simple in its makeup but
very complex in its properties.  While it is not yet time for
you to comprehend or be made aware of some of those
properties relative to this topic, in due time you will be.
Providing, you are prepared to step outside the box.

Conducting your own experiments could open that doorway.
This last bit is the same sort of pitch made by cults and con men for centuries:  "Behind the curtain is some wonderful truth. Only the worthy faithful get to see the wonderful truth." 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 26, 2014, 04:02:11 AM
Quote from: MarkE
The standing contradiction of course is that a number of people choose to proclaim that one thing or another is OU, but fail to produce supporting evidence.  If they had security concerns it is very odd that they would expose themselves by making the claim without protecting themselves by supplying the evidence.  Once the secret's out, silencing someone can't retroactively make what's been exposed a secret once more.

This last bit is the same sort of pitch made by cults and con men for centuries:  "Behind the curtain is some wonderful truth. Only the worthy faithful get to see the wonderful truth."

The 'last bit' is quite true as many will attest to.

Every goal in life which requires effort, study,
work, observation and ingenuity will not be
attainable by all.  Only those who are willing
to 'git 'er done' will succeed.

Only the "worthy faithful" have ever accomplished
their dreams.  Those who struggle through life
demanding spoon feeding or some other shortcut
to success which requires little effort will find
disappointment.

Again, the "secret" is out and has been for quite
some time.  Not in every detail, of course, but
sufficient to get those with gumption headed
in the right direction.  With determined effort
and attention to detail they will find their way.

Those who are looking for an effortless ride will
remain standing at the side of the road with their
thumbs out.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 04:24:23 AM
The 'last bit' is quite true as many will attest to.

Every goal in life which requires effort, study,
work, observation and ingenuity will not be
attainable by all.  Only those who are willing
to 'git 'er done' will succeed.

Only the "worthy faithful" have ever accomplished
their dreams.  Those who struggle through life
demanding spoon feeding or some other shortcut
to success which requires little effort will find
disappointment.

Again, the "secret" is out and has been for quite
some time.  Not in every detail, of course, but
sufficient to get those with gumption headed
in the right direction.  With determined effort
and attention to detail they will find their way.

Those who are looking for an effortless ride will
remain standing at the side of the road with their
thumbs out.
If the "secret is out" then you most certainly can point to successful implementations of it.   Oh, but of course, that must all remain behind the curtain, mustn't it?  The refrain will go on:  "It's here, right behind this curtain.  You just have to believe.  And, oh there is a little fee, or donation ..."
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 26, 2014, 09:34:06 AM
No, there is never any fee or cost or ever any request
for donations.  The "group" are self-supporting and
provide to others the knowledge which was freely given
to them.

For reasons which you may not yet appreciate there is
some selectivity.  The knowledge will not be provided
to any who may be tempted to abuse it.

There is the possibility that some may discover through
their own efforts the essence of the process.  With that
self-developed understanding there also develops within
the experimenter an awesome appreciation and an
unpremeditated desire to want to safeguard the knowledge
until such time as it may be safely made available to all.

Stan was affected by this transformation too but his desire
for fame and fortune proved too strong.  As it turned out,
that was his undoing.  The "system" saw to it that his efforts
were neutralized for obvious reasons.


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 10:51:30 AM
No, there is never any fee or cost or ever any request
for donations.  The "group" are self-supporting and
provide to others the knowledge which was freely given
to them.

For reasons which you may not yet appreciate there is
some selectivity.  The knowledge will not be provided
to any who may be tempted to abuse it.

There is the possibility that some may discover through
their own efforts the essence of the process.  With that
self-developed understanding there also develops within
the experimenter an awesome appreciation and an
unpremeditated desire to want to safeguard the knowledge
until such time as it may be safely made available to all.

Stan was affected by this transformation too but his desire
for fame and fortune proved too strong.  As it turned out,
that was his undoing.  The "system" saw to it that his efforts
were neutralized for obvious reasons.
As it is with all cults, there is "some selectivity".  Always behind the curtain.  Always suggested.  Never evidenced.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 26, 2014, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: MarkE
As it is with all cults, there is "some selectivity".  Always behind the curtain.  Always suggested.  Never evidenced.

Selectivity is an efficient way of weeding out the
unsuitable;  it is part of our human nature.  I would
venture to say that you yourself exercise prudent
selectivity as you go about your numerous endeavors
or social experiences.


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 11:03:29 PM
Selectivity is an efficient way of weeding out the
unsuitable;  it is part of our human nature.  I would
venture to say that you yourself exercise prudent
selectivity as you go about your numerous endeavors
or social experiences.
Sure you cull the herd in a way that suits your purposes.  You wouldn't want heretics milling about asking pesky questions.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 26, 2014, 11:39:47 PM
Au contraire mon frere!  Heretics are most welcome
to embark upon the experimental journey.  Provided
of course that they are honest and trustworthy heretics
who would not abuse the knowledge.

The Committee is very good at interpreting intentions
through analysis of the spoken or written word.  Then
of course there is the ethics and integrity test.

It may be now said that this exercise has accomplished
its intended purpose.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 26, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
Au contraire mon frere!  Heretics are most welcome
to embark upon the experimental journey.  Provided
of course that they are honest and trustworthy heretics
who would not abuse the knowledge.

The Committee is very good at interpreting intentions
through analysis of the spoken or written word.  Then
of course there is the ethics and integrity test.

It may be now said that this exercise has accomplished
its intended purpose.
Translation: "Cull the herd."  A consequence of claiming that you keep evidence supporting extraordinary claims secret is that it leaves you with empty hands.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 27, 2014, 12:00:51 AM
Patience.

In Due Time all will be revealed.

It must not be haphazard.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 27, 2014, 12:23:14 AM
Patience.

In Due Time all will be revealed.

It must not be haphazard.
Tomorrow, tomorrow, or the week after next or the Fifth of Never, unrevealed evidence might as well be no evidence at all.  If you actually have evidence and if you actually wish to be taken seriously, then it is in your interest to produce evidence of the extraordinary claims of Stan Meyer that you defend.  If you don't care if you are taken seriously, or if you can't produce evidence, then leaving things be as they are is as good as it gets for defending those claims.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 27, 2014, 02:20:07 AM
Nay, evidence of the process would be counterproductive
to the aims of the exercise.  It is not yet time for that
level of commotion.  Those who are destined to proceed
quietly towards success have now begun their work.  They
are beginning to see where certain modifications to their
drivers are needed.  It is essential that this next phase of
the development be done by a core of exceptional men
who will in turn, at the designated time, share with all.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 27, 2014, 06:55:20 AM
Tomorrow, tomorrow, we'll all have jam ... tomorrow.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: stevie1001 on August 27, 2014, 12:29:42 PM
After reading all these posts here, i feel the need to add something here.


The only person really doing practical research is Les Banki here......
Les, keep yr head up, and please continue and thank you for sharing your results and schematics.


thumbs up!


Any person posting 14 posts each day is also an interesting subject to talk about, if that person is not a moderator.....
Any person not posting any testresults or project status is also just trying to see results over the back from others.....


think about that.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 27, 2014, 02:39:24 PM
The only researcher who doing the right thing was Dankie.

He made the Stephen Meyers driver and amplifier and perfect pulses.

All else is admitted unworking and un-understood technology.

When pursuing what could have been a fraud, he who escapes with net benefit is the winner.

Thus Dankie was the most cunning, and best researcher, escaping the ship with no damage.

Today, the only path to further progress is by pursuing his research, using his circuits.

All who disagree with this are unintelligent monkeys, who did not do the detective work.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 27, 2014, 03:34:28 PM
The only researcher who doing the right thing was Dankie.

He made the Stephen Meyers driver and amplifier and perfect pulses.

All else is admitted unworking and un-understood technology.

When pursuing what could have been a fraud, he who escapes with net benefit is the winner.

Thus Dankie was the most cunning, and best researcher, escaping the ship with no damage.

Today, the only path to further progress is by pursuing his research, using his circuits.

All who disagree with this are unintelligent monkeys, who did not do the detective work.
What results did Dankie ever show?  Did he claim he managed OU?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 27, 2014, 05:10:46 PM
Due to lack of abundant funds, and lack of verifiability he pulled out.

He was not gonna put his money on the line to build e intricate cell he needed, 6 sets 18 tubes.

Due to the constant disagreement with his lackeys, which would not submit to his views, and send him all their life savings, humanity was doomed. His arrogance may have played a part in this, but only slightly.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 27, 2014, 06:33:00 PM
Thanks.  Did he publish either  or both the circuits that he used, and any test results of at least the circuits?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 27, 2014, 08:20:10 PM
Yes he did, didnt you read the stephen Meyers patent application ?

Application denied 6 years later.

I was gonna go in full research, 6 transformers, dual 3 phase hexagonal cell, as is called for by the patent application.

With a cell where theres slots below the tubes to let water flow in and escape from below.

With impedance matching cards for every array. The patent application is surprisingly detailed.

But all those big dreams are gone now.

The un-sophisticated 99% cannot even hope to ever make such an electrolyzer, this really requires deeper research and knowledge of electronics.

I do believe however, that there will be someday, a discovery to break the water molecule with lower energy costs, nothing is impossible, there must be some way.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on August 27, 2014, 08:42:52 PM
""I do believe however, that there will be someday, a discovery to break the water molecule with lower energy costs, nothing is impossible, there must be some way.""


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc




sigh.....
yeah its so very complicated...


Please don't summon the Dankie....


thx
Chet




Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 27, 2014, 08:52:52 PM
Yes he did, didnt you read the stephen Meyers patent application ?

Application denied 6 years later.

I was gonna go in full research, 6 transformers, dual 3 phase hexagonal cell, as is called for by the patent application.

With a cell where theres slots below the tubes to let water flow in and escape from below.

With impedance matching cards for every array. The patent application is surprisingly detailed.

But all those big dreams are gone now.

The un-sophisticated 99% cannot even hope to ever make such an electrolyzer, this really requires deeper research and knowledge of electronics.

I do believe however, that there will be someday, a discovery to break the water molecule with lower energy costs, nothing is impossible, there must be some way.
It was not clear to me whether Dankie was directly reproducing the patent or devised his own circuits. 

The conventional view which has yet to be shown wrong holds that the energy required to split the molecule is the same energy less the phase change energy obtained by reacting the separated components.  The Japanese paper was trying to approach that less than unity efficiency in a way that could scale well.  The Indians have reported what amounts to OU, but their paper is a mess.

If you look at what it is that we get from liquid petroleum fuels today it is:  Easy and cheap distribution of comparatively light weight and moderately energy dense fuel.  If one can come up with a substitute that does not have horrific cost or the limited resource or pollution problems of petroleum then we would be way ahead of the game.  OU would be a big cherry on top if it could be made to happen.  So, far there is no love in that direction.  So, don't get too discouraged if OU doesn't happen soon or ever, if we solve the storage problem, then solar and other alternative generation methods will really knock down the economics of fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 28, 2014, 03:53:55 AM
I may take a stab @ it tho in the future.

I have studied his backward decisions, have some hunch what he is trying to avoid.

I go the higher band now, I am prepared.

I know Stephen has some very valuable technology in his mind, I hope he left some crunchy in his patent, honestly the fact he didn't receive it changes nothing to me, I. The logic and sequence of events.

He is basically water god, who on earth knows more than he?

The guy is basically a an phenomenal and legendary engineer , top 5% of his navy class.

Brother of Stan Meyer, man who stopped nuclear reactor from melting.

Nobody is f**** with this guys. When he says he wants 10 million for a conversation he is pretty bold and direct. This probably comes with legal attachments, legal protection and enforcement from uncle sam

MarkE, why don't YOU take a stab at it, you should be thanking my ass for making this circuit available, and as you can see it works great.

Any research entity not actually testing this is stupid,  it is worth a few months investigation, right ?
If I was 100k net Worth I would spend 1k on this. Its a 25/75% gamble, Id say 18 tubes + cell + 6 cores + electronics... about 1000$
I may just find that pcb for that person.

Would Stephen outright lie in a patent application, read his terms and claims. Bold claims are made.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 28, 2014, 09:07:42 AM
I may take a stab @ it tho in the future.

I have studied his backward decisions, have some hunch what he is trying to avoid.

I go the higher band now, I am prepared.

I know Stephen has some very valuable technology in his mind, I hope he left some crunchy in his patent, honestly the fact he didn't receive it changes nothing to me, I. The logic and sequence of events.

He is basically water god, who on earth knows more than he?

The guy is basically a an phenomenal and legendary engineer , top 5% of his navy class.

Brother of Stan Meyer, man who stopped nuclear reactor from melting.

Nobody is f**** with this guys. When he says he wants 10 million for a conversation he is pretty bold and direct. This probably comes with legal attachments, legal protection and enforcement from uncle sam

MarkE, why don't YOU take a stab at it, you should be thanking my ass for making this circuit available, and as you can see it works great.

Any research entity not actually testing this is stupid,  it is worth a few months investigation, right ?
If I was 100k net Worth I would spend 1k on this. Its a 25/75% gamble, Id say 18 tubes + cell + 6 cores + electronics... about 1000$
I may just find that pcb for that person.

Would Stephen outright lie in a patent application, read his terms and claims. Bold claims are made.
Armcortex, I do thank you for what you have done.  I haven't seen any evidence that would make performing a replication interesting to me.  If there is specific help or advice that you would like with circuit alterations, layout, test procedures, etc, then just ask.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Acca on August 28, 2014, 12:33:06 PM
To steive1001  just as Les Banki has left overunity because he could not post here as he said in his post that being 80 years old he was attacked by MarkE as a self promoted chronic poster expert. 

He is NOT !

Any ordered debate is just an attack on the poor members trying to post here on overunity dot com ..
 Just go back and read posts by these three Shills,  Tinselkoala, MarkE, and MileHigh.

Between them they represent 90  percent of all the posts here and all they do is just criticize all debate telling the people under the guise that they are incompetent by attacking their posts through dissection of their posted results.


I suggest that posting here is a lost waste of time  and it's open forum debate has been taken over by professional saboteurs, as Les Banki said and others...

Acca...



Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 28, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
Let the shills be, I am the defender of the shills

Weak potatoes will give themselves all excuses to not make anything.

Shills, the weather, sick cat, fluoride.

He who has reached the point of illumination needs no one, their monies will be fine.

He who comes here looking for gimme gimme schematic fast fast mmmmm burgers, and never think
or pay attention deserves only that, to be redirected into his proper place.

I wouldn't want regular people to know what I know, competition is bad, the world needs employees,
Not stubborn assholes like me.

Good work you shills, keep it up
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 28, 2014, 07:38:59 PM
    The 1s orbital of a hydrogen atom bonded to an oxygen atom is not the same as the 1s orbital of an unbound  hydrogen atom.  An electron in this 1s subshell is further away from the hydrogen nucleus as it is attracted to the oxygen nucleus also.  It is easier to ionize this electron than to ionize the same electron solely bound to the hydrogen atom.   The formation of hydrogen gas is the energy problem.  The two protons have to  form a covalent bond.  They have to pickup 2 electrons with opposite spins and then get close enough to form a covalent bond.  Best way to do that is right back with the oxygen atom with the original electrons ionized.  The only way to beat this heating of the water is to increase the field intensity.   This is done by increasing the voltage across the cell.  Unfortunately the field is only strong enough to ionize and accelerate the electrons very close to the cathode.
   Meyers claimed that the field was strong enough to warp the molecular electron configuration.  The electrons don't need to leave the molecule but shift away from the cathode with an increase in the polarization of the water molecule.  More electrons stay in the oxygen orbital than they do in the hydrogen orbital.  The charges on the cathode attracts the hydrogen end of the molecule while repelling the electrons toward the oxgyen end of the molecule.  At this point the 3 nuclides are all mutually repulsive.   This would cause an explosion of the water molecule.  Yielding 2 protons and 0-2 ion.  The protons are blown out of the molecule by the charge of the nuclei all being positive.  (coolumb explosion in liquid)   Now the field is relaxed.  Protons find themselves in an electron deprived enviroment and continue to drift apart.  The electrons redistribute round the oxygen atom.  This I get.  The part I don't get is how does the hydrogen form?  Or does it?   
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 28, 2014, 08:24:02 PM
That idea does not seep particularly reasonable to me.  Set-up a field and it will polarize molecules that are in the field:  IE we can influence the orientation of the molecules.  Apply a stronger and stronger field gradient and eventually we ionize one or more atoms.  So, we get the molecule turned with the hydrogen atoms more or less parallel to the cathode, and there is some distortion, but the ionization energy is still far lower for the oxygen electrons than it is the hydrogen and we are back to ordinary electrolysis.  The same field  that pushes / pulls on the hydrogen electrons pushes / pulls on the oxygen electrons.  I think to get what you are talking about you have to be able selectively focus energy in the space of the hydrogen atoms. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on August 29, 2014, 09:02:41 PM
That idea does not seep particularly reasonable to me.  Set-up a field and it will polarize molecules that are in the field:  IE we can influence the orientation of the molecules.  Apply a stronger and stronger field gradient and eventually we ionize one or more atoms.  So, we get the molecule turned with the hydrogen atoms more or less parallel to the cathode, and there is some distortion, but the ionization energy is still far lower for the oxygen electrons than it is the hydrogen and we are back to ordinary electrolysis.  The same field  that pushes / pulls on the hydrogen electrons pushes / pulls on the oxygen electrons.  I think to get what you are talking about you have to be able selectively focus energy in the space of the hydrogen atoms.


    The hydrogen end of the water molecule at the cathode will be attracted to the metal in the cathode.  It forms a hydrogen bond to the cathode metal.   The electric field of the electrons in the metal extend through the passivated layer.  The electric field also shifts the molecular electrons away from the hydrogen end of the molecule.  The covalent bonds are temporarily weaker than the artificial hydrogen bond.  The nuclei of the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms find no electrons neutralizing the oxygen proton charge.  The two hydrogen atoms therefore move away from the oxygen atom and each other.   The hydrogen atoms (now just protons) are less massive so they move relative to the oxygen protons.   They are now stuck to the cathode like ions in an electrolytic capacitor.  This is what creates the capacitance in the tank circuit that creates the field.  If you short out the capacitor into the inductor the protons no longer stick to the cathode because of the reduced charge on the cathode.  Something else has to happen to favor the production of hydrogen gas though otherwise you end up with a bunch of h30 and oh radicals and water.  Maybe some hydrogen peroxide  and hydrogen if your protons hit the electron end of another stressed out water molecule?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TechStuf on August 29, 2014, 09:32:40 PM
It's no joke.  Those of you that have any experience with hydrogen catalysis, will see the ramifications of the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_0cRYebYU

Abundant power generation, home heating, etc....

Is here now.  For those willing to go after it.

Look at the rate he's getting with ignoble (ie. cheap) metals and only 1.5v! 

Gotta love the intrinsic "irony" of one of the most stable liquids, used to put out fires, easily being split into two of the most flammable gasses known.


Good Journies
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 29, 2014, 11:11:33 PM

    The hydrogen end of the water molecule at the cathode will be attracted to the metal in the cathode.
The molecules turn to align at the lowest energy potential to the field.
Quote
It forms a hydrogen bond to the cathode metal.
Unless I am mistaken, that bond is very weak.
Quote
   The electric field of the electrons in the metal extend through the passivated layer.
Since we have a big externally applied field that is what dominates.  It is what caused the molecules to turn in the first place.
Quote
The electric field also shifts the molecular electrons away from the hydrogen end of the molecule.
Which should only act to decrease the additional polarization before the oxygen ionizes.  If the cathode is on the left, you have the H side of the molecule there, crowding of electrons around the O side and a high positive field potential to the right of the whole thing.  Electrons feel force to the right.  The ones with the lowest ionization potential will break free first.  I submit those are  still the O electrons.
Quote
The covalent bonds are temporarily weaker than the artificial hydrogen bond.  The nuclei of the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms find no electrons neutralizing the oxygen proton charge.  The two hydrogen atoms therefore move away from the oxygen atom and each other.   The hydrogen atoms (now just protons) are less massive so they move relative to the oxygen protons.   They are now stuck to the cathode like ions in an electrolytic capacitor.  This is what creates the capacitance in the tank circuit that creates the field.  If you short out the capacitor into the inductor the protons no longer stick to the cathode because of the reduced charge on the cathode.  Something else has to happen to favor the production of hydrogen gas though otherwise you end up with a bunch of h30 and oh radicals and water.  Maybe some hydrogen peroxide  and hydrogen if your protons hit the electron end of another stressed out water molecule?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 30, 2014, 12:01:58 AM
What about wave interference and radiation.

Structure as well.

So much more complez than sparks or MarkE's visualisation based on questionnable science.

Too complex for man... Or is it.

Stipulating like this nulls the Xogen claims, so does the conspiracy really run this deep to have multiple frauds running around with disguised electrolysis.

I will not accept, that water cannot be broken by special electrical signals. I refute this claim based on human creativity.

I am not saying it has been done by Meyers, but Ill be damned if somebody smarter cant solve this.

Btw, I am not very smart, far from engineer and math wiz.

Nobody has touched the limit yet, I dont wanna hear it cant be done.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on August 30, 2014, 12:50:59 AM
What about wave interference and radiation.

Structure as well.

So much more complez than sparks or MarkE's visualisation based on questionnable science.

Too complex for man... Or is it.

Stipulating like this nulls the Xogen claims, so does the conspiracy really run this deep to have multiple frauds running around with disguised electrolysis.

I will not accept, that water cannot be broken by special electrical signals. I refute this claim based on human creativity.

I am not saying it has been done by Meyers, but Ill be damned if somebody smarter cant solve this.

Btw, I am not very smart, far from engineer and math wiz.

Nobody has touched the limit yet, I dont wanna hear it cant be done.
You've got a vision which is fine and well.  The challenge is coming up with evidence that supports it.  Do you have something that you want to try?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ARMCORTEX on August 30, 2014, 02:50:00 AM
You really ask dumb questions, questions wich you know the answer to.

No I dont. But have some unfinished business on my plate.

I will take a stab @ it, one day, not sure when, once Im real rich and a big intricate cell is like a penny to me and time is nothing.

But somebody will, one day, not me.

A brilliant researcher will come, Id say in the next century.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ltseung888 on September 04, 2014, 10:59:48 PM
Just added two slides to the "Water as Fuel" presentation.  The presentation was given to academics from Australia and China.  Aroused their interest.
The two new slides are reproduced here:
 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on September 04, 2014, 11:34:05 PM
If a substance has multiple energy states, those states may be useful towards certain ends such as storing and releasing energy in the transition between the states as is commonly utilized in the enthalpy of fusion and vaporization of water.  Energy is not created or destroyed but stored and released.

Assume for a moment that the form of a snowflake affects to some extent the internal energy of the structure.  This would mean that if we had control over the formation of snowflakes that we could manipulate the storage capacity.  Could that be useful?  It might if snowflakes: 1) are an efficient form of energy storage, and 2) their form affects their capacity, and 3) their form is easy to manipulate.  Since: 1) is false, it doesn't matter that 3) is unlikely, and 2) is unknown.

Did you ever get a reply back from the Indians about their measurements?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on September 06, 2014, 06:16:02 PM
Just added two slides to the "Water as Fuel" presentation.  The presentation was given to academics from Australia and China.  Aroused their interest.
The two new slides are reproduced here:


    The 1s orbital of the hydrogen atom molecularly bound is not the same as when existing in elemental form. Hydrogen is in it's ground state only when it is monatomic.  This is why when molecular hydrogen is split there is a release of energy.  The electrons shared,  transition from a distorted orbital (or excited state)  to ground state.  This creates a photon of energy for each hydrogen atom that transitions. 1H2 -> H+H + E.  If this photon is absorbed by another monatomic hydrogen atom you get molecular hydrogen back.  In order for the transition to occur with release of excess energy the resonance of the hydrogen molecule has to be disrupted.  When you have oxygen nearby and a catalyzing spark the water molecule is formed.  The monatomic hydrogen atoms form covalent bonds with the oxygen atom.  The 1s orbital of the hydrogen bonded to oxygen is closer to ground state or less excited than when bound to another hydrogen atom.   This results with photon emission.  1H2+0->H2O+E
   This is why it takes energy to transition the bound hydrogen atom to form hydrogen gas.  If you could take the hydrogen off the oxygen and somehow keep it in the monatomic hydrogen form then you could get energy out of water. You have to fight electron affinity all the way. 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Grumage on September 13, 2014, 10:07:20 PM
Dear All.

Far from overunity !! :)

More like kilowatts to microwatts but a good run, non the less !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwjTDXR31KA

Now to perfect the electronics.  ;)

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: pavqw on October 21, 2014, 09:44:39 PM
I am doing some research in this area and it seems I have found some interesting discoveries.
I've proved for myself that I can achieve better efficiency with short pulses and higher frequencies.
Also that AC voltage does not work nearly at all.
AC that is created with one switching transistor + transformer does not work nearly at all too. After adding diode it is like day and night.
For different transistor there are different frequencies to achieve the best results.
Faster transistors, better results (and higher current).
I am trying to stay around 10W and it seems I can create enough HHO to power tiny engine at real time with 2-plate cell and tap water.
I have not tested it with distilled water yet, but I can't wait to see result.

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on October 22, 2014, 04:53:57 AM
I am doing some research in this area and it seems I have found some interesting discoveries.
I've proved for myself that I can achieve better efficiency with short pulses and higher frequencies.
Also that AC voltage does not work nearly at all.
AC that is created with one switching transistor + transformer does not work nearly at all too. After adding diode it is like day and night.
For different transistor there are different frequencies to achieve the best results.
Faster transistors, better results (and higher current).
I am trying to stay around 10W and it seems I can create enough HHO to power tiny engine at real time with 2-plate cell and tap water.
I have not tested it with distilled water yet, but I can't wait to see result.
Data?  How much mechanical power can your system deliver at its output from the 10W electrical you supply at its input?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on October 22, 2014, 11:12:52 AM
What is the best frequency for hydrogen generation?

I use about 340kHz with NE555 and IRFP150. I didnt find overunity. The bubbles are smaller.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on October 22, 2014, 11:37:24 AM
What is the best frequency for hydrogen generation?

I use about 340kHz with NE555 and IRFP150. I didnt find overunity. The bubbles are smaller.
340kHz is pushing an NE555 pretty hard.  You might want to use a TLC-555 instead.  Even Radio Shack sells them.  You might also want to add a boost driver between the 555 and your FET's gate so that you don't lose a lot of energy from the MOSFET turning on and off too slowly.  A PNP and NPN transistor pair will do: 2n2907a for the PNP / 2222A for the NPN or similar.  3906 and 3904's will work as well.  There are also lots of MOSFET driver ICs on the market. 

A lot of people have tried frequencies as low as 2kHz.   Les Banki claims to have good results.  You can look up his circuits.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Paul-R on October 22, 2014, 05:20:59 PM
What is the best frequency for hydrogen generation?

John Worrell Keely used 42.8khz.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on October 22, 2014, 05:31:49 PM
Thanks.

Audible sound freqs (under 17kHz) gives bigger bubbles (PWM about 50%), not milk-like small bubbles.
Positive Ni plate wears brown powder coat, negative plate wears black(on solution)/white(on dry) coat.

With closer plates (0,5-1mm) i saw high-temp rainbow-like colors on plates (maybe H and O reaction).
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on October 23, 2014, 12:35:42 PM
A reminder to anyone looking to replicate this effect [experiment] or the work of Les Banki.


replications are in the works.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg42493;topicseen#msg42493 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg42493;topicseen#msg42493)

respectfully

Chet
PS
A comment to Mark E below


Of course !
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on October 23, 2014, 02:16:04 PM
A reminder to anyone looking to replicate this effect [experiment] or the work of Les Banki.


replications are in the works.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg42493;topicseen#msg42493




respectfully


Chet
Data that can be verified is good.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: tinman on October 23, 2014, 03:03:49 PM
Data that can be verified is good.
That will be comeing soon,just waiting for the nanopulse boards to turn up. Measureing device to measure MMW is done,and will measure down to the last mil of HHO gas.P/in will be measured between two 20 000uf high current cap's-->over kill i know,but it will remove any ripple that the circuit may produce across the input.Will be using both DMM's and scope with CSR to measure P/in.

Time to put this one to bed one way or the other.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: MarkE on October 23, 2014, 04:32:57 PM
That will be comeing soon,just waiting for the nanopulse boards to turn up. Measureing device to measure MMW is done,and will measure down to the last mil of HHO gas.P/in will be measured between two 20 000uf high current cap's-->over kill i know,but it will remove any ripple that the circuit may produce across the input.Will be using both DMM's and scope with CSR to measure P/in.

Time to put this one to bed one way or the other.
Good.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: pavqw on November 02, 2014, 11:21:40 PM
Did anybody tried this: http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfcbooster/WFCbooster06en.htm ??
I will try it in few days, I have high hopes for that.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: blavatsky on December 04, 2014, 01:28:24 AM
Has anyone replicated the Meyer / Dingel Resonant electrolysis of  water into hydrogen and oxygen ?

The aquatune generator seems to come close www.aquatune.com

cheers

Richard
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: triffid on April 13, 2015, 08:05:56 PM
test,just wanted a link back to here.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on September 25, 2015, 09:51:46 PM

Les Banki designed a good circuit .   

the SITh - static induction thyristor , is a normally ON device . Anyone can google it , try RS1600PA40T1 data sheet .
the basic representitive diagram in the report/paper shows the SITh with a diode to trigger the base when the FBT is fully charged and polarised , the diode will be fwd biased in order to switch OFF the thyristor .
That is a GREAT circuit design , the FBT is a functioning part of the switch . It switches itself off !!!!

Its easy enough to google , there are other papers using pulse power supplies , the same technique . they are the next generation power supplies . all computers use SMPS .

over time pulse power supply will be wide spread
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: richardn on October 26, 2015, 08:41:20 PM
Hi all,

i am quite new to this forum but not new to electrolysis of water.
I investigated several cell constructions for many years and just lining up here again.

When i read stories like that it always reminds me of people inventing the perpetuum mobile -
and its really funny how people rely on this.

You cannot beat physical and chemical laws - one of that is that of Faraday.
This describes exactly how much energy you will have to invest to divide H2O into its elements.
So this numbers here are absolute ridiculos - you would really win energy when this holds true.
All problems of mankind solved!

Great job to the indian researchers!
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on October 29, 2015, 05:25:12 AM

I dont think exceeding faraday is even important . monatomic hydrogen isnt supposed to exist but it sure does .

George Wiseman did a thorough research and developement of Yul Browns monatomic welder generators , its all on VHS and DVD circa 1995.

George Wiseman has proof of volume out put that monatomic gas is being produced , because if it isnt proof of monatomic gas , then he is outputting more diatomic gas than faraday allows  ......
so which is the safest answer to lean on ?   

monatomic H isnt suppposed to exist but then science has us believe that +H ion exists ....a lone proton.



theories and hypothesis of men of the 1800s are long over due for the trash can , they are the same men who said flight was impossible!!

today flight is as normal to us , as wigs , snuff boxes and horse crap were to them
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: richardn on October 29, 2015, 03:53:21 PM
Thanks for your opinion, massive.

But imho you put it too easy. If there was proof for the existance of monoatomic hydrogen as gas - and existing for more than milliseconds, it would
be officially announced by scientists.
My opinion is that the "free energy protagonists" (want) to live in a SF-world where they can generate energy for free, i.e. the perpetuum mobile.
That is kind of fantastic and funny to watch but for me its hard to rely on this.

Yes, monoatomic h exists for a very short time when it is transported to the cathode. But it combines nearly at once with other h to h2, as we know it
as a stable gas.
For me it is absolutely impossible, that monoatomic h-gas will exist as free gas and in stable situation.
It may exist in a kind of Plasma condition on very high temperature tough...
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on October 29, 2015, 09:09:09 PM

I have no problem with x amount of gas , for x amount of energy , Avogadro etc
I dropped electrolysis in 98 - 99 or so , it is an observation that it is rediculous to repeat the same experiment , you can ONLY get the same result.

George Wiseman draws more gas with his welders , either he is producing nore than faraday OR he is producing monatomic H in the mix .
his experiments and experience back up his claims
people say they replicate his set up BUT they straight away change the construction details to suit them selves
He is clear as glass in his instructions ,that he uses 3/8" between his plates yet everyone wants to make a compact cell and ignore

the series cell itself is a break away because a transformer is discarded , the surface area is multiplied by neutral NON 'live' plates , that in itself is a major step forward but I doubt scientists are going to let that construction make its way into text books

you can NOT teach kids to get rid of transformers .
Innovation at the consumer level spells economic disaster for shareholder concerns

I personally have never seen an electron , proton  , diatomic H or monatomic H molecule but people freely talk about them like its first hand knowledge but we have all been thru the school system and we all regurgitate what has been driven into our heads

If George Wiseman has more gas out put , I think there is very few people who we have experience to counter claim
either he is producing monatomic H OR he is producing more diatomic gas than faraday , theres only 2 options

For me the thing that stands out about the japanese research is the use of a fly back transformer , I have never read of anyone utilising genuine flyback topology , Inductive Energy Storage

The SITh is unavailable to the public , it is not a SCR , they call it Field Controlled Diode.
nor have I heard of Static Induction Transistor

This thread started as "31 x more gas"  then Les Banki changed it to "8 x more gas" , everyone piled onto L Banki , when his figure was/is based on the JAPANESE RESEARCH paper

he took the thread to

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.400

.....where they piled onto him  :-\

all he did was provide a relative circuit for people willing to do their own research into the JAPANESE RESEARCH
there was 20 circuit boards freely GIVEN to anyone , who does that ?  do universities do that ? do governments do that ?

theres no way the J researchers are releasing their actual results what ever that may be , on top of that NGK is in no hurray to release SITh on consumers that could make their own technology

the economy is solely based on selling product to consumers for more than it is worth

back to the J circuit / Banki circuit , it is utilising stored energy , no different to a battery .
do I think more energy can be pulled from a pwer supply ?  = N O !

1 simple observation of ALL circuits is , there is more energy out side of a circuit than the energy inside the circuit

once upon a time there was onlythe primary circuit , then some one invented a trans and therefore the secondary circuit , along came valves , electronics and now we have the control circuit, so its normal for everything to have 3 circuits
if anyone wants more energy out of a circuit then the logical step is to open the circuit to out side energy

there is NO laws of physics to say energy can not enter a circuit

petrol is external energy , paid for the entered into a system . diesel , hemp seed oil , cotton seed , alcohol , coal , wood ........
they are ALL external sources of energy added

water added to electrolysisis external to the circuit , the gas released is protons , neutrons and electrons.
a resistive element of the circuit is disintergrating and escaping the circuit , when it is all gone the circuit is open

so there is nothing in physics to say external energy can not enter a circuit
again there is always more energy out side of a circuit then there is IN the circuit
the circuit itself is constructed from resources directly from the environment .......which is external from the work bench
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: richardn on November 03, 2015, 10:25:39 AM
Hi massive,

thanks for your complex answer - i am not sure if i got the final point tough.
What exactly do you mean when you say "there is more energy outside the circuit than inside"?
Do you mean there is a kind of magic that external energy enters the circuit to take part in the electrolysis?

I tend to believe what scientists have stated for many years and prooven by experiments over and over
unless there is really strict evidence for the opposite. Every real scientist would be happy to find the perpetuum mobile
and would surely be a candidate for the nobel price!
So - if there was only the slightest chance of holding true this would have attracted all scientists to proof it!

Where can you read about the original findings from wiseman?
Can you make absolutely sure there was no mistake in measuremet or other experiment conditions?

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on November 03, 2015, 07:57:52 PM
Hi
lets say Ive got a traditional 2 plate electrolysis set up in front of me , 12v DC , x amount of amperage = out put means nothing in this example

at any given moment on this planet there is a lightning strike , according to science , 100 per second

my table top experiments input and output compared to 1 lightning strike is absolute miniscule.

on every surface around the house there is static electrons.

When I mean out side energy Im only talking about electrons . those electrons are no different than the ones powering the fridge , the light , the TV , the car or what ever, except they are unexcited and external to the circuit.

now with the Electrolysis set up , I have 12V DC and x amount of amperage through traditional 2 plates , lets be honest about it ..... THAT is the amount of energy I have to work with . the circuit is closed and the set up has to use what is available...and THAT is whats available.....as far as I can see .

the series cell has been around for 40 years and DC pulsing is not straight DC , so what behavior happens to molecules under pulsing has not been written in the school books , I certainly was never aware of this type of thing before I saw a vhs(!) of g wiseman in 1998(!)

Why hasnt science mentioned the modernization of electrolysis???   there has been a modification where neutral plates have been added AND they work , surely that is worthy of adding to the science books.
that alone is major....... NEUTRAL PLATES  ???

Georeg Wiseman has sent out for independent tests
http://www.eagle-research.com/
GW doesnt frequent forums , so you wont find alot on these type of forums , his name is hardly mentioned 

"permetuum mobile"  is some thing that gets me ...... it is a phrase/quote from the 1800s but is still used in 2015 . (where and who did it originate?)
a hydraulic water ram requires zero input but it has continual out put , people go on about efficiency and c.o.p of machines but theres a man made machine that will run continuously .....is it a perpetual motion machine?
to see one in person they are fantastic to watch and unforgettable , apparently they were widely used in the NY / east area way back when
In UK theres a company still going thats been in bussiness for over 200 years making them . not bad
http://www.greenandcarter.com/main/products.htm


a wind turbine generates 2 things = electrical power and money
it will generate both as long as there are consumers and payment methods in place.
in this case , wind is the out side energy , is the force of the wind greater than the energy in the circuit ? 

again a lightning strike has more electrons than the electrons in the circuit
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: richardn on November 03, 2015, 10:08:49 PM
o.k. - and what does that proof?

A ligthning strike has a lot of energy (volts and amps) for a very short time.
If you could save all that energy it really wouldnt last very long when you supply a little village.

But unfortunately this "free" energy doesn't enter your circuits as you would like it :-)

Unless you build special machines to collect it (PV-energy, wind energy, water energy,....)
Is that what you are talking about?

But still, this doesn't have to do anything with faraday's and others electro-chemical laws...
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on November 04, 2015, 12:26:33 AM
Hi
there is more electrons out side of the circuit than could possible fit in ANY circuit .  lightning strikes destroy cables , transformers , sub stations and anything else in its way .
a conductor/ cable can only carry x amount of current before it melts
 
there is no commercial collection of lightning so there is no scientific support or favoritism for harnessing lightning .  scientists go where the money is , NO ONE hires scientists other than industry other wise they are dead weight and jobless.

the power running into everyones house only has x amount of energy per cycle .
Ive read plenty of times where lightning only has a small amount of energy for a brief amount of time but then the comparison isnt made when the continuous strikes are approx 100 times per second.......so a small villiage would have quite a sufficient power supply at that rate  .
the small villiage where ever that may be , seems to always get a mention

Joule discharge of STORED energy
http://www.niell.org/exploding.html

I havent mentioned "free energy" any where but it is a fact , electrons out side the circuit are free for the taking IF a circuit is designed .
we dont live in an economy that can survive by people collecting free electrons out side of the circuit
its not economically viable . that is the opposite of economy .
an economy is when you sell something for more than its worth
how does one sell something thats freely available ?

the basis of faraday is the PS is the source of electrons and those electrons are used up , I have no problem with that , like I said theres 12 v DC and x amount of amperage

do I expect more from that circuit ? ^^^^  of course not , that doesnt make sense
 
do I beleive circuits can be made to collect electrons from out side the circuit and utilise those electrons ?  absolutely!! 
earth is the largest diameter conductor we have access to, it is also the source of all our , conductors ,semi conductors and non conductors . every electrical component ever manufactured could have stamped on it
                                                 
                                                         "made on earth , from earth"

its 2015 and technology is firmly based on 1800s construction . DC motors and generators , AC motors and alternators are archaic and if anything have proven themselves as inefficient dinosaurs BUT they do not make themselves , its the industry that is not evolving

what evolution has taken place ?   nothing

 the late 1800s the majoity of cars in USA were DC electric , by far out numbering combustion engines.
2015 and we're heading back there , IF the same OLD industry has enough control to make it happen

as for faraday and avogadro etc Ive never had a problem with it , I dont know why people get carried away over it , its only quantity
its people like G Wiseman that end up with more gas that becomes un-explainable , either he is making monatomic H ....OR he is exceeding the faraday quantity
exceeding faraday causes theoretical problems , so its alot safer to consider monatomic production .
pulsing electrolysis is not covered by the text books , why not ?
its not like people are not using pulsing because they are , and they show no signs of stopping

I dont think theres energy entering the circuit , if there is , its on some level that simply is not written in the text book
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bttr2brnout on November 10, 2015, 08:03:47 PM
Hi all, Another Newb here. New to the board but not to electrolysis.
 Found this board by searching " Stanley Meyer electrolysis". Which is an oxymoron as Stanley Meyer had nothing to do with Electrolysis. Stanley Meyer excelled at High Voltage low current molecular disassociation of the water molecule. Which made use of the zero point energy of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the water molecule. Which also breaks no laws of physics, nature, or any in Hell Michigan. Which I doubt there are any. You would have to think that anything goes there. I wouldn't mind visiting but I sure wouldn't want to stay.
  Any how, anyone figured out yet how he did it? Doubt if anyone did they would share it on this board. It just amazes me the complexity of the stuff people come up with on this board when Stanley did it with a D.C. Power supply and an alternator. How many millions of hertz you think he got that thing to spin anyway?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: sparks on November 15, 2015, 04:02:10 AM
  The electric field will accelerate electrons.  I would submit that conventional electolysis occurs due to the electric field on the plates surface.  This electric field decreases due to any electrons leaving or entering the plates.  If you look at stan myers work he was first off using the capacitance of the cell in a resonant circuit.  You whack the circuit and let it ring down.  Last thing you want is current flow.  In an ozone cell there is no current flow.  The oxygen injected between the plates experiences an accelerating electric field.  The valence electrons react to the electric field long before the more massive nuclei do. The electrons ionized from the atoms continue to travel towards the anode and crash into it causing thermalization of the metal and reduction in the accelerating field.  This is of little consequence if the duty cycle of the pulse is extremely small as it does not require an outside power scource to pump the electrons back to the other side of the cell to create a maintained field.  The field is established= the gas electrons accelerated. The gas electrons hitting the plate carry a negative charge.  This will of course decrease the accelerating electric field or worse yet the electrons will return to the gas nuclei before the atoms have time to form divalent or trivalent bonds.  So what does one do to maintain the seperation of the electron depleted gas from the electron rich plate?  What electronic component allows the flow of electrons in one direction and not in another?  Could a magnetic field direct the electrons away from the gas?  Could another gas be used to absorb the electrons preferentially over the ionized hydrogen?  Could the electrons be dumped somewhere through something that does work?






















Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on November 15, 2015, 10:35:51 PM
The electric field will accelerate electrons. 

Last thing you want is current flow.

The electrons ionized from the atoms continue to travel towards the anode and crash into it causing
thermalization of the metal and reduction in the accelerating field.

What electronic component allows the flow of electrons in one direction and not in another? 

Could the electrons be dumped somewhere through something that does work?



in the NZ video SM talks of electrons being accellerated as in an electron gun like from a CRT screen , TV or computer monitor as an example
neg charge electrons are attracted to the HV positive charge of the CRT

just as a neg charge thunder cloud repels neg charge electrons in the ground (opposite example)

also the last thing you want is current flow because voltage leads current

he also mentions an imbalance on an atom being brought back to balanced state by "plucking an electron from ground"

I say why not PLUCK EM ALL from ground  ... thru an electronic component that allows the flow of electrons in one direction and not in another = a fast acting Diode
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on December 31, 2015, 08:34:30 AM


Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC


no one has questioned the figure 31

Les Banki recalculated the figure and thats all he did , its all there , it was never a claim of 8 times faraday , it was a recalculation = simple  .
no one bothered to read his documents before dumping on him

there should be 20 of these boards out there , given for FREE , to 20 people , that have the task of experimenting with the nano tech theory .
Les Banki also said , that this is for a 2 plate cell NOT SERIES CELL.
he also said high freq pulsing alone does not produce results , there is not the power.
he designed the circuit for experimental purpose only .
he designed the circuit for experimentors because there is no given circuit with the original document , page 1 of this thread , posted by the owner of this site .
the research document uses a SITh thyristor , Les Banki substituted this normally ON device with a HV mosfet  IXTX20N150 , again for experimental use

curious of any updates or stagnation or procrastination ??

 
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bttr2brnout on January 02, 2016, 12:20:52 AM
That's a serious looking piece of electronics Massive. Think I will stick with my alternator (bridge ectifier removed) as my pulse generator. Maybe I will eventually graduate to something faster like a 555 timer and some reed relays.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 07:44:03 AM

Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC


no one has questioned the figure 31

Les Banki recalculated the figure and thats all he did , its all there , it was never a claim of 8 times faraday , it was a recalculation = simple  .
no one bothered to read his documents before dumping on him

there should be 20 of these boards out there , given for FREE , to 20 people , that have the task of experimenting with the nano tech theory .
Les Banki also said , that this is for a 2 plate cell NOT SERIES CELL.
he also said high freq pulsing alone does not produce results , there is not the power.
he designed the circuit for experimental purpose only .
he designed the circuit for experimentors because there is no given circuit with the original document , page 1 of this thread , posted by the owner of this site .
the research document uses a SITh thyristor , Les Banki substituted this normally ON device with a HV mosfet  IXTX20N150 , again for experimental use

curious of any updates or stagnation or procrastination ??

 

I certainly did question it, and I still do not believe it.

I built Banki's "nanopulser" without using a PCB and of course without the "unobtainium" SiTH thyristor. For experimental purposes only, of course.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on January 02, 2016, 09:47:50 AM
TK
I have seen your work before besides electronics + good too .   the lack of the pcb doesnt matter , hell Ive done the same in the past , nothing wrong with point to point .
Les basic circuit is straight forward components , 2 chips , driver + mosfet . 

I can NOT figure a substitute for the SITh , its normally on device is a head scratcher
the 1 they use is 4kv rating or so
there is also a static induction transistor , again unavailable to the public , which must be us!

I can not see power being in a nano pulse but who ever funds the research is prepared to sign away checks also NGK is prepared to sink money into the device , obviously a small quantity of them which means the overall cost would be a stack

I did em Les Banki , bit of a cranky bstd but so what thats fine .
I had a VHS 15 years ago of his series cell hooked up to a running generator , I can only assume that vid is out there , I dont go on youtube so will never know
the thread on OUR shouldnt have crossed over to series cell , 2 different techs , basically the thread hit the fan

but oh well .....

to me 31 times means nothing , 8 times means nothing .
I would like to know whats up with the nano pulse and this device that I had never heard of before this topic appeared + I only read it on OUR before I came to read this thread

there are 2 recorded research teams in 2 different countries investigating nano pulse . to get to that level they have lept thru hoops to get funding etc before work begins

1 x faraday is good enough by me but how the hell does a nano pulse achieve even a fraction of that ?
on top of that , by adding chem to the water makes it more conductive , itd be more like a R

having an L , the L opposes I decrease , it wants I to flow , its not gonna get it from the pulse , its been and gone

theres still 20 pcb out there ??

the expensive part of Les choice of components is the 1500 rated , mosfet , diodes .   IGBT are cheaper .
I play around with FBT and HV arcing so have destroyed plenty but I do like the simplicity of what Les came up with .
the 1:1 FBT is interesting , this I will try

again I can not see how to sub the SITh by stacking anything ....... 






Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: TinselKoala on January 02, 2016, 05:36:07 PM
@massive:
"I can not see power being in a nano pulse"

Right. But consider what happens when you monitor the Drain of a mosfet in a low-side switch arrangement. The Drain signal is high when the mosfet is _OFF_ and drops to near the ground level when the mosfet is ON.

Also, as you point out the SiTH device is normally _ON_.

Do you see what I'm thinking here?

Certain other people, who certainly should have known better, have made the mistake of interpreting an inverted duty cycle and claiming that they have massive amounts of power flowing during a very short pulse... when in fact it was the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on January 02, 2016, 10:37:00 PM
mate , Im quite sure theres alot of misread or misinterpretted readings on this site .

in the case of Les circuit or similar its pretty ordinary .  as for the research group , it cant be accurately seen what their circuit involves .
there are sites that one can purchase complete research papers but judging by the presentation like japanese + indian papers I cant see that as sound investment either to get any closer

theres no magic in the pri circuit

Id expect at best a sharp HV spike on the sec .  from Les description which sounds accurate enough , the mosfet turns off, the SITh is still on and then absorbs bemf ..... its triggered OFF by neg signal
Ive read its also called a Field Controlled Diode .

FB is discontinuous , so current is only available on sec side . again no magic

the paper diagram sec depicts :  L 2 , diode and cell .   IF...its loaded with electrolyte then itd be better represented by a R

seems theres alot of H2 sec circuits with the same sec loop which is basically a short.


your sec has 2 parallel 100 ohm + 1 series R , I cant see , it looks blue / grey / silver , dont know .
but total R being 33 Ohm

why no diode ???
yes I know theres no water etc  but for FBT to function discontinuous mode theres gotta be sec D to open the circuit

.....and with that I see no reason the sec cant be open / grounded , going against the research paper diagram depiction AND typical stan meyer type diagrams
but in discontinuous mode the sec is OPEN circuit anyway

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: stoyan_ on January 13, 2016, 05:55:09 PM
Is it possible to have salt/sea water  electrolysis under following conditions :

Input voltage 4 Volts DC Voltage.
Total resistance between electrodes in water 0.1 Ohm

Important : There is resistor connected in series , closing the circuit with total resistance 4 Ohm.

Really thank you a lot .
BR.
Stoyan.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on February 22, 2016, 11:24:13 AM
built the nanopulse8 power supply .  my intention was to use the same circuit lay out as TK but the board tharrived from jaycar turned out to be experimental board with copper tracks in lines so I ended up doing the ICs in a row with + ,- tracks through the centres .
Everything else is point to point on top.

I see TK used a 3 A diode on input , maybe 5408 or 5404 so I used that . I chose pin 5 on IC1 to go straight to neg instead of having the switch as did TK .
I used 30120 HV diodes and 20N150 mosfet , ETD49 1:1 FBT as used in Les Banki circuit parts description

Ive been using FBT for years but never thought to use 1:1 .
the 2 wires are just to indicate polarity for the photo just for anyone who traces by visual .
pin 12 uses 2.7M resistor , I didnt have 2.2M .
the 5 watt R is .22 , other than that I kept to Les Bankis design .

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.250


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ramset on February 22, 2016, 03:03:24 PM
Massive
I will endeavor to get you some answers on the outcome of that Work.
May take a few days as The replicator has a very busy schedule and I have not spoken with him in quite some time.

respectfully

Chet


Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on February 22, 2016, 08:28:42 PM
Hi
Les circuit was never the experiment , it was and still is the tool in order to perform the experiment .  which is nano pulse through Inductive Energy Storage

there are cheaper IGBT options than the 20N150 mosfet but I used it just so to back up the design Les put forward . I left out the switch circuit .
Les has other circuit boards for the series cell and parts list too , available on the link.
Ive had a look through them and they are all good to go . it would be hard to fault them

have a nice day
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: Bttr2brnout on March 06, 2016, 12:37:55 PM
Hi,

Stoyan, The last time I used conventional electrolysis was to remove rust off of some old farm equipment. But I don't see why your experiment shouldn't work. Voltage is a little low but depending on the amount of salt in the water it should conduct. I use sodium bicarbonate as an electrolyte as it shouldn't produce any unwanted gases.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 07, 2016, 09:53:54 AM

Hi guys,
             This might seem a bit off topic, but is there a relationship between frequency and resonance and Meyers demonstration of freezing water as he is electrolysing?

Thanks

bobby
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: pomodoro on June 07, 2016, 02:20:35 PM
Is this demonstration on a video?
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 11, 2016, 03:24:04 PM
Is this demonstration on a video?

Hello, were you refering to my comment? If so, Yes, I have been wondering about the short Meyer's promotional video demonstrating the endothermic(?) reaction.

Thanks
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 11, 2016, 03:27:11 PM
Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

Hello, I recall this Indian test. It is a copy of the original test in the accompanying attachment from a Japanese set-up.



Thanks
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 16, 2016, 10:00:39 AM

And here is the NGK Patent for the SiThy using the same pulse circuit.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20050218423.pdf

Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: pomodoro on June 16, 2016, 12:49:05 PM
Any idea of why a more conventional circuit is not used? Those pulses of 300ns are not really ultra short at all, although that what the authors called them.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 16, 2016, 02:25:52 PM
Any idea of why a more conventional circuit is not used? Those pulses of 300ns are not really ultra short at all, although that what the authors called them.

I have been thinking about this on and off for a while - couple of years - when I found that it was impossible to buy a Sithy. Given that the Sithy is positively connected, always on, the term static inductor means to me turning the SiThy off is the circuit operation. In terms of logical procedure, therefore, this is a very simple circuit. The Sithy gate and inductor are the essential circuit components setting up a tuned response slightly <15ns out of phase. To my mind, if my analysis is correct, is would not become a static inductor circuit, only an apparent static inductor. The voltags are small so it should be possible to emulate the SiThy operation with a few more componebts without obfuscating the simplicity of this design. At the very least to see what sort of electrolysis response was achieved.

Thanks
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: pomodoro on June 16, 2016, 03:03:09 PM
In that circuit you are at the mercy of the inductance. No easy way of controlling the pulse width and keeping the same voltage or energy stored.  There are also no oscilloscope traces of what the actual output voltage reached across the electrolysis cell. It may never have reached the volts of the unloaded induction coil.  I'm sure many controllable circuits with small pulses and variable frequency have already been tried and tested on here and elsewhere with obviously not much luck. I'm tempted to try it out one day but many more talented folks over the decades have already.
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: massive on June 16, 2016, 11:58:04 PM
first off , NGK can be considered a house hold name , large  are rich.

they have 2 electronic components , static induction thyristor + static induction transistor .
these 2 devices exist in the world but they do NOT exist for anyone on the ground floor .

so on that basis do they exist ?

cars and motorcycles that run on water exist but dont exist on the exact same level
the inventor , the tech and the vehicle are discredited by people who have no access to them .
no one attempts to discredit a corporation ?

the only device I can think of that functions similar to SIThy is a magnetic reed switch on an induction coil .
both are normally on , switches .
the SIThy and SIT seem to be purpose designed + built for inductors

with the Japanese and Indian papers , they contain SIThy and FBT . FBT does not function as a normal transformer , commercial FBT have inbuilt diodes so the whole component has to be seen as a semiconductor , the secondary only conducts in 1 direction , forward bias and the primary coil functon is on ,off +idle
Title: Re: Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC
Post by: ourbobby on June 17, 2016, 12:25:06 AM
In that circuit you are at the mercy of the inductance. No easy way of controlling the pulse width and keeping the same voltage or energy stored.  There are also no oscilloscope traces of what the actual output voltage reached across the electrolysis cell. It may never have reached the volts of the unloaded induction coil.  I'm sure many controllable circuits with small pulses and variable frequency have already been tried and tested on here and elsewhere with obviously not much luck. I'm tempted to try it out one day but many more talented folks over the decades have already.

I hear you! I wondered whilst reading the patent why they had put a circuit in the patent when they are talking an extra semiconductor layer in the thyrister substrate. So to my mind, there is a little bit of subterfuge going on. Essentially, there is a round robin through the thyrister -> coil primary-> gate diode ad infinitum. If I have understood the operation of the SiThy correctly, during this switching cycle current flows back to the SiThy from the inductor as the thyrister is being switched off. Essentially no current flows! All we have is a voltage potential which is why a double layer is formed at the point of dissociation. There is no energy transferred. Very, very, Teslian! Almost an electronic paradox! Similar to some extent to Puharic's dissociation, but, without the detailed work in setting up the ceramic coated nodes.

Hence, static Inductor!

Thanks

In the attached pdf I think the SiThy is the larger tubular shape to the right which is a series set of SiThy's.