# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Hydrogen energy => Electrolysis of H20 and Hydrogen on demand generation => Topic started by: dieter on May 20, 2016, 09:43:36 PM

Title: simple OU proof
Post by: dieter on May 20, 2016, 09:43:36 PM
various claims exist about some methods, hho, joe cell, bubblers etc. with electrolysis efficiency above 100%, however, let us for now only assume that we can split water and recombine the gasses with zero% loss, as the basis of the following idea / law of energy conservation violation:

down in the vally we split the water into h2 and o. This gas mix is lighter than air. We can use it to transport a load up on the mountain, like eg. with a zeppelin, or simply let it flow up trough a pipe. On the mountain top we use the gas as energy source, resulting in recombined h2o.

This water we let flow down trough a pipe, driving a waterwheel somewhere and finally arriving again down in the valley.

Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 20, 2016, 10:04:26 PM
various claims exist about some methods, hho, joe cell, bubblers etc. with electrolysis efficiency above 100%, however, let us for now only assume that we can split water and recombine the gasses with zero% loss, as the basis of the following idea / law of energy conservation violation:

down in the vally we split the water into h2 and o. This gas mix is lighter than air. We can use it to transport a load up on the mountain, like eg. with a zeppelin, or simply let it flow up trough a pipe. On the mountain top we use the gas as energy source, resulting in recombined h2o.

This water we let flow down trough a pipe, driving a waterwheel somewhere and finally arriving again down in the valley.

That is one of the most interesting ideas I have ever read on here.  Simple, yet brilliant!

This replaces the evaporation part (solar power) of what happens to run a water wheel from a river.

What about this...use the energy pulled from that water turbine/wheel to split the water via a generator?  The gas burning on top of the hill produces electricity, and the water running back down the hill produces electricity, so now the process is indeed free...and maybe even some left over?

I would love to see some real world number calculations on this process...my guess is they would be pretty good.

Excellent idea Sir.

Bill
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on May 20, 2016, 10:05:43 PM
@Dieter

Yes and generate ecectricity as we our selves decend back into
into the valley.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Dog-One on May 20, 2016, 10:20:32 PM
I guess what I would like to know with exact numbers is how much electrical energy it would take to split one gallon of H2O into gas and then how many BTUs I could get back and have my original one gallon of water again.

I suspect what we will find is it takes a tremendous amount of electrical energy by way of electrolysis to turn one gallon of water into gas; that one gallon of water, depending upon how high up we transport it may be able to do a little bit of work on the way down, but it will probably pale in comparison to the amount of work the gases can do recombining back to water--even if we have nearly 100% efficiency in all the conversions.

You could probably improve the outcome slightly by venting the O2 and just using the H2 to do the lifting, then use the O2 from the top of the mountain to combine back to water.  I still don't think you would get much optimization from your idea, especially when you add back the typical losses in such a system.

Your concept is in a way a means to utilize all the waste losses and get something back for your effort.  If done completely perfect, this gives you 100% efficiency which is still break-even.

Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Turbo on May 20, 2016, 10:38:42 PM
Why does it always need to be OU.
It's perfectly possible to drive the electrolysis by solar or wind power and store the hydrogen in a tank.
Which then can be used later to heat your home, or to power your home and even drive your car by making use of a fuel cell.
It all exists why does it always have to be the things that are out of reach ?
Unless you are paying for sunlight and wind this is about as free as it get's.

Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: dieter on May 20, 2016, 10:54:48 PM
This is the whole point on ou.com. Wind and sun is nice, ok, but not the point.

A theoretical 1:1 splitting / recombining at 100% is the basis, and is the official maximum per Faraday.

The bonus of a first lighter and then heavier than air medium allows excess energy extraction. Why can't you just say "heureka!"

^^
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: gsmsslsb on May 20, 2016, 11:34:17 PM
Good idea
I had the same idea and it is posted on this forum somewhere but to split the H and O underwater and use the flotation. I think with flotation you would get the same amount of energy in a smaller depth than air because of the denser medium.
Also from some of my research splitting water is slightly more efficient at higher pressure. If you do it at a very great depth you can use very high pressure without a super strong pressure vessel because the exterior pressure  will equal interior pressure.
I don't want to hijack your thread so I will leave it at that.
Honestly I have not tried it . I moved on with other things may be I shouldn't have.

A couple of threads here with drawings

http://overunity.com/8047/buoyancy-cycle-mg-where-the-h-is-free/msg201083/#msg201083
http://overunity.com/6028/h20-and-bouyancy/msg137038/#msg137038
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on May 20, 2016, 11:41:15 PM
EUREKA

Combining 2 or more systems
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: ramset on May 21, 2016, 12:35:57 AM
Just to mention

this is also very much in line with member EvolvingApe's open source contributions here and elsewhere .

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2288.150

respectfully

Chet K
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: dieter on May 30, 2016, 02:32:35 AM
@ gsmsslsb

I had that idea too. Didn't know about the pressure thing tho.

Thanks everybody.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: conradelektro on May 30, 2016, 07:34:34 PM
Wow! So far we have three different inventors of the same world saving device!

Who will become rich?
Who will become famous?
Who will save the world?

Maybe the world refuses to be saved?

Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: dieter on May 31, 2016, 01:53:04 PM
All I know is this stagnation of mans evolution due to the semi-apes who run the petro-dollar complex can't last forever.

Even if they evolve to real people, or get locked away in zoos, one way or an other it will end.

And if I am contributing to such an aim, I need no filthy money as a reward.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 20, 2020, 02:02:25 AM
So my questions are.

1. Is hho production by electrolysis more efficient (requires less electrical power) when it is done at a some low pressure within the production vessel (high altitude), as compared to, when it is done at some higher pressure (low altitude) within the production vessel ?

2. Is the combustion of hho less efficient (produce less power) when it is done at a some low atmospheric pressure (high altitude), than when it is done at some higher atmospheric pressure
(low altitude) ?

I offer 7 billion dollars of 10 billion dollars to the person who can answer these 2 questions.

The other 3 billion, I keep for myself.

But first someone must give me 10 billion dollars.

floor

P.S.
Questions are serious.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 23, 2020, 05:23:15 AM
So my questions are.

1. Is hho production by electrolysis more efficient (requires less electrical power) when it is done at a some low pressure within the production vessel (high altitude), as compared to, when it is done at some higher pressure (low altitude) within the production vessel ?

2. Is the combustion of hho less efficient (produce less power) when it is done at a some low atmospheric pressure (high altitude), than when it is done at some higher atmospheric pressure
(low altitude) ?

I offer 7 billion dollars of 10 billion dollars to the person who can answer these 2 questions.

The other 3 billion, I keep for myself.

But first someone must give me 10 billion dollars.

floor

P.S.
Questions are serious.
Offer is not.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: forest on June 23, 2020, 09:07:47 PM
Tesla was the first one who proposed such system. However in fact it was only an analogy for him to explain we CAN get more energy out of the conservative fields such like from the lake in high mountain.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 23, 2020, 10:45:49 PM
Two questions.  Does anyone know the answer to these ?

1. Is hho production by electrolysis more efficient (requires less electrical power) when it is done at a some low pressure within the production vessel (high altitude), as compared to, when it is done at some higher pressure (low altitude) within the production vessel ?

2. Is the combustion of hho less efficient (produce less power) when it is done at a some low atmospheric pressure (high altitude), than when it is done at some higher atmospheric pressure
(low altitude) ?

Floor
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 24, 2020, 06:33:28 PM
Two questions.  Does anyone know the answer to these ?

1. Is hho production by electrolysis more efficient (requires less electrical power) when it is done at a some low pressure within the production vessel (high altitude), as compared to, when it is done at some higher pressure (low altitude) within the production vessel ?

2. Is the combustion of hho less efficient (produce less power) when it is done at a some low atmospheric pressure (high altitude), than when it is done at some higher atmospheric pressure
(low altitude) ?

Floor
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: verpies on June 24, 2020, 09:43:52 PM
Two questions.  Does anyone know the answer to these ?
1. Is hho production by electrolysis more efficient (requires less electrical power) when it is done at a some low pressure within the production vessel (high altitude), as compared to, when it is done at some higher pressure (low altitude) within the production vessel ?
Surprisingly it is more efficient at high pressures and lower voltages.
This data comes from an experiment with electrolysis at the bottom of the ocean.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 25, 2020, 12:05:56 AM

Do you know off hand, where I could access some data on that ?

regards

Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 25, 2020, 12:32:53 AM
Some discussion here at O.U. forum

https://overunity.com/6028/h20-and-bouyancy/msg137038/#msg137038

floor
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: verpies on June 25, 2020, 09:14:11 AM
Do you know off hand, where I could access some data on that ?
In the book "Hydrogen Production: by Electrolysis" by Agata Godula-Jopek but I saw pressure vs. efficiency curves in another paper.

Depending on voltage, electrolysis can be endothermic or exothermic, so precise voltage control is important, too.
Temperature is another important factor. Any water temperature increase due to the electric current flow represents wasted energy.
Besides the obvious potential energy of the HHO bubbles buoyancy, the absorption of heat from the surrounding water as the bubbles rise in it, decompress and cool down (as any decompressing gas does) represents another flow of energy - heat energy transfer from water to HHO bubbles. Note the direction of this transfer.
Title: Re: simple OU proof
Post by: Floor on June 25, 2020, 06:42:30 PM
Thanks