Author Topic: most promising water split (Read 19714 times)

wojwrobel · « **on:** November 29, 2009, 10:43:30 AM »

hello

ok we need high voltage 20-60 KV according to patent there is no direct connection just a "voltage field" so it should be very efficient details in patent US4427512

cheers from poland
wojsciech

forest · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2009, 12:12:20 PM »

not at all, this patent is useless from two reasons:

1. it's costly to produce device due to costs of dielectric
2. for better output we need higher voltages, that mean thicker dielectric, that means smaller "working area"
, which means at the end we have very inefficient device

My thoughts only.

Regards from Poland

Farrah Day · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2009, 03:33:46 PM »

You will note that this patent dates from 1984, and like many other patents (Meyer for example), the patent is useless. There is no discovery and no invention here.

With respect forest, it has nothing to do with dielectric costs, higher voltages or indeed inefficiencies. Quite simply, the science does not add up.

Applying high voltage across water may encourage it to ionise, but this does not provide hydrogen and oxygen, only ions. All that is achieved is a solution of water containing -OH and +H ions. What is missing is somewhere for the ions to exchange charges in order to become 2H and O. This patent like many others is flawed and nothing more than wishful thinking.

lumen · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:41:25 PM »

Quote

What is missing is somewhere for the ions to exchange charges in order to become 2H and O.

Wouldn't the water have charged regions as long as it remained as a dielectric, and when it's dielectric ability was exceeded, then the dielectric would break down. (separate into H2 and O)

wojwrobel · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2009, 10:28:49 PM »

I'm not here to argue with you farrah day but Faraday made his invention with electrolysis in 1834 and it has nothing to do with age !!!! we still use it even if its over 100 years old ....

anyway its a point of view that we should take for further consideration ....

well until i will try it and it will or will not do the job i wont let it go....

and forest i don't think that ceramics (device) for poles with high voltages lines are that expensive ....

anyway I'm also working on other way called photolysis US20030183505
it combines some Meyer technique with laser to split acidic water vapor H5O2

and a gift for you farrah day because you like new patents check this US7615138 dual voltage electrolysis from Nov 10 2009 (inventor claims 10x Faraday)
cheers
wojsciech

jadaro2600 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2009, 01:53:54 AM »

High voltage, higher wattage.. perhaps the initial invention is indeed worthless; have you all looked at the patent. It's completely non-intuitive; it looks nothing like an electrolysis chamber. Is it even valid?

Something like a mix of the above mentioned patents may work. It's well know that it takes current to provide the electrons for the separation of oxygen and hydrogen, delivering it via submersed high voltage electrodes may be more fruitful. Hence the High voltage higher wattage comment.

ATT · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2009, 04:30:07 AM »

There's a guy at Penn State, Bruce Logan (Dr. Logan...) who's been working on microbial hydrogen production.

He uses a specific strain of Archaea bacteria to break down the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen, it's a self-sustaining process since the bacteria multiply over time.

He has since discovered another strain of Archaea that produces methane. Methane is desirable because it doesn't have the storage issues associated with hydrogen collection.

In either case, for long-term production and storage, it's hard to beat microbial efficiency with conventional (or unconventional) electrolysis (with the exception of any 'on-demand' requirement, such as in vehicles).

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/ps-mte033009.php
http://live.psu.edu/story/41860/rssResearch
http://live.psu.edu/story/38214

Tony

Creativity · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2009, 11:27:55 PM »

Now that u found this patent i see my idea is unpatentable anymore

. I designed something very similar to this and see no point why it would not work, actually I'm building now a power supply for HV DC to do some tests. I do not believe they achieved it with that small field strengths, i 'm aiming at 50kV/mm in my next setup. With 20kV in 3mm(1mm thick plastic with distilated water in between) setup i couldn't see any bubble under the microscope.It's known fact that water breakes up in high electric fields, just like it does in very high temps. Make some googling and u will be able to find some papers about it. The problem is the field strength required is great so the setup must be very thin to work in any amateur setup.

However this project went a bit aside, i got some other idea's that r less life threatening to try out first.

wojwrobel · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2009, 09:45:25 PM »

hello
its me again
i found another patent GB2324307 that is much younger (1997) if this has anything to do with it , anyway it works the same as patent US4427512 its made by some UK guy named Robert Eccles so it must be something with this ...

here is the patent
http://sdch2o.free.fr/vrac/GB%202.324.307A%20R.Eccles.pdf
or
http://free-energy-info.co.uk/PatE13.pdf

cheers from poland
wojsciech

TechStuf · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2009, 10:47:30 PM »

It seems that much of the downside to efficient fracturing is borne from poor design and methodology. I've been toying with Ultrasonics for awhile, and am consistently amazed at their potential. Perhaps a couple of flat metal plates in close proximity, excited with low current AC with one of the plates acting as an ultrasonic transducer, might effect a low energy step in the right direction. Capillary attraction could be employed to constantly feed the gap with H2O.

BTW, for those wishing to toy around with ultrasonics, the "Tide Buzz" ultrasonic stain remover, has a nice little probe to experiment with.

I wouldn't be surprised if the big boys are already producing copious amounts of hydrogen and oxygen via some method which employs the nanoengineering of metal surfaces, while making use of increased surface area arrangements of water molecules.

TS

sparks · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2009, 04:00:20 AM »

I vaguely remember studying photsynthesis where plants use ultraviolet light to split water. Biochemists know how the process occurs and it all starts with uv capture. Perhaps a pulsed field at uv frequency with the proper catalyzts in the solution is doable. The plants capture uv and radiate visible green. The change in frequency represents the energy captured by the plant. A manmade plant not only giving us hydrogen but mitigating the co2 problem would be a dream come true. Some simple sugar synthesis to feed the starving wouldnt be a bad byproduct either.

wojwrobel · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2009, 11:13:57 AM »

hello

i went thru all my patent related to water split and i have found one intresting thing that water splitting increases when is subjected to dual "activities" such as:
-microwaving while electrolysis
-second voltage pulse when regular electrolysis
-ultravioleting while electrolysis
-radiowaving while electrolysis
-radiowaving with two different radiowave (very intresting US7378063)

my conclusion water is very tricky and we have to find tricky way to split it just like Puharich (US4394230) did, it was shine wave with harmonics again two frequencies dual activities

cheers
wojsciech

forest · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2009, 12:26:05 PM »

As always Tesla did it first : http://www.google.com/patents?id=BrJrAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
without semiconductors

"I would state the apparatus which I have devised for this purpose is capable of other and highly important uses of a similar nature, but for purposes of the present case I deem it sufficient to describe its operation and effects when used for the purpose of generating ozone."

wojwrobel · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2009, 11:01:17 PM »

hello

a Friend o mine send me this

H2O - 2e => 1/2O2 + 2H(+) that's anodic reaction

accord to this, all we have to do to make us happy is to strip thouse 2e from water molecule to make hydrogen
as far as we know electron is negatively charged so its attracted to positive potential so all i think we souled do is to use positively charged electrode to "get" thouse electrons , according to patent US4427512 and GB 2.324.307 it souled be 20-60 KV

what do you guys think?

wojsciech

wojwrobel · « **Reply #14 on:** December 07, 2009, 10:05:54 PM »

something like electrostatic electron remover

something like this US4024047

cheers from Poland
wojsciech

all thx to freepatentsonline.com

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: most promising water split (Read 19714 times)

wojwrobel

most promising water split

forest

Re: most promising water split

Farrah Day

Re: most promising water split

lumen

Re: most promising water split

wojwrobel

Re: most promising water split

jadaro2600

Re: most promising water split

ATT

Re: most promising water split

Creativity

Re: most promising water split

wojwrobel

Re: most promising water split

TechStuf

Re: most promising water split

sparks

Re: most promising water split

wojwrobel

Re: most promising water split

forest

Re: most promising water split

wojwrobel

Re: most promising water split

wojwrobel

Re: most promising water split