Been busy; but I have a question about Water electrolysis and heating with AC...
Let's start with 60 Hz 120 V from the mains, two electrodes in tap water. How much electrolysis into H2 and O2 will there be? how much heating?
Now I've done experiments with "Davey sonic bells" just like this -- two bells, one connected to the hot line and one to return/ground. I observe slow heating from room temp -- not many bubbles indicating electrolysis. There are some small bubbles, but I think this is due to dissolved air coming out of the water... not sure.
Further, the heating agrees with what I expect for simple resistive heating of the water -- watts in, hot water as the result.
Q (Joules) = Cp * mass * (change in temperature)
The specific heat (Cp) of water is 1 calorie/gram °C = 4.186 joule/gram °C.
Distilled water heats very slowly -- very high resistance. (Water from the store -- there will be some ions even if from CO2 dissolving from air into the water.)
Next let's go to higher Freq, say 20 KHz. I haven't done the experiment with water; but I expect no significant electrolysis again.
I'm here to learn -- is this right, no significant electrolysis compared to resistive heating, with AC in tap water?
I'm particularly curious about using this method to measure output power in a blocking-oscillator circuit, with the output AC used to directly heat water...
Comments welcomed.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.06.23, 04:53:18
Now I've done experiments with "Davey sonic bells" just like this -- two bells, one connected to the
hot line and one to return/ground.
The essence of Davey is that the bells are tuned to the frequency of the mains or an octave.
What was the error in tuning, i.e. the heterodyning frequency?
I selected bells that oscillate at approx. 480 Hz, 8 x 60 Hz. I did not attempt fine-tuning.
But back to the main point of the thread -- does anyone wish to comment on"
--> is this right, no significant electrolysis compared to resistive heating, with AC in tap water?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.06.23, 22:52:16
I selected bells that oscillate at approx. 480 Hz, 8 x 60 Hz. I did not attempt fine-tuning.
In that case, your experiment was not a Davey experiment. This is why you did not
get any special heating effect.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.06.23, 22:52:16
no significant electrolysis compared to resistive heating, with AC in tap water?[/b][/i]
Since the electrodes are constantly changing polarity, i.e. 60 times a second, both poles
will be getting hydrogen and oxygen and I suspect that they recombine to form water
again, the only end product being heat.
The energy for breaking water is 118kcal/ 36 grams. That's 3.27 kcal per gram of water lost. Even though we do not see significant electrolysis, we still could produce/consume a large amount of energy. I think we must be careful.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.23, 23:56:25
Since the electrodes are constantly changing polarity, i.e. 60 times a second, both poles will be getting hydrogen and oxygen and I suspect that they recombine to form water again, the only end product being heat.
I share this view. With cc, the positive and negative ions have much time to move toward their respective electrodes and to concentrate around.
With ac, the two species remain mixed together around the electrodes and so, they should recombine.
From my own experiments, I never saw significative bubbles with ac. Only heat is produced.
Even when DC is applied to the electrodes within an electrolyte
to perform electrolysis the bubbles do not arise instantly. There
is a brief delay before bubbles begin to form at the electrodes.
The ions in solution move rather sluggishly when subjected to
electric fields.
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.06.24, 19:59:10
Even when DC is applied to the electrodes within an electrolyte to perform electrolysis the bubbles do not arise instantly. There is a brief delay before bubbles begin to form at the electrodes.
...
I said to myself the same thing yesterday! There is a noticeable delay when DC is applied. This means that the time for the ions to move towards the electrodes is much more than 9 or 10 ms of the half-period of a 60 or 50 Hz current, during which the electric field remains of same polarity. This confirms the radically different behavior of ions in presence of AC and DC: in 9 or 10ms, the ions can't attain the same equilibrium position as with DC.
this is an interesting paper that explored electolysis cell impedance using pulsed DC of various frequencies, much like Stanley Myers, which probably drove this investigation.
The results obtained show a 15% improvement in power consumption, when pulsed at the correct frequency (see figure)
http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043466.pdf
EM
That is a rather interesting paper EM. How did you happen to
find this gem?
The first question which comes to mind is "Why Aluminum?"
Aluminum wouldn't normally be used as electrode material in
an electrolytic cell (exception: Electrolytic Capacitor) designed
for the electrolysis of water with a basic electrolyte.
According to their tabulated data there does indeed seem to
be some sort of "resonance" at work.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.06.26, 22:20:38
...
http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043466.pdf
...
In this setup, it is pulsed current, not AC. Pulsed current is equivalent to a DC + AC superposition. Here, AC is a square signal.
So we have a real mean DC current that polarizes and electrolyzes the electrolyte, and an AC current that can have a resonant effect onto the ions.
Their result (only 15% gain) shows that the interest is very limited except for the industry.
I asked me if we could polarized the electrolyte with HV in isolated electrodes each side of the solution, and use two other electrodes, each one near the first ones but in contact with the solution, with AC for the electrolysis current.
This would be a real AC electrolysis, but with each electrode in a bath of different ions, depending on the polarity of the HV which separates positive and negative ions and attracts them towards each side. The interest is that no power is required for the HV polarization due to the absence of current.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.27, 07:22:48
I asked me if we could polarized the electrolyte with HV in isolated electrodes each side of the solution, and use two other electrodes, each one near the first ones but in contact with the solution, with AC for the electrolysis current.
This would be a real AC electrolysis, but with each electrode in a bath of different ions, depending on the polarity of the HV which separates positive and negative ions and attracts them towards each side. The interest is that no power is required for the HV polarization due to the absence of current.
This is more or less the principle of operation behind my Closed-Loop Electrolyser.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.06.24, 15:22:01
The energy for breaking water is 118kcal/ 36 grams.
It must depend on how you do it. Bob Boyce and Dave Lawton get superior results using
a very sharply square DC pulse at Keely's 42.8Khz, and Keely is supposed to have done it
using an audio signal at that frequency.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.27, 12:46:50
It must depend on how you do it. Bob Boyce and Dave Lawton get superior results using
a very sharply square DC pulse at Keely's 42.8Khz, and Keely is supposed to have done it
using an audio signal at that frequency.
Things are never as clear-cut as many would like to think. It would be a grave mistake simply to take the things you read on the internet as gospel.
I have never seen any real science or figures to back up any of these claims. Most of this stuff is just fantasy and wishful thinking. This stuff has been knocking around cyberspace for donkey's years. It is extremely difficult to make accurate in/out energy measurements at the best of times - start pulsing DC and it becomes even more difficult. Playing about on a small bench in a garage without the correct equipment or methodology and results are all pretty meaningless. Lack of knowledge and understanding can always produce 'incredible' results, particularly if you don't have a clue what you are doing or how to interpet what is happening.
I used to converse with Dave Lawton, he was a genuine guy, doing some interesting work, but you have to bear in mind that his facilities were limited. From what I understand some of the gas evolving from his electrolyser set up may have been down to cavitation occurring. I've only read what is available on the internet about Keely, but no one to my knowledge has ever successfully reproduced his work.
You have to remember that in order for things not to simply be considered as wild speculation and conjecture, these claims have to be independently corroborated and reproduceable.
Boyce is probably the biggest bullshitter out there - and trust me I know him a lot better than most. For all his past talk of running his car on water, building electrolysers that produce 10x-18x over-Faraday gas output, no one has yet replicated his designs and neither he nor anyone else has had his designs independently tested. Boyce and his mindlessly devoted fanclub reside solely in a fantasy world. Not once, anywhere have any of his claims even come close to being corroborated by a reliable independent source.
It's quite laughable really because people seem to simply believe anything Boycie says, irrelevant of the utter nonsense he is continually spouting, or the total lack of anything coming close to proof. I'm sorry but the fact that some people talk about Bullshit Boycie like he is some HHO guru, when the
reality of it is he has never actually shown the world anything, really riles me. >:(
But by all means provide a link to research or experiments that supports all Boycies wild claims.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.06.27, 14:40:26
Boyce is probably the biggest bullshitter out there - and trust me I know him a lot better than most. For all his past talk of running his car on water, building electrolysers that produce 10x-18x over-Faraday gas output, no one has yet replicated his designs
I don't accept a word of your post.
I was offered a development model of his 101 plate units on the presumption that I lived in the States.
Unfortunately, I don't. They wanted beta volunteers reasonably close to hand. The gear is fragile
and would probably have been knocked out of true by the transportation, and the cost of freight would
have been ruinous.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.27, 15:23:11
I don't accept a word of your post.
lol, fine by me. If you're happy to put your faith in unsubstantiated claims and untrustworthy people, then that's your prerogative - each to their own. :)
QuoteThey wanted beta volunteers reasonably close to hand.
Who are they???
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.06.27, 17:46:47
lol, fine by me. If you're happy to put your faith in unsubstantiated claims and untrustworthy people, then that's your prerogative - each to their own. :)
Who are they???
Do you imagine that I have nothing better to do?
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.27, 15:23:11
...The gear is fragile and would probably have been knocked out of true by the transportation
...
It reminds me the Steorn hoax. According to the alleged cause they gave, their motor didn't work because the ball bearing heated... C.C
There are always good reasons preventing the perpetual machines from working and people from duplicating them.
Could the gear have been sabotaged by the oil industry? ;D
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.27, 22:19:04
Do you imagine that I have nothing better to do?
No, I just think that you need to do your homework. You might then have second thoughts about simply accepting what you read on the internet.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.06.26, 22:20:38
this is an interesting paper that explored electolysis cell impedance using pulsed DC of various frequencies, much like Stanley Myers, which probably drove this investigation.
The results obtained show a 15% improvement in power consumption, when pulsed at the correct frequency (see figure)
http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol7/7043466.pdf
EM
It is an interesting paper, but for the life of me I can not understand why they would use aluminium electrodes instead of something more inert.
Aluminium electrodes will themselves react in an alkaline solution. The protective aluminium oxide coating will get eaten away and the exposed aluminium will react with water to produce aluminium oxide and hydrogen, and this reaction in itself may cast doubt on their conclusions. It may well be that the reaction of the aluminium electrodes is what is decreasing the voltage overpotential.
You should note that this is a polar opposite of what Meyer was trying to achieve. Here they are simply trying to reduce the voltage overpotential to make standard Faraday electrolysis more power efficient. And for this to show any power efficiencies, the voltage across the cell (or cells) would need to be reduced accordingly. Ie, if you have a cell that will work effectively at 1.1 volts, you will not see any power efficiency from running it at 1.2 volts.
Meyer, on the other hand, claimed to be doing something completely different. He was using high voltages so voltage overpotential was not really an issue.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.28, 07:33:07
It reminds me the Steorn hoax. According to the alleged cause they gave, their motor didn't work because the ball bearing heated...
There is no excuse for overheated bearings. They should read the manufacturers' spec sheets.
Bob Boyce's device consists of 101 plates, about 1mm apart in an precision milled slotted
case. Each of the 100 cells must be insulated from the others. This is NOT electrolysis.
The water is fractured in a different way to electrolysis.
Each plate is at the nill point of a standing wave system (i.e. where the wave value is
at zero. (Like Dave Lawton's system, the gases are liberated BETWEEN the plates, and not
at the plates). But I would imagine that if the box is dropped 12 inches on to a hard surface,
then the whole thing would go out of kilter. See Patrick's Chapter 10 for a better explanation.
Bob's solid state electronic variant is a very exciting project.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.28, 13:06:04
Bob Boyce's device consists of 101 plates, about 1mm apart in an precision milled slotted
case. Each of the 100 cells must be insulated from the others. This is NOT electrolysis.
The water is fractured in a different way to electrolysis.
Perhaps in your world and Boycie's this is not electrolysis, but why then does he still require a standard voltage overpotential for it to work?
And remember I said about doing your homework? Well if you actually took it upon yourself to research what you are talking about you would realise the absurdity of this statement:
QuoteEach plate is at the nill point of a standing wave system (i.e. where the wave value is
at zero.
It is down to uneducated and gullible people like yourself that this kind of misiinformation and pseudoscience is constantly being banded about as fact and promoted on the internet and indeed forums like this. Just like our old friend Chet, you appear to blindly support the claims of people you do not know and science of which you have neither any knowledge or understanding whatsoever.
Sadly, just repeating some nonsense you have read on the internet won't make it any more real.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.28, 13:06:04
...
This is NOT electrolysis.
The water is fractured in a different way to electrolysis.
...
Each plate is at the nill point of a standing wave system (i.e. where the wave value is
at zero. (Like Dave Lawton's system, the gases are liberated BETWEEN the plates, and not
at the plates).
...
A standing wave of what? Pressure? Electric? How the standing wave can be maintained while the gases are liberated, changing the properties of the resonating medium? Why a standing wave would fracture the water?
The principle seems very doubtful and there is no experimental evidence.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.06.27, 09:55:06
This is more or less the principle of operation behind my Closed-Loop Electrolyser.
Not exactly the same principle. In yours there is two concentric containers isolated from one another at the position of the AC electrode. No DC can flow from one to the other. In mine there is only one. I don't understand what are the yellow disks with a cross, in the bottom picture.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.28, 14:23:38
A standing wave of what? Pressure? Electric?
Electric.
The wave is set up in the 101 plate system such that the plates are positioned where the
wave crosses the axis,the y=0 position. It is the electrical potential which cracks the water,
and not the current.
He uses three frequencies, Keely's 42.8 khz along with one octave down and another signal
an octave down on that. (You need to check out Chapter 10).
Keely also had a gun that fractured Quartz into sand from a distance. The purchasers of this service scooped up handfuls of gold. Keely was paid 1million dollars and told not to talk. He's my hero. :o But this is another story...
Oh and hutchison disassociates and reassociates matter from a distance too.
Same as it every was.
Aluminum plates...
TTBrown pushes Al with HV.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.06.28, 17:26:45
Keely's ... my hero.
Yes, I agree... and so is Maplins.
They have a HF horn which they say runs from 3k to 40k.
If it handles 40k within spec, it should do fairly respectably at 42.8k.
It is a matter of using a 555 which handles 42.8k easily and putting together
an amplifier which can drive up to 75 watt into the horn. Then a canister of water
with water level the wavelength of 42.8k, about 3 inches.
How do I put together an amp to run with the 555 output pin 3 ?
Give a link to the Maplins Horn and we can go from there.
And you want square waves?
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.06.28, 22:09:41
Give a link to the Maplins Horn and we can go from there.
And you want square waves?
The Maplins product numbers are WF56L, WF55K and WF 09K. The plastic
horn flare would need to come off. They are made by Visaton.
The WF56L product is here:
http://www.maplin.co.uk/wide-dispersion-piezo-horn-tweeter-3265
At the moment, the Maplins site is very unstable. It may be better
in a few hours.
The waves are sound, sine waves.
Paul-R.
p.s. there is a caveat to be read before powering up. I cannot find it now
but I will have it tomorrow, hopefully.
QuoteA standing wave of what? Pressure? Electric?
Electric.
An electric standing wave? That is your answer?? ??? And that would have a wavelength of how long exactly?
This response simply highlights your ignorance in these matters. Probably time to start posting over at energetic forum. You'd be welcomed there with open arms - Murakami's forum survives on this kind of claptrap! C.C
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.06.29, 00:05:28
An electric standing wave? That is your answer?? ??? And that would have a wavelength of how long exactly?
This response simply highlights your ignorance in these matters. Probably time to start posting over at energetic forum. You'd be welcomed there with open arms - Murakami's forum survives on this kind of claptrap! C.C
Farrah, you know I don't like it when you harass people. Are you sure you are right in what you are saying? I have news for you, you don't know the full story, so allow me to explain.
In a conductive medium, the spacial frequency, or wavenumber 'k', (units of [radians/meter]), is also dependent on the conductivity, which greatly SHORTENS THE WAVELENGTH IN SPACE. However, at the same time, a conductive medium GREATLY ATTENUATES a wave front as well. So, having plates close together minimizes the attenuation, so this makes sense. If you want the equations for all of this, look at this link, section 3 titled "Waves in a Conducting Medium", equation (20) http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lea/courses/grad/brewster.PDF
notice that the term
sqrt(1 + (conductivity/(permetivity * radian frequency))^2 ) is added to the standard equation without conductivity. So if conductivity is on the order of 10^6, and w=40 kHz, and e = 1e-10, that term would be = 4e10, and if we take the square root again, we will have a factor of about 200 000, so that's by how much THE WAVELENGTH WOULD SHORTEN IN A CONDUCTIVE MEDIUM COMPARED TO A NON CONDUCTIVE MEDIUM with the given parameters !
Anyway, please try not to be so all knowing, and consider others views carefully before you discard them as "rubbish".
EM
PS, Permetivity of free space is 8.85e-12, but pure water has a relative permitivity ranging from 90 to 30 perhaps, depending on the temperature, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity
The paper seems to be discussing how reflections occur at a
boundary where conductive and non-conductive media meet;
such as air and a metallic surface.
It is known that an incident RF wave will indeed penetrate a
metallic surface by some amount where reflection takes
place. Some of the incident radiation may pass through the
metallic conductor with great attenuation to emerge at the
opposite side. As the wave transits the conductive medium
its wavelength is shortened within it. Most of the incident
wave is reflected at the boundary however.
One must wonder how any wave transits the Boyce device
from end to end. Do standing waves actually form at/within
the numerous boundaries? Similar to a tuned cavity?
Dumped,
A lot of people have been "amazed" at some experiments, where waves can be transmitted inside an enclosed metalic box, and these folk talk about "scalar waves" etc., but in reality these are regular electromagnetic waves and fields that penetrate the box because they have lower frequency, and it's usually the magnetic vector that penetrates the strongest. Yes, waves attenuate greatly through a conductor, but low levels do get through even though it is exponential decay. It's all about the skin depth at a particular frequency. Also, if there are seams in the construction of the box, they can get in very easily through them. I worked an electromagnetic interference problem in the past of exactly this nature. If you look at your computer box, some of the high end ones have the little metalic fingers all around the lid to short out the electromagnetic fields from the inside and keep them from leaking outside. If they do, they can't get their computers certified by the FCC. Low level magnetic fields are the hardest to shield, even with permeable material. If its a pure conductor,forget it, they'll go right through. Just to illustrate, the lowest frequency is obviously DC, and a magnet next to a copper plate has no problems at all permeating the magnetic field through it! Low frequency electric fields is another story, they are well shielded with a faraday cage. At higher frequencies, magnetic fields have a hard time penetrating since the induced eddy currents oppose them.
Regarding the Boyce device, I'm not familiar with it at all, but I know about a circuit he shared with us in the past in a "closed" group. I believe that information has made it in the open since. I don't endorse anybody, just to be clear.
EM
I concur with your explanations EMdevices. Well said.
I recall some discussion several years ago about Bob's
101 plate electrolyzer and it was thought at that time
that the principal means of excitation was "longitudinal
waves" or the electric field extending the length of the unit.
Several people were attempting to replicate the Boyce unit
and to get it to operate in the manner which Boyce described
but there were no real reports of success. It seemed that
only "brute force" electrolysis was attainable.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.28, 15:44:18
Quote
A standing wave of what? Pressure? Electric?
Electric.
The wave is set up in the 101 plate system such that the plates are positioned where the
wave crosses the axis,the y=0 position. It is the electrical potential which cracks the water,
and not the current.
He uses three frequencies, Keely's 42.8 khz along with one octave down and another signal an octave down on that. (You need to check out Chapter 10).
Wrong explanation. Water relative permittivity: ε around 80. From from ε*µ
0*v
2=1, the electric wave speed in water is v=c/sqrt(80). Wave length: λ=v/f = 783 mtrs at f=42.8 KHz!
A standing wave needs at least a half-wave length to exist (between the nodes). The distance between plates is 1mm, which is too low by many orders of magnitude.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.29, 09:08:56
Electric.
The wave is set up in the 101 plate system such that the plates are positioned where the
wave crosses the axis,the y=0 position. It is the electrical potential which cracks the water,
and not the current.
He uses three frequencies, Keely's 42.8 khz along with one octave down and another signal an octave down on that. (You need to check out Chapter 10).
Wrong explanation.
You are correct. I have this wrong. I think I have mixed up two projects at a time when
I did not really understand them. Always dodgy to do.
The best explanation that I have found is here:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
Page 34 - "Bob Boyce's high Efficiency electrolyser".
QuoteAnyway, please try not to be so all knowing, and consider others views carefully before you discard them as "rubbish".
EM
You are right of course EM.
Sometimes I let my frustration get the better of me when people come along and post 'speculation' and 'claims' from unreliable sources as 'facts', and then go on as if they know what they are talking about, when in reality they don't have a clue. It does nothing but muddy the waters and promote pseudoscience. I just find this kind of blind faith and mindlessness rather annoying. I will endeavour to hold my tongue. :)
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.28, 14:36:07
Not exactly the same principle. In yours there is two concentric containers isolated from one another at the position of the AC electrode. No DC can flow from one to the other. In mine there is only one. I don't understand what are the yellow disks with a cross, in the bottom picture.
Yellow disks with crosses simply depict LV filament lamps (or LEDs). Yes, I'm using a pulsed or AC signal to induce ionisation of the water molecules. My HV is isolated in that no current will flow, however my AC electrode is not solid as it may appear in the depiction, but an openweave coil, so an internal DC current can indeed flow.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.28, 23:13:44
The Maplins product numbers are WF56L, WF55K and WF 09K. The plastic
horn flare would need to come off. They are made by Visaton.
The WF56L product is here:
http://www.maplin.co.uk/wide-dispersion-piezo-horn-tweeter-3265
At the moment, the Maplins site is very unstable. It may be better
in a few hours.
The waves are sound, sine waves.
Paul-R.
p.s. there is a caveat to be read before powering up. I cannot find it now
but I will have it tomorrow, hopefully.
QuoteHigh power handling
No crossover required
Rugged low-cost solution
This tweeter is designed to give a wide dispersion pattern and is therefore ideal in stereo hi-fi systems and in high quality disco and PA systems. Piezo tweeters are capacitative therefore automatically reject low frequency power and are inherently high impedance. Therefore, this can be wired directly across a woofer without the need for a crossover. Because modern amps can produce very high frequencies (typically up to 100kHz) it is recommended to wire a 47Ω 3W resistor (order code: W47R) in series with each tweeter to limit damaging high frequency resonance.
Now why would they give a spec of
damaging resonance when in all other posts in OU threads this is poo pooed as nonsense.
The 555 produces square wave. This leads to non-coercive noise. Pure sine waves are necessary depending on the control aspects of the target or medium. Certain experiments done controlling the coercion of aether have stated that any extra noise causes dissapation in the effect. This applies here in this thread. It has to be noted that the level of power in conjunction with the signal format is vey important. High power noise can obliterate while low power resonance can also alter the target. Hutchison makes wooden objects jump around between two 6 inch Tesla coils. This exemplifies that free moving objects react to impacts [Action at a distance], whether direct infliction or vectored, nothing new here. With this said the medium can be controlled by the distance between or the angles of the discharge sources and the signal emission.
Back to the 555:
You can try pushing square waves through an amp to these horns to see what the results are. Might be the wrong signal format for the desired results you are looking for. Since you are needing sine waves try a PC based freq genrator though these might not be the purest of sine waves you need. The problem is you won't know what you are doing wrong. This is the needle in the haystack.
This last statement is the one thing that is never correctly defined in any of the [successful] experiments. And since this is the case this lets all the poo poo brains ascend the box of heirarchy to state so. Pun intended...
For thousands of years we have had magnets and copper wire. Nobody thought to pass the them by each other.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.06.29, 09:08:56
Electric.
The wave is set up in the 101 plate system such that the plates are positioned where the
wave crosses the axis,the y=0 position. It is the electrical potential which cracks the water,
and not the current.
He uses three frequencies, Keely's 42.8 khz along with one octave down and another signal an octave down on that. (You need to check out Chapter 10).
Wrong explanation. Water relative permittivity: ε around 80. From from ε*µ0*v2=1, the electric wave speed in water is v=c/sqrt(80). Wave length: λ=v/f = 783 mtrs at f=42.8 KHz!
A standing wave needs at least a half-wave length to exist (between the nodes). The distance between plates is 1mm, which is too low by many orders of magnitude.
if we are dealing with conductive medium, the phase velocity is different then the formula above, which assumes no conductivity. In the document I posted in a previous reply to Farrah, on page 7 right above section 3.2, they give the equation v/c = sqrt(2 w e0/ sigma) This is the correct formula to use in a conductive medium to find the wave propagation velocity 'v', or phase velocity. 'c' is the speed of light in a vacum, w = 2 * pi * f, and e0 is the permetivity of vacum 8.85e-12.
EM
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.06.28, 23:13:44
p.s. there is a caveat to be read before powering up. I cannot find it now
but I will have it tomorrow, hopefully.
Here is that statement. It comes from Keelynet:
http://keelynet.com/energy/docx.htm
"Verification of Frequency to produce..."
paragraph 6 and 7.
"Dr. X took periodic readings..."
It might be hysterical nonsense,but it might also be a good idea to bear in
mind the possibility.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2012.06.29, 14:38:19
The 555 produces square wave. This leads to non-coercive noise. Pure sine waves are necessary
Yes. How about the 8038?
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/8038%20signal%20generator%20chip-datasheet.html
(The first pdf after "Catalog search results".Sorry, I cannot get a directlink to work).
Paul-R
p.s. I wonder if a new thread is needed. The Prof may be getting very pissed off with us.
Not "pissed off" at all, Paul-R; finding the discussion enlightening actually.
Farrah Day - you surprise me with your intriguing device and running it with a Slayer exciter -- have you actually built and tested this thing?Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.06.29, 13:46:44
Yellow disks with crosses simply depict LV filament lamps (or LEDs). Yes, I'm using a pulsed or AC signal to induce ionisation of the water molecules. My HV is isolated in that no current will flow, however my AC electrode is not solid as it may appear in the depiction, but an openweave coil, so an internal DC current can indeed flow.
Finally, here's a fellow who has built a joule-thief and used it to electrolyze water -- evidently electrolysis works with low-f AC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y-s-GE69BQ
(jonnydavro)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.06.29, 19:53:15
if we are dealing with conductive medium, the phase velocity is different then the formula above, which assumes no conductivity. In the document I posted in a previous reply to Farrah, on page 7 right above section 3.2, they give the equation v/c = sqrt(2 w e0/ sigma) This is the correct formula to use in a conductive medium to find the wave propagation velocity 'v', or phase velocity. 'c' is the speed of light in a vacum, w = 2 * pi * f, and e0 is the permetivity of vacum 8.85e-12.
EM
There are big problems with this formula v
φ=c *√(2*ω*ε0)/σ.
1) the phase velocity tends to infinity when conductivity tends to zero
2) the phase velocity is frequency dependent
3) the order of magnitude is ridiculously small (< 1mm/s at 50 Hz)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.06.30, 18:07:59
Not "pissed off" at all, Paul-R; finding the discussion enlightening actually.
Farrah Day - you surprise me with your intriguing device and running it with a Slayer exciter -- have you actually built and tested this thing?
Finally, here's a fellow who has built a joule-thief and used it to electrolyze water -- evidently electrolysis works with low-f AC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y-s-GE69BQ
(jonnydavro)
AC electrolysis, apparently... sort of... yes, but I think technically not. If you look at the gas coming off the cap leg in the video, you will see that it is pulsing at the same frequency as the leds. I guess not many people have experimented with such low frequency AC electrolysis, but in reality at this frequency the cations and anions may actually have time to move and react at the electrodes. But I don't think this is the case as there does appear to be some form of rectification occurring as it is always the same leg that is evolving the H2, whereas if this was true AC electrolysis, the H2 evolving would alternate between each leg. Very interesting nevertheless. Jonny Davro does undertake some quite fascinating and often quite insightful little experiments.
Work is still proceeding with my CLE. I have built a unit to test the theory and results are promising but often erratic. The key is the signal I am using to initially ionise the water - the Slayer exciter is just one one of the ccts I'm experimenting with as I'd ideally like to see the effect at very low energies. Work on-going.
Agreed about JonnyDavro!
Quote
Work is still proceeding with my CLE. I have built a unit to test the theory and results are promising but often erratic. The key is the signal I am using to initially ionise the water - the Slayer exciter is just one one of the ccts I'm experimenting with as I'd ideally like to see the effect at very low energies. Work on-going.
Good for you! hope you will keep us posted.
Just came across this post at EF by Lidmotor, posted yesterday:
QuoteElectrolysis experiment using Super Joule Ringer 2.0
@Jonny
I have a MOT that I tried to make work on your circuit and for some reason I can't get my transformer to do ANYTHING! Even setting it up as a plain old Joule Thief doesn't work very well. I don't know what is wrong with it (or me). Soooo--- I decided to just use my boxed up SJR 2.0 and see what happens if I use it for electrolysis. It makes bubbles off just one electrode!! It was very interesting to look at. How can that be???? Guys I don't mean little tiny bubbles on one electrode and lots of bubbles on the other. I mean ALL the bubbles were coming off one electrode. How can that be?
@PB
Your explanation of how this device is putting out a lopsided pulse might account for the interesting effect. I didn't try to burn the bubbles but I imagine that they do. Could we have stumbled on a sort of Stan Meyer thing?
Lidmotor
Quote from: LidMotor via transcriptionI decided to just use my boxed up SJR 2.0 and see what happens if I use it for electrolysis. It makes bubbles off just one electrode!! It was very interesting to look at. How can that be?Huh? Guys I don't mean little tiny bubbles on one electrode and lots of bubbles on the other. I mean ALL the bubbles were coming off one electrode. How can that be?
This is a common occurrence when the "plates" of the
makeshift electrolyzer are active metals and the current
is relatively weak.
The Oxygen liberated at the Positive Electrode while still
in its atomic state is capable of reacting quickly with the
electrode metal to form oxides before any visible bubbles
form. If salt water is used as the electrolyte then it will
be atomic chlorine at the positive electrode which reacts
with the metal to form comounds while eroding the metal.
The tell-tale signs of this oxidation are an increasing opacity
of the solution as it becomes cloudy or muddied by the
metallic compounds which emanate from the positive
electrode. All of the oxygen or chlorine is consumed as
quickly as it is liberated. In sufficient time the positive
electrode will show visible erosion and loss of metal in
addition to discoloration.
The result is that only hydrogen bubbles form and escape
from the solution at the negative electrode which will remain
shiny and clean (no discoloration.)
The wave applied to the electrolyzer will accomplish electrolysis
when it has sufficient DC Offset.
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.07.05, 23:55:31
This is a common occurrence when the "plates" of the
makeshift electrolyzer are active metals and the current
is relatively weak.
The Oxygen liberated at the Positive Electrode while still
in its atomic state is capable of reacting quickly with the
electrode metal to form oxides before any visible bubbles
form. If salt water is used as the electrolyte then it will
be atomic chlorine at the positive electrode which reacts
with the metal to form compounds while eroding the metal.
Agreed.
It should also be stated that you don't always get chlorine evolving when using sodium chloride as an electrolyte. I researched this long ago and found that at certain current levels and salt concentrations oxygen was indeed evolving in preference to chlorine.
Good point. When electrolyzing salt water it is
indeed possible to produce both Oxygen and
Chlorine at the positive plate under certain
conditions in varying proportions.
The electrolysis of salt water with suitable electrodes
able to stand up to the harsh conditions is
fascinating business. In fact, it is big business.
The fireworks industry uses tons of chlorates
and perchlorates so produced annually. Not to
mention the Chlorine Bleach for home use and
the Sodium or Potassium Hydroxide production.
The Wonderful World of ElectroChemistry!
Dumped:
As you may have seen, I've taken the liberty of re-posting your previous comments concerning the gas that is emitted from only one electrode,- back to Energetic Forums- Joule Ringer thread. I hope that you don't mind, and I just wanted to let you know, in case you want to take a look to see the replies to your ideas.
NickZ
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.07.01, 10:48:13
There are big problems with this formula vφ=c *√(2*ω*ε0)/σ.
1) the phase velocity tends to infinity when conductivity tends to zero
2) the phase velocity is frequency dependent
3) the order of magnitude is ridiculously small (< 1mm/s at 50 Hz)
yes you're right.
1) this equation is applicable when σ is large (σ/ωε ≫ 1) (the equation takes different forms depending on the conductivity levels, they specify that in the paper)
2) yes, such a medium is called DISPERSIVE, becasuse different frequencies propagete with different velocities so a sharp pulse degrades and spreads out or disperses as it propagates.
3) with good conductivity it is very small, but keep in mind that attenuation is also very small, so one wavelength would be about one skin depth perhaps. Usually you don't hear much talk of wavelength in a conductor becasue the attenuation is great near the interface, and skin depth is a much more usefull parameter.
Quote from: NickZ
...I hope that you don't mind, and I just wanted to let you know, in case you want to take a look to see the replies to your ideas.
That is never a problem NickZ. Anything which I may
opine into the public domain is for public use - no
permissions are necessary.
I've followed the discussion there and have noticed that
Seth has remarkable abilities and a natural talent towards
pedagogy. His videos are well thought out and provide
great insights with unusual clarity.
I must add that both NickZ and LidMotor have contributed
greatly to the progress of the discussion. Well done!
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.07.06, 22:24:27
...
2) yes, such a medium is called DISPERSIVE, becasuse different frequencies propagete with different velocities so a sharp pulse degrades and spreads out or disperses as it propagates.
A dependence on the frequency sqrt is tremendous and totally incompatible with electrolyte properties. I don't know where the formula comes from but I never saw it in courses and it disagrees with the practice and good sense. May be the confusion comes from the speed of ions which is taken instead of the speed of the wave.
Quote
3) with good conductivity it is very small, but keep in mind that attenuation is also very small, so one wavelength would be about one skin depth perhaps. Usually you don't hear much talk of wavelength in a conductor becasue the attenuation is great near the interface, and skin depth is a much more usefull parameter.
The skin depth applies for electrons in metals. Theoretically it could also apply for ions in solution (to be verified), but surely not at 50 Hz where the skin depth is much more than the width of the containers.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.07.07, 10:05:10
A dependence on the frequency sqrt is tremendous and totally incompatible with electrolyte properties. I don't know where the formula comes from but I never saw it in courses and it disagrees with the practice and good sense. May be the confusion comes from the speed of ions which is taken instead of the speed of the wave.
The skin depth applies for electrons in metals. Theoretically it could also apply for ions in solution (to be verified), but surely not at 50 Hz where the skin depth is much more than the width of the containers.
EX, you seem to be ignorant regarding this subject, and I'm surprised, because you are a HAM radio operator.
Have you not learned in your "courses" why communication with a submarine is difficult at higher frequencies? It's because electromagnetic waves are attenuated rapidly due to the conductivity of the salt water, and how rapidly that happens is dependent on the frequency. So the skin depth is dependent on conductivity period, regardless if the charge carriers that enable it are electrons or not.
I hope that helps
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.07.07, 15:12:46
EX, you seem to be ignorant regarding this subject, and I'm surprised, because you are a HAM radio operator.
Have you not learned in your "courses" why communication with a submarine is difficult at higher frequencies? It's because electromagnetic waves are attenuated rapidly due to the conductivity of the salt water, and how rapidly that happens is dependent on the frequency. So the skin depth is dependent on conductivity period, regardless if the charge carriers that enable it are electrons or not.
I hope that helps
EM
You missed the subtilities of the problems that I enounced.
"
The skin depth applies for electrons in metals. Theoretically it could also apply for ions in solution (to be verified)": in metal, HF current flows much easier at the conductor surface than inside. In solutions, what is to verified is that there is a ionic current that flows better near and along the surface than deeper. Due to the losses caused by the water resistivity and to a different mobility of ions compared to electrons, the magnetic fields that force the electrons to move at the surface and are the source of the skin effect, are surely much weaker with ions. And for the same reasons, the problem of the transversal penetration of electromagnetic waves in water is different and only more or less related to the skin effect.
"
the skin depth is much more than the width of the containers".
You talk about submarines many meters, tens or hundreds of meters under water! What applies to submarines because they are deeply immerged, doesn't apply to thin water widths likely thiner than the skin depth. In copper at 50 Hz, the skin depth is more than 9cm which is generally more than the distance between electrodes in electrolysis.
You should quantitatively rely theory to the physical context, by keeping in mind the order of magnitude of the effects, the direct causes of the effects, and the dimensions involved. A ham radio operator who is generally also a handyman, does it. Comments only qualitative are of poor help, they don't allow to face reality.