OverUnity Research

 
  Brad has started a tutorial On a process to Break The Faraday Limit,
"Gas Production way over what was once thought possible "

Part 1. of the introduction here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8e7dOVzyTM

also being discussed here
http://overunity.com/16992/tinmans-over-faraday-hv-hho-production/msg496021/#new

All comments welcome.

respectfully

Chet K

Good day all

I just threw together this *rough*  LTspice sim. of what I gathered to be the circuit presented by Brad, (taken from info. off of his Youtube channel)

Interestingly enough it does indeed show a HV reflected pulse on the primary winding of the *crude* MOT mockup.

Of course I don't have access to the *real* component values so I just guess-a-mated.

Judging from the looks of it, will be tough to find a diode with a reverse voltage rating of 9MV.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: lost_bro on 2016.11.21, 22:21:09
Good day all

I just threw together this *rough*  LTspice sim. of what I gathered to be the circuit presented by Brad, (taken from info. off of his Youtube channel)

Interestingly enough it does indeed show a HV reflected pulse on the primary winding of the *crude* MOT mockup.

Of course I don't have access to the *real* component values so I just guess-a-mated.

Judging from the looks of it, will be tough to find a diode with a reverse voltage rating of 9MV.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Thanks for doing the sim lost_bro.
Your scope shot shows very much what rides on the peak of the DC offset AC wave form across the cell.

The schematic is as below.
C1 is a 1uf HV cap from a microwave oven in  my setup.


Brad

Hi LostBro

I often run into this type of MV HV performance, sometimes by accident other times by design :D

You may be able to tame the circuit a bit by adding some series resistance and some shunt capacitance to the transformer. The cell will be more complex than just a capacitor. It will have series and shunt resistance as well  as a capacitance. Also soften up the supply a bit and reduce the transformer K to .9 to .95. (those MOT's don't have tight coupling) Then maybe a more reasonable diode will work.

Good to see you here. Peace

P.S. if you post your .asc file I can try a hand to tame it.

Regards, ION

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.21, 23:58:35
Thanks for doing the sim lost_bro.
Your scope shot shows very much what rides on the peak of the DC offset AC wave form across the cell.

The schematic is as below.
C1 is a 1uf HV cap from a microwave oven in  my setup.


Brad

Good day Brad

I see a have the HHO cell and primary reversed in the Sim from your posted schematic.  I not sure if that makes a difference in the real world, but it does change outcome of the Sim.

When I have time I will play with the Sim. some more.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: ION on 2016.11.22, 00:00:28
Hi LostBro

I often run into this type of MV HV performance, sometimes by accident other times by design :D

You may be able to tame the circuit a bit by adding some series resistance and some shunt capacitance to the transformer. The cell will be more complex than just a capacitor. It will have series and shunt resistance as well  as a capacitance. Also soften up the supply a bit and reduce the transformer K to .9 to .95. (those MOT's don't have tight coupling) Then maybe a more reasonable diode will work.

Good to see you here. Peace

P.S. if you post your .asc file I can try a hand to tame it.

Regards, ION

Good day ION

Yes, your quite right....  any small change will drastically change the outcome of the Sim. 
Basically I just wanted to see *if* the HV spike would show up on the primary as a result of the S.G. (spark gap) shorting of the secondary coil.

This type of circuit reminds me of the many hours I spent investigating Stanley Meyer's  Water Fuel cell design many years ago.......
Still think this type of circuit requires balanced reactance's & impedance matching to get the desired results.
Probably some type of LC , RLC interaction, reflected impedance, between the HHO cell and inductors along with the necessary driving frequency.

I did NOT spend much time or thought on this Sim., just wanted to get an idea of the possible M.O. of the device so as to think about the possibility of a Solid State version of the same. 

I remember that Stanley Meyers also started his investigations using a modified Car Alternator  driven by a (?synchronous) electric motor and then quickly moved on to a Solid State version.

Interesting.......

And, I was just joking about the 9MV diode ;D

Please find attached Sim.

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.21, 23:58:35
Thanks for doing the sim lost_bro.
Your scope shot shows very much what rides on the peak of the DC offset AC wave form across the cell.

The schematic is as below.
C1 is a 1uf HV cap from a microwave oven in  my setup.

Brad

Brad, before you get away for the weekend --- what have you found is the sweet spot (RPM wise) for the smart motor?
mine is the old style 42 coil, 1mm wire

Thanks, Ron

Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.25, 02:41:23
Brad, before you get away for the weekend --- what have you found is the sweet spot (RPM wise) for the smart motor?
mine is the old style 42 coil, 1mm wire

Thanks, Ron

Ah so you have the original 100 series stator.
They use to run on about 40 volt's,and were the lowest voltage motor they built.
These are rare,as everyone wants them for wind generators.

Anyway,the RPM/frequency will depend on a lot of thing's.
The system needs to be tuned to your cell.
Changing things like spark gap distance,capacitor value,and RPM,changes both frequency and voltage across the cell.

I started by way of just visual gas output.
Straight tap water will vary in conductivity,and only trial and error is really the only way to tune the system.

I would start out getting some gas production number's from your cell,using low voltage ,high current method's-standard method's. Not doing this,means you will have no idea whether or not your are gaining in efficiency,or going backward's--so you need a bench mark from your cell first.

Im guessing you have all the system complete,so as you can get accurate MMW measurements?.--like the displacement measuring device,a dryer and condenser ?.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.25, 03:11:28

Im guessing you have all the system complete,so as you can get accurate MMW measurements?.--like the displacement measuring device,a dryer and condenser ?.

Brad

Nope, working on the reservoir atm, still missing a flow meter, dryer and condenser.

What I was looking for was a ball park starting RPM number, like what was your pony motor RPM? Here that would be 1750 or 3400 RPM

Thanks, Ron

Quote from: ronee on 2016.11.25, 16:19:26
Nope, working on the reservoir atm, still missing a flow meter, dryer and condenser.

What I was looking for was a ball park starting RPM number, like what was your pony motor RPM? Here that would be 1750 or 3400 RPM

Thanks, Ron

As we are on 50Hz here,our standard RPM is 1440 and 2880 for motors.
The reduction is close to 2:1
But that was just a demo setup,as the actual setup has to have a variable speed for tuning.
The demo setup will show you the wave form needed across the cell though,so it's a good simple start to see what you are looking for.


Brad

Had a nice Chat with Darrell [Brad's cell builder]
will be speaking with him again later today

O0

Exciting - thanks, Brad for sharing and helping.
Below is a photo of an H2/O2 collector I used with experiments a while back - very straightforward, collect all gases in a graduated cylinder over an interval of time.  The graduated cylinder allows quick measurement of the volume of gases produced.

Using a flow-meter, dryer, condenser etc - add to the complications.  With a factor of 2 or so more volume of gases than expected, a straightforward graduated cylinder system should suffice... then add bells and whistles later as desired!

Let's remember - OK, IMHO - that the FIRST device that clearly demonstrates "overunity" (I would prefer "tapping a previously untapped source of energy") is the one that will get the attention and First-Place status... along with its inventor.

And there are several inventions looking good right now, serious contenders for First Place Finish - including Mikes's and Floor's/Luc's.  IMHO.

Physics Prof:

Assuming the Faraday limit, can you or anyone refute the calculations in the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn480IwYi2g

Granted if you can exceed Faraday, everything changes, but by how much? Possibly a lot more than we imagine when considering overall system efficiencies.

In the example given, the author does not even consider the cost to the system (IC engine plus alternator) of producing the HHO gas. (system petrol to electrical inefficiency)

When hooked to a feeble car alternator, which are made as cheap as possible, as a generator of electricity, an IC engine plus alternator is notoriously inefficient.

So the cost of the electricity produced is at best only about 20 to 30% efficient when considered as a system.

If the IC engine plus generator system could produce electrical energy at 100% efficiency, then you would only need to exceed the Faraday limit by a small amount to have a gain in the overall IC engine plus generator plus HHO gas generator.

But this is not the case and due to the extreme inefficiency of system electrical production, the Faraday limit must be exceeded many fold to just break even.

This needs serious discussion.

QuoteGasoline (petrol) engines
Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car.[citation needed] In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.[1] Approximately half of this rejected heat is carried away by the exhaust gases, and half passes through the cylinder walls or cylinder head into the engine cooling system, and is passed to the atmosphere via the cooling system radiator.[2] Some of the work generated is also lost as friction, noise, air turbulence, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and the electrical generator, leaving only about 25-30% of the energy released by the fuel consumed available to move the vehicle.

Quote from: ION on 2016.11.28, 15:01:21
Physics Prof:

Assuming the Faraday limit, can you or anyone refute the calculations in the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn480IwYi2g

Granted if you can exceed Faraday, everything changes, but by how much? Possibly a lot more than we imagine when considering overall system efficiencies.

In the example given, the author does not even consider the cost to the system (IC engine plus alternator) of producing the HHO gas. (system petrol to electrical inefficiency)

When hooked to a feeble car alternator, which are made as cheap as possible, as a generator of electricity, an IC engine plus alternator is notoriously inefficient.

So the cost of the electricity produced is at best only about 20 to 30% efficient when considered as a system.

If the IC engine plus generator system could produce electrical energy at 100% efficiency, then you would only need to exceed the Faraday limit by a small amount to have a gain in the overall IC engine plus generator plus HHO gas generator.

But this is not the case and due to the extreme inefficiency of system electrical production, the Faraday limit must be exceeded many fold to just break even.

This needs serious discussion.

His calculations may be right,but his assumption that using a HHO system will not improve your car's MPG is incorrect.

I have seen a number of  wanabe debunkers run tests with and without HHO system's,and they keep finding that the HHO system actually decreases MPG  C.C
The reason this keeps happening,is because they keep using bloody late modle car's with ECUs,and--wait for it--O2 sensors  :D

So,when the HHO is added to the fuel/air mix,the O2 sensor tells the ECU that the car is running to lean,because the HHO allows a much cleaner and complete burn of the fuel.
So now the ECU thinks the car is running to lean,so it starts feeding the motor more fuel  C.C, .

And so they come up with this rubbish that HHO systems actually cause your car to use more fuel.


Here is the truth ION,and the system as a whole dose not get much more inefficient than this--but still an increase in run time when the HHO system is put into use.

First up,we have a cheap carbureted chinese honda imitation 6.5HP engine--not so efficient.
Then we have a gen-e-motor from WW2 to power the cell--also very inefficient.
To top that off,we have my very first attempt at a dry cell,made from sheets cut from a S/S water tank,that were all dented--very inefficient,with an MMW of just over 3  :'(

So,in the video,we use the same metered amount of fuel in both runs.
The generator(gen-e-motor) is unloaded on the first run,and HHO cell is not powered-engine running on gasoline only.
In the second run,the generator is now loaded,as it is powering the HHO cell.
You will see a current draw of about 25 amp's,and a voltage across the cell of around 11.2v
So in the second run,we have a load of around 280watts on the generator/engine.

First run using the metered amount of fuel,no load on the engine,and no HHO=1 minute 54 seconds
Second run with same metered amount of fuel,280 watt load on the engine to run the HHO cell,and HHO included=2 minutes 11 seconds
The battery is only for starting the engine,and is disconnected once the engine is started,and never reconnected.

So,taking into account all the vast inefficiencies in the system as a whole--where did the extra 17 seconds run time come from?.

We just increased our efficiency by 14%--and that was using the worst of the worst equipment.
So,using that setup-as bad as it was,if we could run our engine for an hour on a LTR of gasoline,then it would run for 68.4  minutes,instead of 60 minutes.

Darrell !that is about to join us here soon!,run's a HHO cell in his vehicle--i'll let him tell you how much more efficient his vehicle is now--people just wouldnt leave HHO systems in there vehicles,if they did not work.
A 30% increase in efficiency is not hard to get,using a good HHO system-providing you remap the ECU if your vehicle has one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YWHj31Y20


Brad

Dear All.

" Faraday's limit is an MMW of 9.28 "

Is this definitive? What does it actually mean? Could someone redefine it to say, Watts per Litre please?

Once a suitable benchmark is had, going " over Faraday " will be very easy to establish.

Kind regards, Graham.

This is taken from wiki:

The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.

Since each mole of water requires two moles of electrons, and given that the Faraday constant F represents the charge of a mole of electrons (96485 C/mol), it follows that the minimum voltage necessary for electrolysis is about 1.23 V.[29] If electrolysis is carried out at high temperature, this voltage reduces. This effectively allows the electrolyser to operate at more than 100% electrical efficiency. In electrochemical systems this means that heat must be supplied to the reactor to sustain the reaction. In this way thermal energy can be used for part of the electrolysis energy requirement.[30] In a similar way the required voltage can be reduced (below 1 V) if fuels (such as carbon, alcohol, biomass) are reacted with water (PEM based electrolyzer in low temperature) or oxygen ions (solid oxide electrolyte based electrolyzer in high temperature). This results in some of the fuel's energy being used to "assist" the electrolysis process and can reduce the overall cost of hydrogen produced.[31]

However, observing the entropy component (and other losses), voltages over 1.48 V are required for the reaction to proceed at practical current densities (the thermoneutral voltage).

In the case of water electrolysis, Gibbs free energy represents the minimum work necessary for the reaction to proceed, and the reaction enthalpy is the amount of energy (both work and heat) that has to be provided so the reaction products are at the same temperature as the reactant (i.e. standard temperature for the values given above). Potentially, an electrolyser operating at 1.48 V would be 100% efficient. (end quote)

Now the efficiency to produce 2H2+O2 (4moles H+ 2moles of O) cannot go above 100% Faraday, but, if you use the O2 to produce energy through chemical change, 33% of the volume of HHO, then the same volume of H2 would be 133% of Faraday, and you take the O2 from the air for free when you burn it.

Now I'm not trying to flog my SMD (electrolysis), but you have to look at the same system of breaking the water molecule, electrolysis with electrolysis. Unless there is something special about HHO and not H2+O2, O can't live on it's own without combining with another atom, as in CO or O2 or NO etc, "HHO" will live an exceedingly short life. So out of H2+O2, only the H2 has the energy and the O2 is the oxidiser.

Now breaking the water molecule through non electrolysis is another thing, a different ball game as it is not eggs for eggs as in Faraday electrolysis.

The best electrolysis is around 80-85% but has to run at around 90c to reduce the resistance heating of the power input, so extra energy is put in in the form of heat.

Hope that helps

Regards

Mike 8)

Hi Mike.

This " simpleton " needs simpler!! This chemistry malarkey is over my head..... :)

How many Watts to make a Litre of gas? Using normal Faraday equation.

Then with the most basic of Wattmeters we can establish whether we can actually achieve " over Faraday " production.

Kind regards, Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.28, 17:45:20
Hi Mike.

This " simpleton " needs simpler!! This chemistry malarkey is over my head..... :)

How many Watts to make a Litre of gas? Using normal Faraday equation.

Then with the most basic of Wattmeters we can establish whether we can actually achieve " over Faraday " production.

Kind regards, Graham.

Hi Graham

MMW of 9.28 should read 9.28mltrs per 1mwatt of power consummed, 0.00928ltrs per miliwatt

Regards

Mike 8)

Hi Mike.

So.... 0.928 Litres per Watt ? That doesn't seem correct to me. I wasn't that good at mathematics either!! ;D

Kind regards, Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.28, 18:25:08
Hi Mike.

So.... 0.928 Litres per Watt ? That doesn't seem correct to me. I wasn't that good at mathematics either!! ;D

Kind regards, Graham.

yes does not seem right to me either ;D

Regards

Mike 8)

The watts is watts/minute and not hour and mils/minute

Regards

Mike 8)

Not just Watts, but Watt hours per Liter

or watt-minutes per milli-liter

maybe even Watt-seconds per micro-liter

The original calculator link Brad posted early on has a time in "seconds" field to be filled in:

http://www.hho-generator.de/en/hho-mmw-calculator.htm

But calls the calculator Milliliters pro Minute pro Watt

MMW = Milliliter pro Minute pro Watt

Part of the confusion is that the abbreviation MMW is in minutes while the calculator is in seconds

Maybe I would state the data input to the calculator as:

Milliliter per Milli-Watt-Seconds or MMWS

but that is just my preference since a Watt-Second= 1 Joule

There is a lot of information on the web if you type in "watt hours per liter for electrolysis"

Stefan Hartmann says this:

http://overunity.com/3107/formular-to-calculate-energy-per-liter-of-hho-gas/msg47169/#msg47169

The rest of that page is a good read, but I have not checked it for correctness.

Brad:
Regarding your reply #13, I would not extrapolate those numbers just yet, not until you could completely describe the test setup. e.g. were the tests run consecutively if so was the engine and oil allowed to cool to the same value before the HHO test was performed? A two minute run barely gets the engine to it's peak operating efficiency with regards to temperature. A much longer test is required before you can extrapolate as the margin of error also gets blown up.

Was the air density the same in each test? What were the total elapsed killowatt hours delivered to the load each time? What was the total count of elapsed revolutions of the shaft? RPM variances?

Total elapsed kilowatts-hours delivered to the load would take into account many variables and is a good benchmark. The longer the run, the more accurate will be the result.

I think I would have more faith in a much longer run time, perhaps 15 to 30 minutes and tighter data gathering, but I make no claims for HHO so don't have the burden of proof.

ION

 author=ION link=topic=3371.msg58411#msg58411 date=1480361573]

QuoteBrad:
Regarding your reply #13, I would not extrapolate those numbers just yet, not until you could completely describe the test setup. e.g. were the tests run consecutively if so was the engine and oil allowed to cool to the same value before the HHO test was performed?

Ok,maybe you did not watch the video?,but the engine was never switched off between the two tests(with and without HHO in play).
I had been running the same test  a number of times before the video,and so the engine would have been at running temperature.

The generator is what supplies the power to the HHO cell,and as you can hear in the video,the engine becomes loaded when i switch the cell on.
The engine RPM is governed by the governor,so the same RPM exists in each run.
In the first timed run,the only load on the engine is the four brushes on the armature-which is present in both run's.
In the second timed run,the load is the 280 odd watts being drawn from the generator to power the HHO cell-plus the losses due to inefficiencies. This load result's in producing HHO gas that is returned to the motor,and also the heating of the water in the HHO cell system,and the cell it self--so we have a heat output.
The motor is also now working harder,and so one would expect that it too would be producing more heat--or would it?. ;)

QuoteWas the air density the same in each test?

As i stated above,the engine was never switched off between tests,and so i doubt the air density would have changed much in 5 minutes.

QuoteA two minute run barely gets the engine to it's peak operating efficiency with regards to temperature.

Also as stated above,the engine had been running on and off for an hour prior to the video test.

QuoteA much longer test is required before you can extrapolate as the margin of error also gets blown up.

I agree--a longer test would be better.

QuoteWhat were the total elapsed killowatt hours delivered to the load each time?

First run-no load,and so no killowatts hours were delivered to a load.
Second run-power to the load is 280 watts for 2 minutes 11 second's.

QuoteI think I would have more faith in a much longer run time, perhaps 15 to 30 minutes and tighter data gathering, but I make no claims for HHO so don't have the burden of proof.

Now this we can do,and with a much more efficient cell and alternator.  O0
Will be done by sunday.


Brad

Dear Brad

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I may have seen the video a while back and forgotten some of the details.

So first run is with no load on the generator?

And second run is with the generator loaded with 280 Watts or thereabouts.

If that is the case, something special must be happening, because I would have thought the unloaded generator would have used  far less gas than when it is loaded.

Granted 0.37 HP equivalent load is not much for that size engine, and the reflected load on the engine considering the inefficiency of the generator might be closer to 0.5 HP.

Still it is amazing that you got a better run time with load.

Regards, ION

Quote from: ION on 2016.11.29, 02:35:15
Dear Brad

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I may have seen the video a while back and forgotten some of the details.

So first run is with no load on the generator?

And second run is with the generator loaded with 280 Watts or thereabouts.

If that is the case, something special must be happening, because I would have thought the unloaded generator would have used  far less gas than when it is loaded.

Granted 0.37 HP equivalent load is not much for that size engine, and the reflected load on the engine considering the inefficiency of the generator might be closer to 0.5 HP.

Still it is amazing that you got a better run time with load.

Regards, ION

ION

Take the time to watch the video again,and see if you can pick out any mistakes i may have made.


Brad

I'm working on the numbers - hope this helps...

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.28, 17:45:20
Hi Mike.

This " simpleton " needs simpler!! This chemistry malarkey is over my head..... :)

How many Watts to make a Litre of gas? Using normal Faraday equation.

Then with the most basic of Wattmeters we can establish whether we can actually achieve " over Faraday " production.

Kind regards, Graham.

There are 55.346 moles in 1 liter of pure water...
18 g of H2O = 18 ml of water = 1 mole of water.

"The electrolysis of one mole of water produces a mole of hydrogen gas and a half-mole of oxygen gas in their normal diatomic forms." see below

A mole of water thus produces 22.4 liters of H2 at STP, and 11.2 liters of O2.

THUS:  electrolyzing 18g = 18 ml = 1 mole of water will produce a  22.4 liters of H2 at STP, and 11.2 liters of O2 -- and this requires a TOTAL of 285.83 kJoules of energy = 285.83 kW-seconds.  Round this to 286 kJ of energy, and then this agrees with the summary Mike posted.

THUS:  electrolyzing 1.0 g = 1.0 ml of water will produce a  1.244 liters of H2 at room temp, and 0.622 liters of O2, or a total of 1.87 liters of gas -- and this requires a TOTAL of 15.9 kJoules of energy = 15.9 kW-seconds.

Continuing, 15.9 kW-seconds = 15,900 W-seconds divided by 3600 seconds/hour = 4.42 W-hrs to electrolyze 1.0 ml of water, producing 1244 ml of H2 gas and 622 ml of O2 gas.

In an experiment, one can measure the amount of water which was electrolyzed - weighing is probably the easiest way to do this.
Then measure the amount of gas produced - using the graduated cylinder method I showed above in a photo is straightforward (a bit crude but sufficient to find roughly a +15% effect).   

Also, measure the ENERGY input -- to do this is also straightforward - watts times seconds = Joules of energy input.

Then compare Energy In vs grams of water electrolyzed AND total gas volume produced in the process and see whether the gas produced agrees with the "standard model" above, or disagrees (and by how much).

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.11.29, 03:39:56
I'm working on the numbers - hope this helps...

There are 55.346 moles in 1 liter of pure water...
18 g of H2O = 18 ml of water = 1 mole of water.

"The electrolysis of one mole of water produces a mole of hydrogen gas and a half-mole of oxygen gas in their normal diatomic forms." see below

A mole of water thus produces 22.4 liters of H2 at STP, and 11.2 liters of O2.

THUS:  electrolyzing 18g = 18 ml = 1 mole of water will produce a  22.4 liters of H2 at STP, and 11.2 liters of O2 -- and this requires a TOTAL of 285.83 kJoules of energy = 285.83 kW-seconds.  Round this to 286 kJ of energy, and then this agrees with the summary Mike posted.

THUS:  electrolyzing 1.0 g = 1.0 ml of water will produce a  1.244 liters of H2 at room temp, and 0.622 liters of O2, or a total of 1.87 liters of gas -- and this requires a TOTAL of 15.9 kJoules of energy = 15.9 kW-seconds.

Continuing, 15.9 kW-seconds = 15,900 W-seconds divided by 3600 seconds/hour = 4.42 W-hrs to electrolyze 1.0 ml of water, producing 1244 ml of H2 gas and 622 ml of O2 gas.

In an experiment, one can measure the amount of water which was electrolyzed - weighing is probably the easiest way to do this.
Then measure the amount of gas produced - using the graduated cylinder method I showed above in a photo is straightforward (a bit crude but sufficient to find roughly a +15% effect).   

Also, measure the ENERGY input -- to do this is also straightforward - watts times seconds = Joules of energy input.

Then compare Energy In vs grams of water electrolyzed AND total gas volume produced in the process and see whether the gas produced agrees with the "standard model" above, or disagrees (and by how much).

PhysicsProf

I think there is something wrong with your numbers.

To produce 1 liter of HHO gas,and going by Faraday's MMW limit of 9.82,then it takes only 101.832 watt minutes to do so-or 6109.92 watt seconds.
As you are dealing with 1.87 liters,we then multiply my value by 1.87,which gives us 11,425.5 watt seconds-where you have 15,900 watt seconds.
So you have a value of 4.42 watt hours to electrolyze 1ml of water,and my value is only 3.173 watt hours.

Going by your number's,Faradays MMW limit would only be 7.057--and this i(and many others already have) can break using just a DC current.

To answer Grum's question (as far as i know),and using Faraday's MMW limit of 9.82,it takes 101.832 watts for 1 minute to produce 1 liter of HHO gas,at 1 atmosphere .


Edit
Faradays MMW limit is actually 9.28--not 9.82 as i stipulated.
This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of the 101.8 watt minute's i quoted above.
This is better for us  O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.29, 08:00:04


Edit
Faradays MMW limit is actually 9.28--not 9.82 as i stipulated.
This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of the 101.8 watt minute's i quoted above.
This is better for us  O0


Brad

Dear Brad.

Many thanks, so, in laymans terms just over 100 Watts per minute to make 1 Litre of gas....... Simple...... I like simple!

Your edit slightly confuses me though. Why would 108 W be better than 101.8 W ?

Now if others concur, you have set the Faraday HHO benchmark and, hopefully we can now prove, beyond doubt that
" over Faraday " gas production IS possible.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.29, 08:00:04
PhysicsProf

I think there is something wrong with your numbers.

To produce 1 liter of HHO gas,and going by Faraday's MMW limit of 9.82,then it takes only 101.832 watt minutes to do so-or 6109.92 watt seconds.
As you are dealing with 1.87 liters,we then multiply my value by 1.87,which gives us 11,425.5 watt seconds-where you have 15,900 watt seconds.
So you have a value of 4.42 watt hours to electrolyze 1ml of water,and my value is only 3.173 watt hours.

Going by your number's,Faradays MMW limit would only be 7.057--and this i(and many others already have) can break using just a DC current.

To answer Grum's question (as far as i know),and using Faraday's MMW limit of 9.82,it takes 101.832 watts for 1 minute to produce 1 liter of HHO gas,at 1 atmosphere .


Edit
Faradays MMW limit is actually 9.28--not 9.82 as i stipulated.
This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of the 101.8 watt minute's i quoted above.
This is better for us  O0


Brad

I'm learning - and this is important to get this straight.
In my page-copy above, I provide the link to "hyperphysics" (at the top of the screen-copy) and the data given there in detail.
  Brad - will you please provide a LINK to where you get your numbers from? as I did.  Along with this, pls explain what you mean by "Faraday's MMW limit."  Thanks in advance!

  Note that indeed the electrical energy required to electrolyze one mole (18g) of H20 is 237.13 kJ - and that some energy actually comes from the environment, to meet the requirement of 286 kJ of energy TOTAL required ( see the hyperphysics link and data in my last post).
   So we can use 237 kJ of input electrical energy required. 
Now let me re-compute the numbers, to compare with yours:
Brad: "Faradays MMW limit is actually 9.28--not 9.82 as i stipulated.
This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of the 101.8 watt minute's i quoted above."

I wrote:

QuoteTHUS:  electrolyzing 1.0 g = 1.0 ml of water will produce a  1.244 liters of H2 at room temp, and 0.622 liters of O2, or a total of 1.87 liters of gas -- and this requires a TOTAL of 15.9 kJoules of energy = 15.9 kW-seconds.  [286 kJ/18]

Continuing, 15.9 kW-seconds = 15,900 W-seconds divided by 3600 seconds/hour = 4.42 W-hrs to electrolyze 1.0 ml of water, producing 1244 ml of H2 gas and 622 ml of O2 gas.

Let me correct this, with 237 kJ versus 286 kJ of ELECTRICAL input energy required:  then I get:

THUS:  electrolyzing 1.0 g = 1.0 ml of water will produce a  1.244 liters of H2 at room temp, and 0.622 liters of O2, or a total of 1.87 liters of gas -- and this requires a TOTAL of 13.2 kJoules of energy = 13.2 kW-seconds [=237/18]

And so to get ONE liter of HHO gas, would require 13.2/1.87 = 7.0 kJ = 7000 W-seconds X 1 minute/60seconds =

116.7 watt-minutes of ELECTRICAL energy input, to produce 1 liter of HHO.

Brad: "This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO"

So you get 108 W-min and I get 116.7 W-min (our discrepancy is 8%) -- to produce 1 liter of HHO.

Graham:  say it actually takes 70 W-min to produce 1 liter of HHO gas (this must be determined by actual experiment and careful measurements), but the theoretical requirement is 116.7 W-min...  then we are producing the 1 liter of output gas with LESS energy than is theoretically required.  This becomes a very important result...  even if we are short of some PRACTICAL device at the moment.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.11.29, 11:54:11
I'm learning - and this is important to get this straight.
In my page-copy above, I provide the link to "hyperphysics" (at the top of the screen-copy) and the data given there in detail.
  Brad - will you please provide a LINK to where you get your numbers from? as I did.  Along with this, pls explain what you mean by "Faraday's MMW limit."  Thanks in advance!

  Note that indeed the electrical energy required to electrolyze one mole (18g) of H20 is 237.13 kJ - and that some energy actually comes from the environment, to meet the requirement of 286 kJ of energy TOTAL required ( see the hyperphysics link and data in my last post).
   So we can use 237 kJ of input electrical energy required. 
Now let me re-compute the numbers, to compare with yours:
Brad: "Faradays MMW limit is actually 9.28--not 9.82 as i stipulated.
This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of the 101.8 watt minute's i quoted above."

I wrote:
Let me correct this, with 237 kJ versus 286 kJ of ELECTRICAL input energy required:  then I get:

THUS:  electrolyzing 1.0 g = 1.0 ml of water will produce a  1.244 liters of H2 at room temp, and 0.622 liters of O2, or a total of 1.87 liters of gas -- and this requires a TOTAL of 13.2 kJoules of energy = 13.2 kW-seconds [=237/18]

And so to get ONE liter of HHO gas, would require 13.2/1.87 = 7.0 kJ = 7000 W-seconds X 1 minute/60seconds =

116.7 watt-minutes of ELECTRICAL energy input, to produce 1 liter of HHO.

Brad: "This limit now allows us to use 108 watt minutes to produce 1 liter of HHO"

So you get 108 W-min and I get 116.7 W-min (our discrepancy is 8%) -- to produce 1 liter of HHO.

Graham:  say it actually takes 70 W-min to produce 1 liter of HHO gas (this must be determined by actual experiment and careful measurements), but the theoretical requirement is 116.7 W-min...  then we are producing the 1 liter of output gas with LESS energy than is theoretically required.  This becomes a very important result...  even if we are short of some PRACTICAL device at the moment.

Steve
The MMW is milliliters per minute per watt
At 116.7 watt minute's to produce 1 liter of HHO gas,that would give you an MMW of only 8.57

I use this MMW calculator here
http://www.hho-generator.de/en/hho-mmw-calculator.htm

If we use 12v @ 9.72 amp's,we have your 16.7(16.64 actually)watt minutes.

The calculated MMW limit is well known in the HHO community, to be an MMW of 9.28.
Quote: if 100% Faraday produces 36.69 liters of hydroxy per minute at 3.952kW, we can convert this to mmw simply by division.

36.69 litres = 36690 ml

36690/3952 = 9.28 ml/m/w

I am not sure where the HHO guy's got there MMW limit calculation's from,but if you think this is incorrect,then i am more than happy to go by your MMW limit of just 8.57  O0.


Brad

Thanks guys.

So still no definitive answer yet, any other mathematicians want to have a stab at this? Come on people just a simple Watts per Litre per minute value.

In the meantime I'm going to get some stuff together.

Would a suitable condenser made from an automotive heater matrix be useable. I was thinking of immersing it in cold water this should eliminate any steam. How about Silica gell crystals for drying?

I have a cell built from my days experimenting with the Dave Lawton pulse system.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.29, 11:43:10
Dear Brad.

Many thanks, so, in laymans terms just over 100 Watts per minute to make 1 Litre of gas....... Simple...... I like simple!

QuoteYour edit slightly confuses me though. Why would 108 W be better than 101.8 W ?

Now if others concur, you have set the Faraday HHO benchmark and, hopefully we can now prove, beyond doubt that
" over Faraday " gas production IS possible.

Cheers Graham.

Because we can now use 108 watts for one minute to produce 1 liter of HHO,instead of having to use only 101 watts per minute to produce 1 liter of HHO.
So we are now aloud to use a little more power,to achieve Faradays limit. O0

If Steve is correct,we can use even more power to achieve Faradays limit.

You are thinking that using less power to make 1 liter of HHO is better,and that would be correct.
But as we are trying to go over Faradays limit,the more power we can use,the better chance we have of betting Faradays limit.
Remember,the less power we are aloud to use to beat Faradays limit,the harder it will be to achieve.


Brad

 OK - I see what you're saying, Brad.
1 liter = 1000 ml of HHO per minute with input of 116.7 W (derived from the hyperphysics link I gave above) means:

1000 ml/116.7 W = 8.57 mmw.

If one can get MORE than 1000ml (of produced HHO gas)/minute with an input of 116.7 W -
or 1000ml/min with an input of LESS than 116.7 W
-- then that is HUGE step forward.

Hi All.

I did a bit of Skypeing and had a confirmation of Steve's 116.7 Watts per Litre per minute, he said roughly 120 Watts.

I take it that a simple displacement exercise would suffice? Like filling a 2 Litre pop ( soda ) bottle with water and timing the displacement  event?

Any views on my comments regarding cooling and drying the gas?

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.11.30, 12:25:29
OK - I see what you're saying, Brad.
1 liter = 1000 ml of HHO per minute with input of 116.7 W (derived from the hyperphysics link I gave above) means:

1000 ml/116.7 W = 8.57 mmw.

If one can get MORE than 1000ml (of produced HHO gas)/minute with an input of 116.7 W -
or 1000ml/min with an input of LESS than 116.7 W
-- then that is HUGE step forward.

Ok,so our new MMW limit is 8.57--this is good new's.

So to be very clear Steve,this MMW limit of 8.57,is Faradays limit--correct?.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.30, 13:28:33
Ok,so our new MMW limit is 8.57--this is good new's.

So to be very clear Steve,this MMW limit of 8.57,is Faradays limit--correct?.


Brad

YES - correct.
Note that we are currently gathering pieces to replicate - thanks again for sharing, Brad!

Graham: "I take it that a simple displacement exercise would suffice? Like filling a 2 Litre pop ( soda ) bottle with water and timing the displacement  event?"

Yes -  a good way to do it; while recording the input electrical power. 

Note that the gas should be at STP - basically, at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
I would not worry about drying the gas for this first testing... later, yes.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.11.30, 14:25:44
YES - correct.
Note that we are currently gathering pieces to replicate - thanks again for sharing, Brad!

Graham: "I take it that a simple displacement exercise would suffice? Like filling a 2 Litre pop ( soda ) bottle with water and timing the displacement  event?"

Yes -  a good way to do it; while recording the input electrical power. 

Note that the gas should be at STP - basically, at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
I would not worry about drying the gas for this first testing... later, yes.

Thanks Steve.

I've ordered one of these.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/DC-LCD-60V-100A-Balance-Voltage-Boat-RC-Heli-Battery-Power-Analyzer-Watt-Meter-/252307363351?hash=item3abeb0d617:g:kOkAAOSwEK9UF~TH

Also attached is a resized picture of my experimental Dave Lawton cell.

This cell made the gas for this engine. 

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

Cheers Graham.

Physics Prof said:

QuoteIf one can get MORE than 1000ml (of produced HHO gas)/minute with an input of 116.7 W -
or 1000ml/min with an input of LESS than 116.7 W
-- then that is HUGE step forward.

Not only is it a huge step forward, but breaking this limit would in itself qualify for some OU prizes and possibly a Nobel prize.

You need not even go to the trouble of attaching the output to an IC engine. Just recombine and burn the gas and using one of many calorimetric methods and you may definitely prove an OU device. (or not). This has been said before, and I agree it is a more straightforward test.

So this in itself is a huge hurdle and would require exceedingly accurate measurements if the gas production seems to be just slightly above the Faraday limit. If it is 2 to 3 times Faraday limit, the measurements need not be as precise, but it is always good to work with as high a precision and accuracy as your instrumentation can provide for your submitted peer review paper. Best of luck in this adventure.

Dear Graham:

I have lately been researching some of these low end DC Watt meters and will order a few for my lab. I suppose your initial experiments will be with a DC power supply or battery to establish a benchmark, as this type meter will not integrate easily into Brad's setup on the 400 Hz side of the motor and MOT / spark gap setup. But if you use it to monitor the input to a DC motor driving the multi-pole motor it may work, but there will be many losses in the overall system to vet.

How have you decided to use the Watt meter you have chosen?

Regards, ION

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.11.30, 14:49:10
This cell made the gas for this engine. 

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

Cheers Graham.

That video sent me on a trip down memory lane!  O0

This thread is an interesting investigation Brad I will allocate a bit of time to look into it, thanks.

Quote from: ION on 2016.11.30, 16:37:02

Dear Graham:

I have lately been researching some of these low end DC Watt meters and will order a few for my lab. I suppose your initial experiments will be with a DC power supply or battery to establish a benchmark, as this type meter will not integrate easily into Brad's setup on the 400 Hz side of the motor and MOT / spark gap setup. But if you use it to monitor the input to a DC motor driving the multi-pole motor it may work, but there will be many losses in the overall system to vet.

How have you decided to use the Watt meter you have chosen?

Regards, ION

Dear ION.

Now we have established a benchmark, that I can understand,   ;) Then yes, I will initially be trying to use a DC source.

I spent many months with the Dave Lawton dual pulse train circuit but never saw anything out of the ordinary. Those wattmeter's are rated at 3 Kw continuous with a 6 Kw low duty cycle, way beyond our 120 Watt benchmark.

Just have to wait now, with Christmas looming nearer our postal service gets overwhelmed !!

Kind regards, Graham.

 author=PhysicsProf link=topic=3371.msg58449#msg58449 date=1480515944]

QuoteYES - correct.

Well after all these year's,and countless HHO guy's out there insisting that the limit to reach was an MMW of 9.28,this is good new's.  O0

QuoteGraham: "I take it that a simple displacement exercise would suffice? Like filling a 2 Litre pop ( soda ) bottle with water and timing the displacement  event?"

Although this is the way i will be doing it,i have a beef with this method.
As the weight of the bottle increases as it is rising out of the water,the pressure of the gas inside the bottle also rises,and so we are no longer measuring gas volume at 1 atmosphere.
I think a redesign is in order here,so as there is no pressure buildup in the displacement bottle.


Brad

someone I was speaking with today about this [measurement questions]
mentioned a 1liter bag/Box that some wines are delivered in and how they are exactly one liter ,"vacuum pump the bladder empty and connect the gas input"

could also be used for sending out to gas spectrometer analysis after filling ,
or kept as samples for post analysis comparisons ?

could get a bit Tipsy tho?
"Honey I'm goin down into the Lab to do some testing??
where's that  Box of wine ??"

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.11.30, 23:11:26
author=PhysicsProf link=topic=3371.msg58449#msg58449 date=1480515944]


Well after all these year's,and countless HHO guy's out there insisting that the limit to reach was an MMW of 9.28,this is good new's.  O0

Although this is the way i will be doing it,i have a beef with this method.
As the weight of the bottle increases as it is rising out of the water,the pressure of the gas inside the bottle also rises,and so we are no longer measuring gas volume at 1 atmosphere.
I think a redesign is in order here,so as there is no pressure buildup in the displacement bottle.


Brad

Hi Brad.

Did you have chickens on the farm? Think of the water feeder, the gas takes the place of the water, a small overflow pipe would ensure a constant level.

Just a thought....

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.01, 00:37:53
Hi Brad.

Did you have chickens on the farm? Think of the water feeder, the gas takes the place of the water, a small overflow pipe would ensure a constant level.

Just a thought....

Cheers Graham.

I think then we would have the opposite problem,where the gas would be in a vacuum state..

Im thinking a counter weight system,by way of pulleys and string,where the counter weight is just slightly less weight than the displacement  bottle.

Anyway,i am just about ready to carry out the direct current MMW calculations for the cell.
Once we have this bench mark,we can switch over to the HV system,and see what happens.

@Grum

Do you remember either Matt watts or wattsup (cant remember which one),shooting a video or two,using his microscope to view the hho bubbles ?.
If memeroy serves correct,i think it was in my thread-the in's and out's of HHO--or maybe -HHO-the good ,the bad,and ugly.
I seem to remember a problem with some of the gases recombining,and turning back to water,before the bubbles had a chance to reach the surface.
@all-Steve-Mike
Can the hho gases recombine,and turn back to water in the hho cell?.

Brad

Hi Brad

Yes it can reform and does. Highly active O and H atoms are just that, highly active.

Replying on my phone, will give a longer explination later

Regards

MikeB-)

I find this is good

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html

Note about over potencial

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.12.01, 08:11:09
Hi Brad

Yes it can reform and does. Highly active O and H atoms are just that, highly active.

Replying on my phone, will give a longer explination later

Regards

MikeB-)

Hi Mike.

Ok,so now i am home on my PC,i have found the thread i was looking for.

It was this one
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2641.0

It was wattsup that did the microscope video on HHO production,and it was he that said that some of the gas was recombining back to water.
Your reply to that was-Quote reply 13 in that thread: H2 and O2 gas only recombine into water if you apply energy "such as burning it, but not the only way".

So,are you now saying that some of the H and O gas can recombine back to water in the cell it self?
If so,1-how much gas(a percentage)in a dry cell such as mine,would recombine back to water?.
2- Dose this recombination return the electrical energy back to the cell,or is it transformed into heat?.

I am wondering how much electrical energy is actually lost to this recombining of gasses.
If we could stop this recombination,we would gain in gas output from the cell,for a smaller amount of power.


Brad

This paper is also good, note INTA in Spain did a test system for solar to hydrogen storage, it is not the way to go, and I am in contact with them, but like all buracratic government bodies it is like milking a bull.

http://www.cres.gr/kape/publications/papers/dimosieyseis/ydrogen/A%20REVIEW%20ON%20WATER%20ELECTROLYSIS.pdf

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.12.01, 09:57:18
Hi Mike.

Ok,so now i am home on my PC,i have found the thread i was looking for.

It was this one
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2641.0

It was wattsup that did the microscope video on HHO production,and it was he that said that some of the gas was recombining back to water.
Your reply to that was-Quote reply 13 in that thread: H2 and O2 gas only recombine into water if you apply energy "such as burning it, but not the only way".

So,are you now saying that some of the H and O gas can recombine back to water in the cell it self?
If so,1-how much gas(a percentage)in a dry cell such as mine,would recombine back to water?.
2- Dose this recombination return the electrical energy back to the cell,or is it transformed into heat?.

I am wondering how much electrical energy is actually lost to this recombining of gasses.
If we could stop this recombination,we would gain in gas output from the cell,for a smaller amount of power.


Brad

Yes in the cell, and energy is given up in doing so. Now the million dollar question! can we recover that energy? well through all my experiments there is an overall loss through the two way reaction Losses in the circuit or to heat.

Stopping the recombination would give a gain, will explain later after lunch here :)

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.12.01, 04:21:41
I think then we would have the opposite problem,where the gas would be in a vacuum state..

Brad

Hi Brad.

Yes indeed, the Torricellian vacuum. It equates to, negatively the atmospheric pressure.

Would it matter? ..... Open question to the Science boffins.

I'm pretty sure Mike mentioned a partial vacuum improves efficiency with some cells.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.01, 13:48:16
Hi Brad.

Yes indeed, the Torricellian vacuum. It equates to, negatively the atmospheric pressure.

Would it matter? ..... Open question to the Science boffins.

I'm pretty sure Mike mentioned a partial vacuum improves efficiency with some cells.

Cheers Graham.

Well,the vacuum would level off to atmospheric pressure once the water level in the displacement tube equaled that of the water level in the reservoir.

Second thing to remember,is that the cell would be under a slight vacuum ,when hooked to the engine.


Brad

Perhaps another method?

How much water is consumed to make a Litre of gas? You could measure the supply container?

I'm sure we'll work something out together.

Cheers Graham.

Brad, I thought this was interesting...a quote from Smokey Dawson:


"Please note that there is an extension to a spark gap in a plasma gap and this is called by Chernetsky and Frolov as a 'Self Generating Discharge' and which I also term as 'Impulse Discharge' as I also unwittingly stumbled across the same phenomena.
The key here is to have the capacitor across the secondary winding and with using a Bridge Rectifier for DC into oil filled capacitors, you will see a 1/3 drop in consumed power from the supply but the caps continue to charge.
This is a Don Smith variant and eliminates the maintenance problem with the gap as no spark is seen.
I use Carbon electrodes (from 'D' Cell alkaline batteries) and the capacitor across the secondary is a string of 10 x 100pF high voltage ceramics which gives about 20pF total.
Have just received new ultrafast diodes for this circuit in 2CL2FM 20kv 100nS 100mA and will be experimenting when time permits.
Currently using HVM12 microwave diodes and not at all fast enough for this organisation.
The driver for this is Bruce's Ion Pulser from Bob Ianinni through a Flyback and this works well as you have variable control over the frequency range to suit your specific requirements.

My criteria for an 'Energy Synthesis' device eliminated a spark at the gap and this is how it was achieved as the goal was to reduce maintenance as much as possible.
This is no different to what Tesla was attempting with his magnets across the gap but he was attempting to eliminate the spark as soon as possible and the plasma event is a step forward on this particular device"

Ron.

Quote from: ronee on 2016.12.01, 15:49:52

Brad, I thought this was interesting...a quote from Smokey Dawson:


"Please note that there is an extension to a spark gap in a plasma gap and this is called by Chernetsky and Frolov as a 'Self Generating Discharge' and which I also term as 'Impulse Discharge' as I also unwittingly stumbled across the same phenomena.
The key here is to have the capacitor across the secondary winding and with using a Bridge Rectifier for DC into oil filled capacitors, you will see a 1/3 drop in consumed power from the supply but the caps continue to charge.
This is a Don Smith variant and eliminates the maintenance problem with the gap as no spark is seen.
I use Carbon electrodes (from 'D' Cell alkaline batteries) and the capacitor across the secondary is a string of 10 x 100pF high voltage ceramics which gives about 20pF total.
Have just received new ultrafast diodes for this circuit in 2CL2FM 20kv 100nS 100mA and will be experimenting when time permits.
Currently using HVM12 microwave diodes and not at all fast enough for this organisation.
The driver for this is Bruce's Ion Pulser from Bob Ianinni through a Flyback and this works well as you have variable control over the frequency range to suit your specific requirements.

My criteria for an 'Energy Synthesis' device eliminated a spark at the gap and this is how it was achieved as the goal was to reduce maintenance as much as possible.
This is no different to what Tesla was attempting with his magnets across the gap but he was attempting to eliminate the spark as soon as possible and the plasma event is a step forward on this particular device"

Ron.

Good day All

I believe this is the device  about which Ronee speaks:

take care, peace
lost_bro

EDIT:  there exist a dissimilarity in as much as the posted diagram only has ONE capacitor and half-wave rectification not full-wave.

And.... in relation to Brad's concept, the load in the shown diagram is on the Secondary side not on the Primary as Brad's.

Would like to see the diagram for your qoute Ronee if you can dig one up.  ;)

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.01, 14:47:48
Perhaps another method?

hhop gen 1 was powered by a variety of DC sources and used standard Faraday electrolysis with added electrolytes to increase the gas production rate. The gas collected at the top of the chamber and displaced the water below it (more dense). This was because there is an increase of pressure in that bit of space and it wants to equalise with the atmospheric pressure acting on the vertical outlet tube, plus the weight of the column of water.

When the liquid began to flow along the pressure gradient bubbles of hho that would otherwise rise vertically, would be entrained in the flow. They would be different volumes (sizes) and would continue to rise until they reached the boundary layer (being bubbles of lower density space).

Reasonably frequently a bubble would pop causing a relative vacuum at negative pressure, creating a pressure gradient and the water would fill the vacuum, at a very fast rate (looks instantaneous), and create a shockwave ripple. Sometimes if another bubble was close enough it would trigger a recombination and another bubble would go off. This is a significant rate of recombination in a quite slow flow..

However, those that have seen the snapvalve video (now deleted) know that you can build pressure steadily with a relatively low DC input energy over a long period of time. The gas ejected from the snapvalve at triggering pressure certainly did not combust (no flame) but it may have recombined into water vapour moving at high velocity with a large acceleration vector.

The hhop gen 2 had a bypass tube fitted that delivered the gas directly to the displacement chamber. It pumped at a rate that was relative to the DC energy input and seeks to equalise with atmospheric pressure. Pumping like this with the outlet tube level with the top of the displacement chamber will give you a measurement. You could do this with yours and measure the liquid pumped over a specific time at a known DC input.

@TinMan

Just to advance maybe somewhere, if you can make your whole stack to be influenced by a variable physical vibration while checking your production with and without, it may be a good avenue. Could say more but that sums it up for now.

wattsup

Quote from: wattsup on 2016.12.01, 23:03:36
@TinMan

Just to advance maybe somewhere, if you can make your whole stack to be influenced by a variable physical vibration while checking your production with and without, it may be a good avenue. Could say more but that sums it up for now.

wattsup

Ah-there you are.

Funny you should mention vibrating the cell,as i did that last nigh on a small 2 plate cell.

My Samsung S7 has a good magnifier as one of it's  features,and allows for a really close look at the cell-not quite as good as your microscope,but not bad at all.
It would seem that about 1/2 of the cell plate area becomes covered in bubbles. Using a small CD motor,with an offsetc
weight on the shaft, and placed on just the lid of  the wet cell,i could get most of the bubbles off the plates.
This resulted in a higher continuous current draw-as it would,and also a larger gas production-as it would.

The thing i noticed most was-only the large bubbles would stick to the plates,and the small bubbles would rise to the surface-on both the anode and cathode.

Now,are you able to break out the microscope again,and see if you can get a good shot of the bubbles of gas reforming back to water. I do remember seeing in your other videos,some of the bubbles just disappearing.
A high res video would be good,as then we could slow the playback down,and have a guess at the reformation rate.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.12.02, 04:22:52
Ah-there you are.

Funny you should mention vibrating the cell,as i did that last nigh on a small 2 plate cell.

My Samsung S7 has a good magnifier as one of it's  features,and allows for a really close look at the cell-not quite as good as your microscope,but not bad at all.
It would seem that about 1/2 of the cell plate area becomes covered in bubbles. Using a small CD motor,with an offsetc
weight on the shaft, and placed on just the lid of  the wet cell,i could get most of the bubbles off the plates.
This resulted in a higher continuous current draw-as it would,and also a larger gas production-as it would.

The thing i noticed most was-only the large bubbles would stick to the plates,and the small bubbles would rise to the surface-on both the anode and cathode.

Now,are you able to break out the microscope again,and see if you can get a good shot of the bubbles of gas reforming back to water. I do remember seeing in your other videos,some of the bubbles just disappearing.
A high res video would be good,as then we could slow the playback down,and have a guess at the reformation rate.


Brad

It is more likely that you are seeing steam/watervapor bubbles condensing back to liquid water. Steam/vapor can be produced in an electrolysis cell due to very local heating without causing the bulk water temperature to rise significantly, and many a researcher has been fooled by "wet" gas emission from their cells. The volume of steam at STP is 1600 times the volume of the water that boiled to create it, iirc.

I'll leave it to the chemists amongst us to calculate the energy released by "reforming" o2 and h2 back to water (burning, essentially) as compared to the energy released by steam condensing back to water.

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.12.02, 08:34:25
It is more likely that you are seeing steam/watervapor bubbles condensing back to liquid water. Steam/vapor can be produced in an electrolysis cell due to very local heating without causing the bulk water temperature to rise significantly, and many a researcher has been fooled by "wet" gas emission from their cells. The volume of steam at STP is 1600 times the volume of the water that boiled to create it, iirc.

I'll leave it to the chemists amongst us to calculate the energy released by "reforming" o2 and h2 back to water (burning, essentially) as compared to the energy released by steam condensing back to water.

Watch this video(in full screen) wattsup made,using his microscope. There simply was not enough energy to create steam,as he was only using his SG to drive the cell. Here you can clearly see the hydrogen bubbles migrating to the anode,and then just vanish.
Odd how all the bubbles seem to be donuts  ???

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

Mike also posted a paper a couple of posts back,that talk about the reformation of gas back to water within an electrolysis cell.


Brad

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.12.02, 08:34:25
It is more likely that you are seeing steam/watervapor bubbles condensing back to liquid water. Steam/vapor can be produced in an electrolysis cell due to very local heating without causing the bulk water temperature to rise significantly, and many a researcher has been fooled by "wet" gas emission from their cells. The volume of steam at STP is 1600 times the volume of the water that boiled to create it, iirc.

I'll leave it to the chemists amongst us to calculate the energy released by "reforming" o2 and h2 back to water (burning, essentially) as compared to the energy released by steam condensing back to water.

I don't think you need to buy the paper, enough is covered in the first page.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022072896049728

The energy given up by the recombination H & O,  is given up as heat. There is a lot of energy created by creating the H2O molecule, Re: your fuel cell.

Of all the work I have done on water splitting over many many years, the main part of the heat comes from this recombination energy. The eureka moment came when this was understood, and that you have to block this return reaction so as to leave a usable fuel, a hydrogen fuel, either H is reacted with a another atom robing the oxygen of reacting, or the O is reacted with another atom to leave the H behind on it's own.

Without doing this you are flogging a dead horse, as I found a long time ago, you will never go over Faraday, so think which is needed, the H or the O, the H of course so do something with the O, and if in doing so you can create energy as well!!!! you become way over Faraday and have a clean hydrogen.

Your clean hydrogen is then reacted with CO2 (so exothermic that you can generate excess power from the 300c+ heat, to feed back to the electrolysis cell), product is CH4+H2O with no storage or transport problems, what more can humanity want.

I have already shown how it is done, now it needs to be made commercial, the trick is in the electrolysis giving cheap hydrogen, not HHO. The Oxygen is the control in same cell electrolysis.

Regards

Mike 8)

PS. the oxygen not only oxidises the hydrogen, it also forms O3 which then after a few minutes returns to O2

Hello All.

Ok..... might be a daft question, but here goes.

A standard 12 V automotive battery is a dry cell design. What's the reason why we can't use it as an electrolysis cell?

Answers on the back of a postcard please......  :)

Cheers Graham.

Hi Mike.

So..... the Sabatier reactor...... converts Hydrogen and Carbondioxide into Methane CH 4.

This is a universal fuel, easy to handle and store, will fuel an IC engine.

Enough said, perhaps another thread.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.02, 13:10:33
Hello All.

Ok..... might be a daft question, but here goes.

A standard 12 V automotive battery is a dry cell design. What's the reason why we can't use it as an electrolysis cell?

Answers on the back of a postcard please......  :)

Cheers Graham.

First up-the standard 12 volt automotive battery is a wet cell design-not a dry cell.
The automotive battery is a flooded cell battery,where all of the plate surfaces are covered in an electrolyte-even though each of the 6 cells in the battery are liquid isolated from each other. So you basically have 6 of 2 plate wet cells in series.

Second-the automotive battery is designed to store the energy given within the cell material,and not dissipate the energy into the production of HHO gas-although some hydrogen gas is given off during charging.


Brad

Thanks Brad.

You will have to elaborate on this wet/dry cell description. I assumed that a dry cell was self contained whereas a wet cells plates were suspended in the electrolyte?

Is each second plate connected in parallel to the supply? Like an old fashioned variable capacitor?

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.12.02, 11:59:27
I don't think you need to buy the paper, enough is covered in the first page.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022072896049728

The energy given up by the recombination H & O,  is given up as heat. There is a lot of energy created by creating the H2O molecule, Re: your fuel cell.

Of all the work I have done on water splitting over many many years, the main part of the heat comes from this recombination energy. The eureka moment came when this was understood, and that you have to block this return reaction so as to leave a usable fuel, a hydrogen fuel, either H is reacted with a another atom robing the oxygen of reacting, or the O is reacted with another atom to leave the H behind on it's own.

Without doing this you are flogging a dead horse, as I found a long time ago, you will never go over Faraday, so think which is needed, the H or the O, the H of course so do something with the O, and if in doing so you can create energy as well!!!! you become way over Faraday and have a clean hydrogen.

Your clean hydrogen is then reacted with CO2 (so exothermic that you can generate excess power from the 300c+ heat, to feed back to the electrolysis cell), product is CH4+H2O with no storage or transport problems, what more can humanity want.

I have already shown how it is done, now it needs to be made commercial, the trick is in the electrolysis giving cheap hydrogen, not HHO. The Oxygen is the control in same cell electrolysis.

Regards

Mike 8)

PS. the oxygen not only oxidises the hydrogen, it also forms O3 which then after a few minutes returns to O2

OK,now we are getting some where.

So,we agree that the heat produced during the electrolysis process in the HHO cell,is a combination of both ohmic heat,and also the recombination of H and O back to water.

Now Mike,i want you to think about this.
Lets say we are sending a half wave rectified DC current through the cell. This would show as a DC current that has an AC wave form across the top of it.
Near the peak of this wave form,we send a high voltage pulse through the cell. This pulse shows as a rapid rise,and then a rapid fall that leads to a reverse voltage across the cell,for a very brief time period through the wave form.
What do you suppose would then happen to this recombination of the H and O gas back to water?.

So to run through the term of events during one wave cycle on our DC current.
The wave starts to rise(a rise in voltage across the cell,and a rise in current through the cell)
As the wave is rising,we get the hydrogen gas migrating toward the anode,and recombining with the oxygen. Granted that this amount of gas that recombines is not all that is produced by the cell,but rather an undetermined amount-but it dose happen.
When this wave nears it's peak amplitude,a very sharp and high potential is sent across the cell. This sharp pulse reaches a peak far greater than the maximum amplitude of the DC voltage and current produced by the peak of the wave form. This high potential across the cell reverses once it reaches it's peak amplitude,and drops to a negative value for a very brief period of time through our DC wave form.
So now we have a situation where for a very brief period of time, the voltage across the cell is reversed,and this high potential reversal is at the point where the hydrogen is trying to migrate to the anode,to recombine with the oxygen--which at the same time,the oxygen is trying to migrate to the cathode.

What do you suppose might happen in that circumstance?.

The other thing that must be taken into account here is-Faradays limit must include this migration and recombination of H and O to water.
We can also then come to understand that if this recombination is eliminated,then Faradays limit can be broken,as it is now excluded from that limit.


Brad

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.02, 14:01:51
Thanks Brad.

You will have to elaborate on this wet/dry cell description. I assumed that a dry cell was self contained whereas a wet cells plates were suspended in the electrolyte?

Is each second plate connected in parallel to the supply? Like an old fashioned variable capacitor?

Cheers Graham.

An automotive battery-commonly a flooded cell battery,has the whole of the plates submersed in the electrolyte.
The same is try for a HHO wet cell,where all of the plates are submersed in the electrolyte.

A HHO dry cell has only the flat surfaces in contact with the electrolyte,so as the electrolyte dose not come in contact with any of the cut surfaces of the cell plates.
The reason for this is,all cut plate edges in contact with the electrolyte, are current leakage points.
So rather than the current having to travel through the cell plates,it shortcuts to the edges of the next plate,through the electrolyte it self. Current that travels through the electrolyte,dose not produce gas,as the gas is produced at the junction between the electrolyte,and the cell plate.
This video dose a good job at explaining the difference between a wet cell,and a dry cell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQOxWXRsLB4&t=192s


Brad

For one way to preclude recombination - see attached:

Hi Brad

First off I'm not trying to hijack your thread :) just that I'm frustrated about all the business of water splitting, too many years and seen it all since 1989 to present date.

Quote:
The other thing that must be taken into account here is-Faradays limit must include this migration and recombination of H and O to water.
We can also then come to understand that if this recombination is eliminated,then Faradays limit can be broken,as it is now excluded from that limit.
Unquote:

You hit the nail on the head, Faradays limit includes this, it's like a BEMF but in liquid to gas to liquid ;) so here we can call it BTLF (back to liquid force).

I want to be constructive and not distructive, your ideas are good, but how are you going to stop that BTLF? or if not stop it, get a good energy gain from the recombination? problem is that not only the oxygen goes back to water, so does the hydrogen and therefore leaving you with less hydrogen output.

The energy maths will never give you a gain with water to gas and gas to water, you have to change the chemical reaction by introducing other molecules or atoms of those molecules.

Now I like to think that over the years scientists did not see the wood for the trees :D or the only other thing would be that it was not interesting >:(

Brad, let me think on what you explained before I give an answer, but I think it is in vain after what I have explained.

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.12.02, 14:36:36
For one way to preclude recombination - see attached:

Yes, but no volume

Regards

Mike 8)

@TinMan

Hydrogen production has been around for years but not many look into it in the sense of energy input versus energy output to reach overunity levels. Companies just push the energy required and receive the hydrogen produced and the buck stops there. To attack the problem from an OUers standpoint, where you want more energy out of the system then what is put in, then there needs to be an evolution of methods that totally involves research into the most direct and efficient method of H production.

If you look at my Hydrogen 2 video located here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjbGTjE0i7o

at around 4:20 where you can see the Hydrogen shooting off the metal surface (this is one of my 6 given SC attributes to the atom - Shoot) which is the same as if you struck two battery leads together to make sparks shoot out, the same is happening in water with the hydrogen atoms are just shooting off the metal surface. The thing about hydrogen atoms shooting off and away from the cell surface is that they have some inertia and can bump into released oxygen atoms and reform into water again. When you consider the trails that are made behind that shooting atom, in water, and compare it to a bullet being shot in a pool, you can appreciate the amount of power being exerted on the atom and that power as inertia can be enough to have it collide and recombine with other atoms.

Like everything, like pulsing a coil, each atom will either be responsive, neutral to, or counter-responsive to the pulse and when you add all this up, you finally get an output which is basically the "remainder" force but not before the great fight inside the wire atoms, some favoring the pulse, some "resisting the pulse" you get output. Same is happening inside the H cell. Some H atoms manage to become free and remain free, some are shot back towards O atoms and recombine. You are saying there is an energy release, but there needs no energy release. The energy you put to split the H2O either is now held by the two distinct atoms or when they recombine, their energy now recombines as well but I do not think there is a "release". The heat you talk about is just water atoms moving faster near the surface of the cell. It is not an energy release just the result of atomic friction. The friction is a side effect of the total process.

But besides all this the greatest hindrance to H production is the topology used to produce it. Just know that whatever you build HHO stacks or even simple or fancy copper coils, you will also build into it all the known and not yet known checkmates. Stacks can have dead zones, water flow can produce channeling, air bubbles stick and block surface contact/reaction, voltage may not be optimally set, maybe 20% more amperage can produce 40% more gas, vibrated cells versus static cells, I can go on and on. Voltage/Amperage/topology/method are all elastics that need to be stretched to their best positions to make it all work in unison. That and maybe surface finishing. Just pulsing a stack and making gas won't cut it. Fancy or brute force pulsing methods will make up for some lack of topology but never overflow as OU.

Yes gases will recombine so the main task is to produce and remove it from the stack as fast as possible so there is no time to recombine. So you ask yourself, the bubble produced at the bottom of your plates has to go where to exit the stack? If the time for each bubble to exit the stack is not the same and very slow, it will always look to recombine. You can't see it from the macro but you can somewhat from the micro in my videos but i cannot go any closer since I was at my instruments limits. I'd need a much better microscope. I was hoping that if a University student saw my video this could push some to do this with much better instruments then what I have on hand.

In water treatment we calculate resident time for reaction chambers. If you could calculate the actual total water volume in your stack and divide that by your flow rate, it will give you a resident time or contact time. The problem is the contact time is not the same for every hydrogen atom produced since some will need to travel longer distances to exit the stack. 

Side Example: I think that if you could find let's say 100 coping saw blades held side by side to make one plate mounted vertically where the saw teeth alternate so the first tooth points left and the next points right thus alternating all with their teeth slopes pointing upwards, slight vibration and proper voltage and amperage will produce a ton of gas. The bubbles would be building on the tips and pushed off and away by the next one while the main body of the plate is held at the base of each tooth further away from the forming bubble. Sounds crazy but you need to get down to the atomic level and work out the topology there. That's one of the reasons I made those gas videos so we can see the action occurring even though this is far from the atom level itself. Or alternate the blades but all on the same side so only one face has all the teeth then just dunk that horizontally in a container with the teeth facing up in just 1 inch of water, hahaha. Each bubble will now be produced and exit right away.

Just trying to push you from sitting at a standard desk to a standing bar as a creative approach being more aware of the factors causing the effect.

OK, imagine you had the tech to produce a plate with trillions of pins raised only 5 or 6 atoms and spread 5-6 atoms apart, what type of surface this would make to produce gas. What did I show in the videos? What is a gas bubble but a missile rising up on a launchpad. If your missile launchpad was straight on the ground (smooth surface plate), how will it launch? If it was on a raised surface, how will it launch? Get it? If guys cannot answer these, then water fuel is a long way off before it becomes, I'll say "fully efficient" instead of saying OU. You have to understand at the atomic level and no excuses with miracle electrons, this is all purely premeditated evolution like the skin on our body needed to evolve to this day, we need to evolve our atomic physical with atomic and physically compatible surfaces better suited for producing the target element. Maybe this will sink in with our new university students who will have less of a history to combat.

Last point is this. If you want to work in hydrogen production, then you need to start from scratch. You make a small scale baseline system where you can experiment with different metals, different surface finishes, topologies and parameters. I was using titanium meshed plates coated with ruthium that I had made for and shipped from China. Very expensive but I was originally doing this first for studies in electo-coagulation of water contaminants and the titanium offered a minimum 50 years service life. Each little discovery will add to the next and eventually you develop enough empirical data to now start system building and testing. There is no other way. The chances of building one device the first time and getting everything right is like simultaneously winning four lotteries with the same 6 numbers. There needs to be a real serious commitment because the investment is not only the money but the life that passes us while we spend it on our benches.

If you want I can add some more perspective on voltage and amperage that play the pivotal role in all our effects and maybe this will give you some more angles of consideration. Angles leading out of the box that is. Things like how does the applied power translate on the surface of a plate, versus in a wire? If we could actually see the atoms respond, we would know that life is not only for the breathing. Them little critters react to stimulus as if they were alive, they exchange with others as if they were making deals, they are blocked by others as if they were confined in prison, they make them shoot as if going to war, there is this whole world in there that we are just oblivious to. Each copper wire or metal plate has zillions of atoms all waiting to be asked to dance.

OK, last thing that may be the most  important. How to keep the H and O from remating. These two videos offer a great clue on how to keep the oxygen from recombining. We can talk more about this later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcGEev8qulA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt4P6ctf06Q

wattsup

PS: Sorry for long post. Sorry if I am off topic.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.12.02, 14:54:16
Yes, but no volume

Regards

Mike 8)

Dear Centraflow,

Would not a gas seperating dry cell work for this problem, the O can be vented and only the H used? Maybe the H then be combined with CO2? Maybe the O added back after the CO2?

Dear wattsup.

If I remember correctly Les Banki made much about the surface preparation of the cell plates. I'm pretty sure he suggested a sort of cross hatch using a coarse abrasive. Didn't Alex try sandblasting and ruin his whole batch?

How's he doing, by the way?

I have been researching electroplating, it seems that both Nickel and Iron can be done, fairly easily in the home environment. I might try your idea of saw blades, or how about an " Abra file " blade, can you call it a blade? What about plating a coarse engineers file?

Plenty to think about.....

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.12.02, 14:54:16
Yes, but no volume

Regards

Mike 8)

Not sure what you mean by "but no volume", Mike.

Each gas is collected in a graduated cylinder - so we measure the volume of evolved H2 and O2 separately.
We can then determine whether the ratio of hydrogen gas to oxygen is 2:1, as expected - among other things.  So yes, this is a volumetric measurement.
Measuring the total amount of water consumed in the process can be done by weighing the water before and after - not trivial, but doable.  Finally, one measures the energy input during electrolysis. 

@PhysicsProf

Those riser tubes would have to be perforated so the conductivity could be felt between both anode and cathode.

@Grumage

Yes, I looked up my directory on Les Banki. I had prepared some system alternatives for him at that time and will put those drawings here as well.

The floating plates would simply lay on the water surface. The plates would be made of meshed plate. The floating aspect would cause natural movement of the plates that could equal the effect of plate vibration. 

The other two are self-explanatory with the idea off getting the gas out of solution as fast as possible.

You basically have to put yourself inside that plate stack and follow the travel of a gas bubble. How far does it have to travel to escape? If it has to pass from the first plate to the last plate in succession, that is not a good thing. If it has to escape with bottom bubbles having to rise though the height of the stack, that is also not too good. I think Mother Nature gave us the greatest clue. Bubbles rise in liquids, for bubbles to be produced and rise all at the same contact time, then the horizontal topology would be the best choice. The alternative for a vertical stack would be to have horizontal channels at every X inches height on the plates that push the bubbles to the left or right of the plate to riser channels that can expel the gas without having to rise to the top. But again these are all calls for more R&D before even building the first test unit. It's easier to work out with two plates then with a whole stack at R&D stages.

In our water treatment industry there are a few systems that may help get a better clue on how to proceed with the pulsing. There is one apparatus called Electro-deionisation (EDI) systems that use membrane stacks that are semi-permeable with an Anode and Cathode at their ends. This pulls ions from one stream across the membranes to a concentrate stream so one stream is high in ions (concentrate) and one is very low in ions (permeate). During the years of advancement it was found that if the pulses could be reversed, this prevented ions from "sticking" and "clogging" the openings in those membranes so we now have Reversed EDI. Now the same may be applicable to the pulsing of the gas stacks. Maybe the reversal will keep bubbles off the plate surface, also reset the surface atoms to the complete opposite polarity while the new polarity then creates a more pronounced change in the plate atoms that then push the hydrogen to split at even higher levels. Don't know but the base logic is sound. I have sold several of these units, one big one (explosion proof because these units also produce hydrogen off-gas) to a dynamite water cutting factory in Quebec whose water would continuously block their very expensive cutting nozzles.

wattsup

PS: I just added what i have on Les to my ftp site located here:
http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/les-banki/

Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.12.02, 17:49:22
Dear Centraflow,

Would not a gas separating dry cell work for this problem, the O can be vented and only the H used? Maybe the H then be combined with CO2? Maybe the O added back after the CO2?

To All,
Maybe no one knows about the gas separating dry cells that were open sourced about 4 or 5 years ago, I designed (or invented) a gas separating dry cell that works with as much efficiency as a normal dry cell. (not over Faraday) but produces just as much gas as a normal cell and separates it.  Just a couple weeks before I was going to release it open source another experimenter released almost an identical design to mine open source, so I backed out completely, then gas prices plummeted and I shelved all my gas research.  If this is not known to most of you I can start another thread on it and give all the details.

Room

Dear Room3327.

YES PLEASE!

Anything associated with HHO production will be of interest.

I have a pet hate.... Fracking..... If we as a group can show a viable method of gas production that could stop this environmentally devastating method, I'm all ears and eyes.

Think about solar, we now have excess energy generated during the day which by using a Sabatier reactor could convert the Hydrogen into Methane and be ready for use at night. Oh and if sea water was used we could extract the dissolved CO2 ...... All very environmentally friendly.  :)

Again, please open source.

Kind regards Graham.

Quote from: Room3327 on 2016.12.03, 15:37:22
To All,
Maybe no one knows about the gas separating dry cells that were open sourced about 4 or 5 years ago, I designed (or invented) a gas separating dry cell that works with as much efficiency as a normal dry cell. (not over Faraday) but produces just as much gas as a normal cell and separates it.  Just a couple weeks before I was going to release it open source another experimenter released almost an identical design to mine open source, so I backed out completely, then gas prices plummeted and I shelved all my gas research.  If this is not known to most of you I can start another thread on it and give all the details.

Room

Sorry for delay, have my wifes grand daughter here this weekend and has turned the house upside down ;)

Yes there are gas separating cells, but you have missed the point, you throw away the O2 but it was part of the power consumption (a big part). I am talking of separating and using the O2 to generate power.

If you look at the split of power on the electrodes, the anode (oxygen electrode) gives up 4 electrons to produce that gas and the cathode (hydrogen electrode) gives up 2 electrons, in total 6 electrons. This is in reverse of what you may think when evolved are 2 molecules of H to one of O.

Cathode (reduction): 2 H2O(l) + 2e− → H2(g) + 2 OH−(aq)
Anode (oxidation): 4 OH−(aq) → O2(g) + 2 H2O(l) + 4 e−
Combining either half reaction pair yields the same overall decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen:

Overall reaction: 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g)

The number of hydrogen molecules produced is thus twice the number of oxygen molecules. Assuming equal temperature and pressure for both gases, the produced hydrogen gas has therefore twice the volume of the produced oxygen gas. The number of electrons pushed through the water is twice the number of generated hydrogen molecules and four times the number of generated oxygen molecules.

So it is important that we can reuse those electrons, not as an oxidiser for burning, but to store it in the anode as a metal oxide and dump the energy into the power input, SMD does this in series with the 33% extra needed to get back to the original power input (theoretical), in practice you need to tune that extra input with the cycling of charge to discharge of your collection store.

Regards

Mike 8)

Quote from: Grumage on 2016.12.03, 16:18:11
Dear Room3327.

YES PLEASE!

Anything associated with HHO production will be of interest.

I have a pet hate.... Fracking..... If we as a group can show a viable method of gas production that could stop this environmentally devastating method, I'm all ears and eyes.

Think about solar, we now have excess energy generated during the day which by using a Sabatier reactor could convert the Hydrogen into Methane and be ready for use at night. Oh and if sea water was used we could extract the dissolved CO2 ...... All very environmentally friendly.  :)

Again, please open source.

Kind regards Graham.

Dear Graham,
OK I will start a new thread for the 'Gas Separating Electrolysis Dry Cell' I thought everyone new about it, but I should realize by now there is so much information on the internet  no one can keep up with it and things tend to get buried.  I will post pictures and all required information as soon as I can, this week anyway.

Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.12.03, 17:03:25
Sorry for delay, have my wifes grand daughter here this weekend and has turned the house upside down ;)

Yes there are gas separating cells, but you have missed the point, you throw away the O2 but it was part of the power consumption (a big part). I am talking of separating and using the O2 to generate power.

If you look at the split of power on the electrodes, the anode (oxygen electrode) gives up 4 electrons to produce that gas and the cathode (hydrogen electrode) gives up 2 electrons, in total 6 electrons. This is in reverse of what you may think when evolved are 2 molecules of H to one of O.

Cathode (reduction): 2 H2O(l) + 2e− → H2(g) + 2 OH−(aq)
Anode (oxidation): 4 OH−(aq) → O2(g) + 2 H2O(l) + 4 e−
Combining either half reaction pair yields the same overall decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen:

Overall reaction: 2 H2O(l) → 2 H2(g) + O2(g)

The number of hydrogen molecules produced is thus twice the number of oxygen molecules. Assuming equal temperature and pressure for both gases, the produced hydrogen gas has therefore twice the volume of the produced oxygen gas. The number of electrons pushed through the water is twice the number of generated hydrogen molecules and four times the number of generated oxygen molecules.

So it is important that we can reuse those electrons, not as an oxidizer for burning, but to store it in the anode as a metal oxide and dump the energy into the power input, SMD does this in series with the 33% extra needed to get back to the original power input (theoretical), in practice you need to tune that extra input with the cycling of charge to discharge of your collection store.

Regards

Mike 8)

Dear Mike,
I don't think I have missed any point,  I said you could vent the O, not that you had too.  This dry cell keeps the 2 gases separate and prevents any recombination back into water, that seems to be one of the big problems you are having.  With the gas separate you can do anything you want to with it, like combining it back together when burning or adding something like CO2 to one of the gasses and I'm sure many other things can be done.  One thing is new cars, when fed HHO the extra O  causes problems with the computer, it see's too much O and try's to compensate for it by adding more fuel.  If you only give it the H the computer understands and cuts back on the fuel instead of adding more.  I can see many uses for this cell, like producing oxygen from water for breathing etc. So thanks for the good information but I try not to miss any points.

Cheers Room

Quoteauthor=wattsup link=topic=3371.msg58539#msg58539 date=1480775142]
@PhysicsProf

Those riser tubes would have to be perforated so the conductivity could be felt between both anode and cathode.

No need to perforate the riser tubes!  See attached and note the red arrows added for clarification - the bottom of each tube is OPEN and underwater; this feature allows conductivity (of ions etc.) to permit operation of the cell, while still separating the H2 and O2. 

Further, the ratio of H2:02 by volume of gas evolved, is 2:1 for a normally operating cell.  I would suggest using a non-reactive metal for the O2 side, to prevent oxidation of the metal anode.

Well due to a bad situation,i did not get into the workshop today.

Had a bit of an emergency down at the boat,with the boat next to the bosses catching fire.

By the time the fire brigade got there,it was all to late.


Brad

Hi Brad.

It's ironic really...... All that water and yet the boat is lost to fire.

Good to read no one was injured, that's what matters !!

Kind regards, Graham.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.12.04, 02:49:09
Further, the ratio of H2:02 by volume of gas evolved, is 2:1 for a normally operating cell.  I would suggest using a non-reactive metal for the O2 side, to prevent oxidation of the metal anode.

The ratio of 2:1 is true, the volume of gas evolved is not. In order to be true the gas volume of Hydrogen and Oxygen at room temperature and atmospheric pressure must be of the same ratio, and they are not:

http://www.airproducts.com/products/Gases/gas-facts/conversion-formulas/weight-and-volume-equivalents/hydrogen.aspx

http://www.airproducts.com/products/Gases/gas-facts/conversion-formulas/weight-and-volume-equivalents/oxygen.aspx

Here is an excellent pdf on electrolysis, why are nearly all the scientists Chinese? well at least these are in your neck of the woods, Australia O0

Regards

Mike 8)

Ok,so after a couple of busy weeks,i mannaged to get into the workshop today,and complete the test bed.
Also have a base line of performance for the cell,using a steady and pulsed DC current,at low voltages.

No difference in output or MMW was noted using either pulsed or straight/continuous current at 50Hz
Voltage and current was measured by both DMMs and scope.
Some test result examples.
Remember,the voltage is across the cell,and not each neutral plate set.

14.45v @ 3.1amps= MMW of 5.58
15.4v @ 5.84amps= MMW of 5.38
15.6v @ 7.1amps= MMW of 5.24

Gas temperature remains at 26*C for all tests.

Interesting to note that the efficiency drops as the current value rises.

Video up within the next few days,as still have a bit of tidying up to do.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan
Interesting to note that the efficiency drops as the current value rises.

Excellent observation TinMan!  It does indeed.

Which raises the question: "If current is decreased will efficiency
increase even more?"

Do you recall when electrolyzers were a really "hot topic"
several years back and those who were "in the know"
would recommend a maximum current of approx. 100mA.
per square inch of plate area?

Quote from: muDped on 2016.12.11, 06:40:58
Excellent observation TinMan!  It does indeed.

Which raises the question: "If current is decreased will efficiency
increase even more?"

Do you recall when electrolyzers were a really "hot topic"
several years back and those who were "in the know"
would recommend a maximum current of approx. 100mA.
per square inch of plate area?

That is my claim-decrease current,and increase voltage, for better efficiency.

Even 100mA is far two much- per square inch of plate area.
We need to be down close to 10mA per square inch.


Brad

  I'm looking forward to your video, TinMan - thanks for keeping us up to date on your progress - Wow!

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.12.11, 09:53:57
That is my claim-decrease current,and increase voltage, for better efficiency.

Even 100mA is far two much- per square inch of plate area.
We need to be down close to 10mA per square inch.


Brad

Video not done yet-cant seem to get 20 minutes to my self ATM.
Very busy at work,and also family xmas stuff going on as well.

I also have some big new's,that is going to slow things down for a while.
We (my wife and myself) are moving into a new home. This is happening between the 6th and 10th of January.
But i have so much stuff here,that the cleanup starts now.

We have been looking for a place like this for a long time now,and today we received the good new's--the house is ours.
When you look at the pics,you will see why we are moving--note the size of one (yes, one of)the workshops--there are three in total,along with a small building off to the side,that will make an excellent lab.

I will do as much as time permit's,on the project ,before the shift.
Once we make the shift,there will be a delay in getting the internet/phone back up and running---very slow to get phones connected here in WA.

So,my apologies for any delays in the project,but this opportunity was to good to miss.


Brad

Wow Brad,  looking great.

You even got your own Zen corner for meditation when things get chaotic.


Congrats,   Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2016.12.13, 12:39:02
Wow Brad,  looking great.

You even got your own Zen corner for meditation when things get chaotic.


Congrats,   Itsu

Zen corner?. You mean the pizza oven ?

I have needed this big workshop for some time now,and now i can get things done.

Once the HHO system is complete,it will be getting installed into a small car.
I have already bought the vehicle it is to be installed into,and it's awaiting the fit out.

This project will be going all the way to the road.

I have also ordered the fuel consumption analyzer from my work place  O0


Brad

looks like Palace grounds !!

and the shop a dream come true !

O0

QuoteZen corner?. You mean the pizza oven ?

;D  the pizza oven is heavenly too,   no, i meant the place at the pool.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2016.12.13, 13:34:11

;D  the pizza oven is heavenly too,   no, i meant the place at the pool.

Itsu

Ah yes-the pool.  O0

Just to the left(out of picture frame),is a below ground spa as well--all heated.

Our daughter has already decided that she is having her wedding there--and we havnt even moved in yet lol.

The block size is 1 acre--so enough room to store lots of junk.  O0


Brad

  Congratulations, TinMan!  wow, what a place!

Quote from: TinMan on 2016.12.02, 13:31:39
First up-the standard 12 volt automotive battery is a wet cell design-not a dry cell.
The automotive battery is a flooded cell battery,where all of the plate surfaces are covered in an electrolyte-even though each of the 6 cells in the battery are liquid isolated from each other. So you basically have 6 of 2 plate wet cells in series.

Second-the automotive battery is designed to store the energy given within the cell material,and not dissipate the energy into the production of HHO gas-although some hydrogen gas is

Hi guy's.
Sorry it's been so long since my last post,but i have been flat out since xmas.

BTW-a late Merry Xmas to all-and happy new year.

As most of you know,we were doing a big shift to a new home.
Just finished moving the last of our stuff today--been at it for 5 days straight now.
Most everything is still in boxes ATM,and as you can see in the pic below,i have a lot of un-packing and sorting to do before the new workshop is up and running.

Anyway,i will be back at it as soon as i can,and will continue on where we left off with the HV HHO setup.

We have no phone or internet ATM,but should be up in a couple of weeks--slow here in Oz with new connections.
ATM i am using my mobile phone as a modem,but only for short post's,as it cost to much in way of data ,using the mobile as an internet connection.

@ Chet
I will PM you my new phone number as soon as i get it.


Brad

thread seems dormant for a long time . Anyway Brad you recall a video I posted regarding santilli ? This is from the same source. This seems the appropriate place for it even if it lies mouldering some one researching the topic might have use . I've taken it off DVD trascribed and uploaded so for your consideration

https://vimeo.com/254500375 (https://vimeo.com/254500375)

Hope the moving went well 
kind regards Duncan