Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency

Author Topic: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency (Read 9220 times)

Verpies	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #25 on: 2025-12-25, 10:37:42 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-12-25, 09:44:09 PDC Was ist das? Pulsierender Gleichstrom

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #26 on: 2025-12-29, 11:46:21 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

Hello, friends!

Unfortunately, I once noticed that Kanzius had something inserted into his test tubes—a piece of wire. It's unnoticeable, but visible—the flame isn't coming directly from the water, but from a stump rising above it.

Thus, it turns out that Kanzius's "salt water decomposition" is simply radiofrequency plasma.

It should be noted, however, that high-frequency Tesla coil makers noticed that when placing a small cotton ball soaked in salt water on the high-voltage terminal, the flame discharge not only becomes brighter but also longer.

The frequency isn't important; 13.56 MHz was chosen by Kanzius because it is the permitted frequency for industrial use of high-power radiofrequency equipment. However, the principle of defining permitted frequency ranges for industrial use is also significant. For this purpose, they select frequencies that are undesirable for use in professional radio communications due to high atmospheric absorption, including by water vapor.

Examples of devices that look similar to Kanzius's, but likely consume less power and are easy to replicate:
In all of these devices, the authors attach a small cotton ball soaked in a salt solution to the high-voltage terminal to increase the flame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVUcWeUFZ-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ke1vGW68E
Power consumption is no more than 100 watts, likely 50-60 watts.

Power is supplied direct from a 220-volt outlet through a 2x multiplier. A suitable RF-tube, a couple of radio components, and a coil are required.

Schematics and descriptions from the authors are here:
https://flyback-org-ru.translate.goog/viewtopic.php?t=7155&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en

The Western equivalent of the GU-29 vacuum tube is probably this tube: https://www.r-type.org/exhib/abm0001.htm
(a tube like this shouldn't be expensive, I wouldn't pay more than $10-20 for it in any case.)
When experimenting with such radio-emitting devices, beware of interference. It's advisable to experiment in a shielded room or at least in a basement.

« Last Edit: 2025-12-29, 12:27:01 by sergh »

Magluvin	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #27 on: 2025-12-29, 14:33:49 »
Group: Mad Scientist Hero Member Posts: 1105	sorry but that is not the same guy i was referring to. when i stated burning water, i was referencing an idea of what could be done in say a stan meyers case with such. this guy didnt have vids like shown above. he only made simple vid of some serious bubbling without electrodes. i have what i need to try it. ill see what i can do. mags « Last Edit: 2025-12-29, 16:03:01 by Magluvin »

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #28 on: 2025-12-30, 11:46:59 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-12-23, 20:51:25

used to be a guy at ou.com that was showing electrolysis with no contact of electrodes to the water. he said you need to mix sodium hydroxide, just a bit at a time, in pure water till it was saturated. meaning get to the point where the sodium hydroxide would no longer dissolve. he put it in a test tube and wound a coil of copper wire around the outside of the glass tube and injected pulses to the coil. he said that sodium hydroxide is a form of metal that acts like magnetically induced plates within the saturated solution and produced what he termed as profuse amounts of hydroxy gas. he ddnt stay on the forum long.

the advantages were that there was no electrodes in the water for input and the solution stayed clean.

had some vids on it then he just went away.....

mags

Sodium hydroxide is not a metal, but an alkali that corrodes the skin.

It can be used to prepare an electrolyte for ordinary electrolysis, which produces a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen unless measures are taken to separate the gases using a membrane or by separating the anode from the cathode in separate vessels. Hydroxide gas is not actually hydrogen; it's more likely a term for water vapor.

From a concentrated alkali solution, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, you can produce relatively pure hydrogen without any electricity at all, simply by adding aluminum foil or powder.

An external coil wound around a test tube can be used probably to heat the solution to speed up the reaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCB3rBivB4A

Quote from: Magluvin on 2025-12-23, 20:51:25

sodium hydroxide is a form of metal that acts like magnetically induced plates within the saturated solution and produced what he termed as profuse amounts of hydroxy gas.

Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties.
In a high-frequency, strong magnetic field, such a solution can, of course, heat up.

The induced electrodes thing might be interesting, of course.
The idea is to conduct electrolysis not between a metal or graphite anode and cathode, but between two layers of conductive liquid that touch but do not mix. However, the implementation is still unclear.

« Last Edit: 2025-12-30, 12:02:10 by sergh »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #29 on: 2025-12-30, 19:14:38 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Sodium hydroxide is not a metal, but an alkali that corrodes the skin.

Correct.
However an electrolysis of liquid Sodium Hydroxide will evolve Sodium (which is a conductive metal) and oxygen and water.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

It can be used to prepare an electrolyte for ordinary electrolysis,

Indeed. When dissolved in water, Sodium Hydroxide can aid in water electrolysis by rendering the water electrically conductive.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

...which produces a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen unless measures are taken to separate the gases using a membrane or by separating the anode from the cathode in separate vessels.

Correct

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Hydroxide gas is not actually hydrogen;

Correct, but water electrolysis does not generate free Hydroxide radicals.
Water electrolysis generates free molecular Hydrogen and Oxygen. Their mixture is electrically neutral and does not contain Hydroxide anions. This explosive mixture of gasses is commonly referred to as "HHO" and its chemical formula is 2H₂ + O₂

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

...it's more likely a term for water vapor.

It isn't. Water is not Hydroxide. Water is Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

From a concentrated alkali solution, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, you can produce relatively pure hydrogen without any electricity at all, simply by adding aluminum foil or powder.

Yes, however that is no longer an electrolysis but a chemical reaction.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

An external coil wound around a test tube can be used probably to heat the solution to speed up the reaction.

Yes, the chemical reaction between the alkali metals hydroxides and aluminum can be accelerated by temperature.
However, the increase of this temperature does not require a coil/inductor. Any resistive heater or flame will do.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties.

This is false.

The ²³Na in Sodium Hydroxide is 100% abundant and is quadrupolar with spin 3/2. It has a strong magnetic moment.
The ¹H in Sodium Hydroxide has a non-zero magnetic moment, too.
Sodium Hydroxide components exhibit EPR, too.

Last, but not least, Liquid Sodium Hydroxide or a solution of Sodium Hydroxide in water is conductive and responds to a varying magnetic flux just like any conductor.
When forming a closed electric circuit, it supports electric current induced by Faraday's Law of Induction through ionic conduction.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

In a high-frequency, strong magnetic field, such a solution can, of course, heat up.

Are you referring to:

1) Heating by:
a) high-frequency electric fields (dielectric heating) via the excitation of water's chemical bonds or molecular angular momentum (Debye process) ?
b) high-frequency magnetic fields via the excitation of Sodium or Hydrogen nuclei and their subsequent spin-lattice relaxation (T1) ?

3) Joule heating (i²R ) of the liquid NaOH or the NaOH dissolved in water, with the macroscopic electric current induced in it by the varying magnetic flux ?

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

The idea is to conduct electrolysis not between a metal or graphite anode and cathode, but between two layers of conductive liquid that touch but do not mix.

What are the two non-mixed layered conductive liquids that you refer to ?

chief kolbacict	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #30 on: 2025-12-31, 07:00:48 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	Will the three-phase rotating field created by the external coils create a semblance of direct current inside the electrolyte ? The rotation is always in one direction, and never in the other.

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #31 on: 2025-12-31, 08:17:37 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

Quote from: Verpies on 2025-12-30, 19:14:38

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59
Hydroxide gas is not actually hydrogen; ...it's more likely a term for water vapor.

Correct, but water electrolysis does not generate free Hydroxide radicals.

It isn't. Water is not Hydroxide. Water is Dihydrogen Monoxide.

I don't know what "hydroxide gas" is, but perhaps the author meant something else and can explain. I assumed they were referring to water vapor and that "hydroxide gas" was simply a misnomer.

Quote from: Verpies on 2025-12-30, 19:14:38

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59
Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties.

This is false.

The ²³Na in Sodium Hydroxide is 100% abundant and is quadrupolar with spin 3/2. It has a strong magnetic moment.
The ¹H in Sodium Hydroxide has a non-zero magnetic moment, too.
Sodium Hydroxide components exhibit EPR, too.

Last, but not least, Liquid Sodium Hydroxide or a solution of Sodium Hydroxide in water is conductive and responds to a varying magnetic flux just like any conductor.
When forming a closed electric circuit, it supports electric current induced by Faraday's Law of Induction through ionic conduction.

Your table salt also contains sodium. Does it magnetize with a neodymium magnet? Maybe it's not refined enough?

A detailed answer from ChatGPT:

1. "²³Na is quadrupolar with spin 3/2 and has a strong magnetic moment."

This is irrelevant to the original claim and materially misleading.

Yes, ²³Na has nuclear spin I=3/2 and a nuclear magnetic moment.
However, nuclear magnetic moments are extraordinarily weak (on the order of the nuclear magneton, ~10⁻³ of the Bohr magneton).
These moments are only observable in NMR spectroscopy under strong applied magnetic fields (typically several tesla).
They do not produce macroscopic magnetic behavior such as attraction, repulsion, or “magnetic response” in the everyday sense.

Key point: The presence of nuclear spin does not make a substance “magnetic” in any practical or macroscopic sense.

2. "¹H has a non-zero magnetic moment."

Again, true but irrelevant.

Virtually all hydrogen-containing substances have protons with magnetic moments.
Water, ethanol, sugar solutions, and most organic liquids would all be “magnetic” by this logic—which they are not.
Proton magnetic moments are only detectable via NMR, not via bulk magnetic interaction.

3. "Sodium Hydroxide exhibits EPR."

This statement is almost certainly false or, at best, misleading.

EPR (Electron Paramagnetic Resonance) requires unpaired electrons.
NaOH consists of:

Na⁺ (closed-shell)
OH⁻ (closed-shell)

Neither species contains unpaired electrons.
Pure NaOH and aqueous NaOH are diamagnetic, not paramagnetic.

If EPR has been observed, it would be due to:

Trace impurities
Radiation-induced defects
Transient radicals under extreme conditions

—not intrinsic NaOH.

Key point: NaOH does not intrinsically exhibit EPR.

4. "Conductive liquids respond to varying magnetic flux via Faraday’s law."

This is the only physically correct statement in the response, but it is misused.

Yes, an electrically conductive NaOH solution can support induced currents in a time-varying magnetic field.
This is electromagnetic induction, not magnetism.
The same applies to salt water, copper sulfate solution, molten salts, or even graphite slurries.

Crucially:

There is no response to a static magnetic field.
There is no permanent or intrinsic magnetic property involved.

Key point: Electrical conductivity ≠ magnetic material.

5. Category error: microscopic moments vs macroscopic magnetism

The original statement:
"Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties."

is clearly about bulk magnetic behavior (ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, diamagnetic response).

NaOH is weakly diamagnetic, like most closed-shell ionic compounds.
Its diamagnetism is extremely small and usually negligible.
It will not be attracted to magnets in any practical setting.

The forum reply commits a category error by:

Treating spectroscopic detectability as macroscopic magnetism
Confusing nuclear spin physics with material magnetic properties
Mixing static-field behavior with induction under time-varying fields

6. What a correct statement would be

A scientifically accurate response would be:

Sodium hydroxide is a closed-shell ionic compound and is weakly diamagnetic.
It has no intrinsic paramagnetic or ferromagnetic properties.
Nuclear magnetic moments and electrical conductivity do not contradict this.

« Last Edit: 2025-12-31, 09:19:49 by sergh »

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #32 on: 2025-12-31, 09:52:47 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

They're showing a trick called "magnetic electrolysis." A single conductor, connected to a magnet, is lowered into each glass beaker.
The glass beakers are placed on a metal tabletop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yf9p96xu_w

Before this video, the author had videos about a "glass electrolyzer" where he used glass membranes made of some kind of perforated glass to separate hydrogen and oxygen. This glass conducts electricity but doesn't allow liquids or gases to pass through. Translation is available via subtitles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgOWj5p8WzQ

What do you think about this trick? Could the author have made the glasses in the first video from the same perforated glass that conducts electricity?

« Last Edit: 2025-12-31, 10:00:53 by sergh »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #33 on: 2025-12-31, 11:58:17 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-31, 08:17:37

Your table salt also contains sodium. Does it magnetize with a neodymium magnet?

Indeed it does not "magnetize" but bulk magnetization was not the claim that I was refuting.

I was refuting the following:

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties.

This is wrong even if the substance does not exhibit bulk ferromagnetic nor ferrimagnetic properties.
Sodium Hydroxide is affected by magnetic fields even if it is diamagnetc in the manner I have described ( except for the EPR of the entire compound rather than its constituents ).

I don't know what kind of leading question you have prompted the AI with to make it judge my words through the prism of a nonexistent claim of bulk magnetization as in ferromagnetism.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Yes, ²³Na has nuclear spin I=3/2 and a nuclear magnetic moment.
However, nuclear magnetic moments are extraordinarily weak (on the order of the nuclear magneton, ~10⁻³ of the Bohr magneton).
These moments are only observable in NMR spectroscopy under strong applied magnetic fields (typically several tesla).
They do not produce macroscopic magnetic behavior such as attraction, repulsion, or “magnetic response” in the everyday sense.

But I never claimed a macroscopic magnetic behavior such as bulk attraction, repulsion.
The bottom line is that the ²³Na in NaOH is affected by magnetic fields even if weakly.

In this line of research we do not ignore weak effects. If the effect was strong then it would have been found out a long time ago by an B-grade undergraduate in a lab.
Destabilization of the nuclei is one of the paths to free energy even if the effect is weak initially.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Key point: The presence of nuclear spin does not make a substance “magnetic” in any practical or macroscopic sense.

But it still makes it affected by magnetic fields even if the effect is not strong like in iron, cobalt nickel, etc...
I never wrote anything about a strong bulk magnetization like in ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic materials and the first-order strength of the effect was never discussed.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

2. "¹H has a non-zero magnetic moment."
Again, true but irrelevant.

It is relevant when you make a blanket statement like "Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field;"

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

4. "Conductive liquids respond to varying magnetic flux via Faraday’s law."
This is the only physically correct statement in the response, but it is misused.

No, it isn't misused. It is true and verifiable.
The AI admitted that NaOH is effected by magnetic field in other ways than bulk magnetization (which I never claimed).
That you deem it irrelevant is just your opinion that closes up one avenue of research.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Yes, an electrically conductive NaOH solution can support induced currents in a time-varying magnetic field.
This is electromagnetic induction, not magnetism.
There is no response to a static magnetic field.
There is no permanent or intrinsic magnetic property involved.

Again, permanent magnetism or ferromagnetic behavior was not the subject of my reply. This is a straw-man argument.
The subject of my response was this: "Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field;"

Also, electromagnetic induction involves magnetic fields.
As such, liquid NaOH or NaOH dissolved in water is affected by magnetic fields ...and that effect is not weak.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

Key point: Electrical conductivity ≠ magnetic material.

Again, the words "magnetic material" were never written by me. This is an overinterpretation of my words.
My statements were providing evidence that NaOH is affected by magnetic fields when you wrote that they are not.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

The original statement:
"Sodium hydroxide is unaffected by a magnetic field; the solution has no magnetic properties."
is clearly about bulk magnetic behavior (ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, diamagnetic response).

No, it is not clear. This is an overinterpretation.
I took your statement at its face value. You claimed that NaOH is unaffected by magnetic field and I have provided evidence that this statement was false.
That some of the magnetic effects are weak and one of them is strong, does not change the veracity of this statement.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

NaOH is weakly diamagnetic, like most closed-shell ionic compounds.
Its diamagnetism is extremely small and usually negligible.

It is true that the diamagnetism is small ...but it is not zero. Thus NaOH is affected by magnetic fields.
In its liquid form it is affected by time varying magnetic fields very strongly.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

It will not be attracted to magnets in any practical setting.

Practicality was never the issue.
Anyway, float it on a styrofoam boat and subject it to a field from a large NdFeB magnet and see if the diamagnetism is really too weak to observe.
Even if it is weak in magnetostatic conditions does not mean that it will remain so in high-frequency resonant conditions.

Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-30, 11:46:59

The forum reply commits a category error by:
Treating spectroscopic detectability as macroscopic magnetism
Confusing nuclear spin physics with material magnetic properties
Mixing static-field behavior with induction under time-varying fields

I have never claimed bulk or macroscopic magnetzation due to spectroscopic detectabillity. In fact, I have not mentioned bulk magnetization of NaOH even once.
I have never narrowed down the effects of magnetic field on the NaOH to static fields only.
I have never claimed that nuclear spin physics is synonymous with material's magnetic properties but I do claim that spin physics affects them.

@sergh
If you want to have a discussion with me you are welcome to consult your favorite AI but do not ask it leading questions and then post its answers on this forum verbatim as if it was your reply in a discussion.
I want to know what you have to say - not the AI.

I could elicit a lengthy contrary reply from my AI, too, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Posting AI answers as replies to a discussion will be against the forum rules soon, anyway.

BTW: I have asked you several questions, to which I still have not received replies to. You can easily identify my questions because they always have question marks at the end of them.

chief kolbacict	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #34 on: 2025-12-31, 15:37:25 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	Quote from: sergh on 2025-12-31, 09:52:47 A single conductor, connected to a magnet, is lowered into each glass beaker. I don't understand how it works. It might there is two wire inside. It's no coincidence that he's so fat.

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #35 on: 2026-01-01, 20:35:41 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

Quote from: Verpies on 2025-12-30, 19:14:38

Quote from: sergh
The idea is to conduct electrolysis not between a metal or graphite anode and cathode, but between two layers of conductive liquid that touch but do not mix.

What are the two non-mixed layered conductive liquids that you refer to ?

Electrolysis through a reverse osmosis membrane, with salt water on one side and non-salty water on the other.
Some understanding came after lengthy discussions of Boris Liberman's patents on hydrogen production during water desalination with ChatGPT, although he disagrees with calling the process electrolysis.
He prefers the splitting of water by a quasi-bipolar membrane in strong electric fields.

Patents on this topic are easily searched in patent databases, for example patent US20240254008A1 :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240254008A1/en

The only downside to ChatGPT is that he's usually right. That's if you choose English, a precise model, and a subscription with registration. In other cases, he seems quite lazy.

Generally speaking, this is very brief, but technologically and structurally difficult to implement; it's still in development.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-12-31, 15:37:25

I don't understand how it works. It might there is two wire inside. It's no coincidence that he's so fat.

The glass beakers are placed on a metal tabletop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yf9p96xu_w

One of the many industrial generators that the Sever's made, "glass electrolyzer" where he used glass membranes made of some kind of perforated glass to separate hydrogen and oxygen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgOWj5p8WzQ

The negative pole from the power supply is likely connected to the magnets in the glasses, and the positive pole is connected to the metal surface of the table. The bottom of the glasses somehow conducts electricity through the nanoperforated glass. The question remains: how did he produce such miraculous glass? Perhaps it's some kind of radiation technology in a powerful electron accelerator or even a reactor.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-01, 20:43:13 by sergh »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #36 on: 2026-01-02, 04:20:19 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-12-31, 07:00:48

Will the three-phase rotating field created by the external coils create a semblance of direct current ...

Below is a dipole/bipolar rotating magnetic field created by a 4-pole high-µ stator excited by 2-phase alternating current in quadrature.
Did you have such rotating field in mind?

A 3 or 6-pole stator excited by 3-phase AC, can also create such rotating field, but the 3-phase solution requires 6 transistors, while the 2-phase solution requires only 4.

The magnetic field generated in the bore of the stator depicted above is equivalent to the field in the air-gap of a permanent magnet rotating like this:

(Click on the animations to magnify them )

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-12-31, 07:00:48

...create a semblance of direct current inside the electrolyte ?
The rotation is always in one direction, and never in the other.

That is a very interesting question.

Notice that despite the field's rotation being always counterclockwise, the linear direction of the magnetic flux measured at any stationary point, reverses every 180 degrees of that rotation.

The Lorentz Force acting on charged particles will accelerate them perpendicularly to the motion occurring between these particles and magnetic flux lines. This works in liquids, too (see this video).

However since the direction of a bipolar rotating flux reverses every 180º of rotation, the Lorentz force acting on the charged particles must reverse its direction, too. This means that the charged particles are periodically accelerated in both directions - thus no net unidirectional charge acceleration occurs ...nor charge separation.

Also, according to the Faraday's Law of induction, when the flux threading conductive loop increases, the direction of the induced EMF in that circuit is in the opposite direction to the EMF which is induced when the flux decreases ^*. However, an individual charge does not a circuit make (in Yodaspeak).

Near the inner perimeter, the bipolar rotating magnetic field (RMF) can be perceived as a swept bundle of flux - initially increasing and subsequently decreasing in density to the observer and reversing direction every 180º.

* It is important to remember that according to the Faraday's Law of Induction, the EMF induced in an electric circuit, DOES NOT depend on the magnetic flux density RoC but on the RoC of the total flux threading that circuit.

chief kolbacict

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #37 on: 2026-01-02, 12:33:29 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 393

Quote from: sergh on 2026-01-01, 20:35:41

Some understanding came after lengthy discussions of Boris Liberman's patents on hydrogen production during water desalination

In my opinion, this topic is unfairly underestimated here.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-02, 04:20:19

Did you have such rotating field in mind?

This one will work too. But a three-phase one is better, I suppose.
It is still unclear to me how the ions would discharge if there is no obvious conducting electrode in electrolyte"s contact.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-02, 12:41:07 by chief kolbacict »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #38 on: 2026-01-02, 13:10:53 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026-01-02, 12:33:29

But a three-phase one is better, I suppose.

Are you referring to a 3 or 6-pole stator excited by 3-phase alternating current ?

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026-01-02, 12:33:29

It is still unclear to me how the ions would discharge if there is no obvious conducting electrode in electrolyte"s contact.

In your question you tacitly assume that electrolysis requires a conducting electrode.

Can you envision a hollow plastic tube, like the one depicted below, filled with NaOH solution and acting as a one-turn secondary winding of a simple AC transformer, threaded through a CC or EI or EE high-µ core ?

Of course, such simple AC transformer does not create a rotating magnetic field, but it does create an alternating magnetic field that induces alternating electric current in its secondary winding, ...which in this case is the conductive liquid inside the plastic tube. This current flows in this liquid without any electrodes.

To have the liquid immersed in a bipolar rotating magnetic field you'd have to thread the liquid tube through a special core that looks like the motor stator core in my simulation. This is depicted below:

The cross-section of a 4-pole stator core and the liquid tube threading it.

chief kolbacict	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #39 on: 2026-01-02, 16:11:29 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-02, 13:10:53 To have the liquid immersed in a rotating magnetic field you'd have to thread the liquid tube through a special core that looks like the motor stator core in my simulation. This is depicted below: So you are right. In practice, I haven't done this yet. « Last Edit: 2026-01-02, 16:13:18 by chief kolbacict »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #40 on: 2026-01-06, 07:55:19 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026-01-02, 16:11:29

In practice, I haven't done this yet.

If you do, don't expect the bipolar rotating magnetic field to unidirectionally accelerate charged particles (e.g.: ions, electrons, charged dust) nor cause charge separation nor DC electrolysis, for the reasons described there.

For that, you'd need to generate a unipolar rotating magnetic field with a central pole (like a beam of light from a classic lighthouse) ...a wholly different kind of animal.

Arrangements for generating unipolar rotating magnetic fields.
The 4 windings are excited with 2 or 4-phase current ...or 3 windings are excited with 3-phase current ...or more.

Equivalent mechanical arrangement
( Click on the animation to magnify it )

chief kolbacict

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #41 on: 2026-01-07, 14:24:35 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 393

I once took three electrodes in the shape of a triangle.stainless steel electrodes. Three-phase voltage was supplied from a three-phase transformer to eliminate any DC component.
Power was supplied to the transformer from a frequency converter. The container was filled with water and observed gas was released.

Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency

IMG_20260106_183312_810.jpg (186.19 kB, 610x813 - viewed 180 times.)

« Last Edit: 2026-01-07, 14:30:42 by chief kolbacict »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #42 on: 2026-01-08, 00:17:36 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026-01-07, 14:24:35

I once took three electrodes in the shape of a triangle.stainless steel electrodes. Three-phase voltage was supplied from a three-phase transformer to eliminate any DC component.
Power was supplied to the transformer from a frequency converter. The container was filled with water and observed gas was released.

Was the water made conductive ?
Were the three electrodes in contact with the liquid ?
If "yes", then this arrangement applies a rotating electric current to the liquid (not a primary rotating magnetic field).

P.S.
If you had put a pole facing-up magnet under the container then it would form a MHD device. See this video and this video.

chief kolbacict	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #43 on: 2026-01-08, 12:44:46 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-08, 00:17:36 Was the water made conductive ? Were the three electrodes in contact with the liquid ? Of course, they were. « Last Edit: 2026-01-08, 15:52:36 by chief kolbacict »

Verpies	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #44 on: 2026-01-10, 07:08:31 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2026-01-08, 12:44:46 Of course, they were. So that was a normal, albeit a little convoluted, electrolysis with electric current applied to a conductive liquid through electrodes. The electrodeless AC electrolysis which I described here is very different. ...and the electrodeless DC electrolysis which I described here is different even more.

Chet K

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #45 on: 2026-01-11, 01:38:47 »

Group: Ambassador
Hero Member

Posts: 4725

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-10, 07:08:31

The electrodeless AC electrolysis which I described here is very different.

...and the electrodeless DC electrolysis which I described here is different even more.

Verpies,

I would love to experiment with this looped manifold and a transformer
Would a test tube work ?

I have never seen electrolysis with no anode or cathode in the solution ...or with AC.

Will it work if I use a clear plastic tubing and a microwave transformer ?

What is the best placement ( and size) of wire onto the manifold?
Also the electrolytes?

Would like to better pick the type of electrolyte for this application ( conductivity, perhaps temperature to start with).
This is very exciting… as your comments seem to imply other applications/experiments.

Respectfully,
Chet K
EDIT for response below
Thank you …very useful information for my replication!

Feels good to learn ( and try) something new .

« Last Edit: 2026-01-11, 13:15:09 by Chet K »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #46 on: 2026-01-11, 05:07:52 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: Chet K on 2026-01-11, 01:38:47

I would love to experiment with this looped manifold and a transformer
Would a test tube work ?

No, it has to be a closed loop.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026-01-11, 01:38:47

Will it work if I use a clear plastic tubing and a microwave transformer ?

Yes, a vinyl hose with a tee fitting to join both ends of the hose and the third port of the tee for filling and venting.
The microwave oven transformer (MOT) would have to have its secondary winding removed.
These transformers have a deliberate air-gap in their middle leg. It would be good to plug this air-gap with packed steel sawdust (in some binder).

Quote from: Chet K on 2026-01-11, 01:38:47

I have never seen electrolysis with no anode or cathode in the solution ...or with AC.

At low frequencies like 60Hz AC, the alternating current changes so slowly that it appears almost constant to water molecules.
You'd gave to get into the GHz range for the water molecules to notice the changes.
Even in ordinary electrolysis (with electrodes), the 60Hz AC causes hydrogen to be evolved at one electrode and oxygen at the other for ¹⁄₁₂₀ of a second ...next, their roles reverse for another ¹⁄₁₂₀ of a second.
Consequently, a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is evolved at each electrode.
Unfortunately, when the frequency changes too fast, the gasses can recombine, so higher frequency means lower net gas evolution and this recombination time strongly depends on the type of electrolyte.
The unipolar scheme behaves in the opposite way - the higher the rotational frequency, the stronger the effect becomes.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026-01-11, 01:38:47

What is the best placement ( and size) of wire onto the manifold?

Just put the electrolyte-filled loop in the place where the secondary winding used to be wound on the MOT.
Make the loop's circumference as short as possible to keep the resistance down. It should hug the MOT.

Do not wind any wire onto the vinyl tube (manifold) itself.

Quote from: Chet K on 2026-01-11, 01:38:47

Also the electrolytes?
Would like to better pick the type of electrolyte for this application ( conductivity, perhaps temperature to start with).

Potassium Hydroxide (KOH) aqueous solution is best because at optimum concentration (26% w/w) it has the resistivity of 1.6 Ω·cm.
Sodium Chloride (NaCl) is next because its saturated aqueous solution has the resistivity of 5 Ω·cm. Warning: it causes chlorine gas to be evolved.
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) aqueous solution is the worst because even at the optimum concentration (25% w/w) it has the resistivity of 6.7 Ω·cm (but no chlorine).
Nitric, sulfuric and hydrochloric acid (muratic acid) beats them all at ~1.2 Ω·cm because of the high mobility of H⁺ hydronium ions, but muratic is nasty to work with (HCl fumes and chlorine evolution). I don't recommend it.

Higher temperature increases ion mobility and causes the electrolyte resistivity to fall (conductivity to rise) for all of the electrolytes mentioned above.
Conductivity is the reciprocal of resistivity.

Note that overdoing the KOH or NaOH concentration is detrimental to their conductivity in aqueous solution since after the conductivity peaks, increasing the concentration just causes the conductivity to fall due to increased viscosity.
Also remember that the formula for the weight/weight (w/w) concentration is a/(a+b), not a/b

chief kolbacict	Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #47 on: 2026-01-11, 15:30:30 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	We all know that you can charge a dielectric, glass or ebonite by rubbing them. Is it possible to charge a volume of gas? And how will its pressure change if this gas Will be in a closed volume?

sergh

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #48 on: 2026-01-11, 16:05:09 »

Full Member

Posts: 138

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-11, 05:07:52

At low frequencies like 60Hz AC, the alternating current changes so slowly that it appears almost constant to water molecules.
You'd gave to get into the GHz range for the water molecules to notice the changes.
Even in ordinary electrolysis (with electrodes), the 60Hz AC causes hydrogen to be evolved at one electrode and oxygen at the other for ¹⁄₁₂₀ of a second ...next, their roles reverse for another ¹⁄₁₂₀ of a second.
Consequently, a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is evolved at each electrode.
Unfortunately, when the frequency changes too fast, the gasses can recombine, so higher frequency means lower net gas evolution and this recombination time strongly depends on the type of electrolyte.

I was experimenting with electrolysis using alternating current (AC).
The goal was to determine at what frequency the hydrogen and oxygen evolution significantly decreases as the frequency changes from 1 to 100 Hz and higher.

It turned out that hydrogen and oxygen evolution gradually decreases as the frequency increases from 1 to 16 Hz, with decreasing efficiency and increasing heating. Above this, the evolution is negligible, and instead of hydrogen and oxygen evolution, we only get heating and boiling of the water.

It is likely that creating some unusual conditions during AC electrolysis could increase the maximum frequency at which flammable gas is released. For example, rapid vibration of the electrodes, very rapid pumping of the electrolyte with gas release in the settling tank, a special electrolyte composition with some kind of gas-repellent dispersed medium, such as a dispersion of the currently fashionable hydrophobic fluoroplastic powder ( PTFE Powder ), and so on.

If different metals are used for the electrodes, such as aluminum and stainless steel, or electrodes of different sizes, such as a pipe and a thin wire stretched inside, then such electrolyzers will operate with alternating current and at higher frequencies due to the asymmetric properties of the electrodes. The electrodes will quasi-rectify the alternating current due to their asymmetric properties.

But what is the goal? To achieve electrolysis efficiency with alternating current that is partially close to that of direct current electrolysis?

At high frequencies of tens of kilohertz and high voltages of a couple of kilovolts, heating occurs effectively even in deionized water. There are no visible gases before boiling.

Unlike AC, electrolysis with unipolar current, or current with asymmetric half-waves, can be equated to DC electrolysis. Direct current can never be considered absolutely constant, as it is sometimes turned on and off.

Any excess of voltage at the cathode and anode above the minimum DC voltage required for electrolysis (about >1.6 - 2 volts in practice) leads to additional heating and a decrease in efficiency.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-11, 16:29:44 by sergh »

Verpies

Re: Horvath Patents and Improved Electrolysis Efficiency « Reply #49 on: 2026-01-11, 17:13:37 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: sergh on 2026-01-11, 16:05:09

It turned out that hydrogen and oxygen evolution gradually decreases as the frequency increases from 1 to 16 Hz,

I also noticed that gas evolution decreases as the AC frequency increases but the potassium hydroxide electrolyte was much more forgiving of frequency than salt.
Surprisingly I got the best result with brown contaminated KOH (drain opener grade).

However with the unipolar scheme - the higher the rotational frequency, the stronger the effect becomes.