TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > News, Announcements, and Current Events > The Buzz > TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production"

2024-11-28, 17:34:55
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Author Topic: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" (Read 39831 times)

PhysicsProf	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #25 on: 2016-11-29, 03:39:56 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	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). ------------------------ TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" Water electrolysis numbers.png (105.98 kB, 455x659 - viewed 591 times.) « Last Edit: 2016-11-29, 04:12:23 by PhysicsProf »

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #26 on: 2016-11-29, 08:00:04 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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 Brad « Last Edit: 2016-11-29, 08:36:47 by TinMan » --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #27 on: 2016-11-29, 11:43:10 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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 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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

PhysicsProf	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #28 on: 2016-11-29, 11:54:11 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	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 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: Quote 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. [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.

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #29 on: 2016-11-29, 13:36:29 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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 . Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #30 on: 2016-11-29, 14:18:44 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #31 on: 2016-11-29, 14:45:27 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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! Quote 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. 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. 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 --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

PhysicsProf	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #32 on: 2016-11-30, 12:25:29 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	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.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #33 on: 2016-11-30, 13:05:12 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #34 on: 2016-11-30, 13:28:33 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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 --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

PhysicsProf	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #35 on: 2016-11-30, 14:25:44 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	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.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #36 on: 2016-11-30, 14:49:10 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. ------------------------ TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" dlc1.jpg (92.83 kB, 480x360 - viewed 506 times.) --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

ion	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #37 on: 2016-11-30, 16:37:02 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Physics Prof said: Quote 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. 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 --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

evolvingape	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #38 on: 2016-11-30, 16:41:03 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2502 Everyman decries immorality	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! This thread is an interesting investigation Brad I will allocate a bit of time to look into it, thanks. --------------------------- Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs. Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security. Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #39 on: 2016-11-30, 17:23:56 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #40 on: 2016-11-30, 23:11:26 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	author=PhysicsProf link=topic=3371.msg58449#msg58449 date=1480515944] Quote YES - 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. Quote 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?" 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 --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Chet K	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #41 on: 2016-11-30, 23:52:15 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	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 ??"

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #42 on: 2016-12-01, 00:37:53 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. 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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #43 on: 2016-12-01, 04:21:41 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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 --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Centraflow	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #44 on: 2016-12-01, 08:11:09 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2982	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-) --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Centraflow	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #45 on: 2016-12-01, 08:46:01 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2982	I find this is good http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html Note about over potencial Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

TinMan	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #46 on: 2016-12-01, 09:57:18 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4728	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 --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Centraflow	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #47 on: 2016-12-01, 12:32:31 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2982	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 --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Centraflow	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #48 on: 2016-12-01, 12:49:54 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2982	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 --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Grumage	Re: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" « Reply #49 on: 2016-12-01, 13:48:16 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	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. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-28, 17:34:55

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2