Overunity electrolysis - 31 times more effective gas production than with DC

[hartiberlin]

Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

[MarkE]

Hi All,
here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchers
have proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get
31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

This report is a bit strange.  The authors acknowledge that 70%-80% efficient electrolysis is currently available.  Then they claim a 31X improvement over their control.  Nowhere in the report did I find any sanity check of their control.  So, I cranked their numbers for sanity checking purposes:

Control:  18W yielded 0.58mL/s.
Hydrogen gas density:  0.08988 g/liter
Molar density:  2g/mole
HHV = 572kJ/mole
0.58ml/s = 0.00058l/s*0.08988g/l*mole/2g = 26e-6 mole/s flow.
26e-6m/s*572kJ/m = 14.9Watts HHV
14.9W/18W = 82.8%  This is close to the upper efficiency limit due to the energy trapped in the phase transition.

The authors claim to generate the same volume flow of gas using 0.57Watts using their pulsed set-up.  That would amount not just to over unity, but a staggering 14.9W/0.57W, 26X unity.

The authors errantly describe their drive as "pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in Figure 7."

Figure 7 is a trace sampled at 100Ms/s, that shows two ringing pulses that appear to be the leading and trailing edges of a drive pulse that is approximately 400ns in duration.

There is no mention in the report of the methods used to measure voltage and current for the pulsed set-up and then to calculate energy and power.  It is a virtual certainty that these guys extraordinary results are the result of wildly inaccurate measurements in the pulsed set-up.

[ramset]

Stefan
This claim was shared here  in another thread,I believe with a "contact phone number" [which is why I remember ]


perhaps we try to reach them for clarity ?


I remember trying to call a few times with no answer ....


thx
Chet

[Marshallin]

Hi

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.
I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

Right now i am building proper small scale test rig.

[MarkE]

Hi

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.
I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

Right now i am building proper small scale test rig.

There is no need to go the thyristor route.  Just get a decently rated MOSFET and use a good MOSFET driver.  You will easily be able to realize 50ns or faster rise and fall times. and recreate their staed 200ns pulse which according to their oscilloscope plot was really 400ns, with an unstated repetition rate.