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

[mscoffman]

Thanks Itsu,

Itsu I don't dispute what you are saying but it seems impossible to judge the
the rationality of the output waveform of the 2007 circuit without knowing
anything about the output impedance of the transformer of that 2007 circuit.
If the output is low voltage then the input dc voltage would be used more
efficiently used to get the higher COP if it was lower too. Or else operate
at higher voltage then step down rather than up then step transformer
as shown in the schematic. What the 2005 circuit is is an abstract which the
2007 paper abstracts again. While the 2007 paper claims operation at a
particular efficient setpoint for which the abstraction cannot be the correct
form. Two abstraction don't make a concrete.


:S:MarkSCoffman

[Marshallin]

Japanase paper discribing something what is under patent so you cannot expect any full specification. Is same with SITh thyristors what are under patent too so just few companies can manufacture them.

[TinselKoala]

I finally got a chance to read the Japanese paper. Am I seeing things?

Below I reproduce Figure 3 from the paper. Note that there is only ONE SINGLE datapoint on the Part A part that shows a greater gas evolution from  a pulsed drive than from the DC power at the same power level. One. All the other pulsed power regimes produce LESS gas than straight DC at the same power level. And this at the lowest power level and at 17 kHz.

In the Part B part, only that SAME datapoint shows greater efficiency than DC at the same power level! And the graph shows that as pulsed power is increased, efficiency DROPS just as with straight DC, but is always less than straight DC at a given power level except for that one single trial. Within the pulsed power trials at the same power level, an increase in frequency causes an increase in efficiency and again, this effect is most pronounced on that one single data point, the same one. Again, this is the lowest pulsed power level shown and happens only at 17 kHz.

So what is the big deal? Perhaps they have identified some different mechanism... the text sounds plausible... but the data shows the truth: efficiencies and gas production volumes are nowhere near that of straight DC at the same power level... except for that one point, and it is just barely above DC in both efficiency and gas volume production.

So "Where's the Beef"?  Am I interpreting this set of graphs wrongly? Please enlighten me.

Next: note in the caption how the pulsed power is defined. "Integration of secondary voltage and current multiplied by the frequency". Whaat?

[Les Banki]

OK i will give it try (i mean your schematic).

Can you please advice what value of electronic components need to be used to get it work properly?

Marshallin,

Are you serious???

If you want to follow the "advise" of a full time, PROFESSIONAL SABOTEUR, good luck to you but don't say I didn't warn you!!

Just go back to the start of this thread and look WHO was the first to respond to Stefan's opening post!?

Coincidence?
It isn't.

Every time there is a thread which shows great promise, he is right there!  Without fail!

Imagine, just imagine, that this is REAL.
All those experimenters who never could get their engines running on HydrOxy ONLY, would, with this nano-pulse electrolysis method
suddenly have their engines running!
Problem SOLVED.

THAT can't possibly be allowed to happen by the self-appointed CRIMINAL ruling elite controlling mankind from day one!

That is why the most promising electrolysis method of all time MUST be stopped before too many people get hold of this.

Various methods are used.

PROFESSIONAL SABOTEURS on most Forums is one.
Their role is to first gain the confidence of the readers by giving the impression that they are "experts" on the subject and want to help.
Those who are stupid enough to follow their "technical" advice will FAIL, get frustrated and in the end will conclude that everything is a fake and GIVE UP! 
Mission accomplished!

Should you not believe all that I stated above, I can easily demonstrate the GROSS technical blunders those SABOTEURS regularly make.
However, as I don't wish to make this post too long, I will not put the technical proof here.
If you (or others) request it, I will be happy to provide it!

In your previous posts you have made statements about creating short pulses.
You are absolutely correct that those pulses need to have HIGH ENERGY.
On the other hand, you have stated that it is not easy to generate short pulses.
That, in itself, is NOT correct.
But if you mean that generating very short pulses with HIGH ENERGY, that is correct!

I have attached my circuit diagram for using a SITh.

As you will see, you would be hard pressed to get the cost (excluding the SITh and the pcb) to $5.00!!

There will be a second circuit for using a replacement for the SITh, almost identical to the first but with additional circuitry.
(I may also try using a DSRD as an "opening switch".)

By the way, thanks for reminding the readers once again (like I have already done in my document) that this method is Patented and
NO Patent has EVER given full details for duplication purposes!
Period.

Cheers,
Les Banki

[Marshallin]

I finally got a chance to read the Japanese paper. Am I seeing things?

Below I reproduce Figure 3 from the paper. Note that there is only ONE SINGLE datapoint on the Part A part that shows a greater gas evolution from  a pulsed drive than from the DC power at the same power level. One. All the other pulsed power regimes produce LESS gas than straight DC at the same power level. And this at the lowest power level and at 17 kHz.

In the Part B part, only that SAME datapoint shows greater efficiency than DC at the same power level! And the graph shows that as pulsed power is increased, efficiency DROPS just as with straight DC, but is always less than straight DC at a given power level except for that one single trial. Within the pulsed power trials at the same power level, an increase in frequency causes an increase in efficiency and again, this effect is most pronounced on that one single data point, the same one. Again, this is the lowest pulsed power level shown and happens only at 17 kHz.

So what is the big deal? Perhaps they have identified some different mechanism... the text sounds plausible... but the data shows the truth: efficiencies and gas production volumes are nowhere near that of straight DC at the same power level... except for that one point, and it is just barely above DC in both efficiency and gas volume production.

So "Where's the Beef"?  Am I interpreting this set of graphs wrongly? Please enlighten me.

Next: note in the caption how the pulsed power is defined. "Integration of secondary voltage and current multiplied by the frequency". Whaat?

Point of this article is show diferent method of electrolysis. This metodnt does not depend diffusion "coefficient of ions" , so in normal language - ability of water transfer DC current per mm2. Nothing more ..

quote : "This difference seems to be very important for the practical and industrial application of ultra-short power electrolysis since the electrolysis power can be increased without decreasing the efficiency."