Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



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

Started by hartiberlin, July 30, 2014, 08:22:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

itsu

Quote from: MarkE on July 30, 2014, 10:02:19 AM
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.

Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?
Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Regards Itsu
 

Marshallin

Is hard to say.

I think that pulse duration depend on your cell capacity, and voltage on space between elctrodes.

I belive that main trick is not create just short voltage pulse, but have setup what can deliver hight amout of power in short pulses.
Thats why they having big HQ induction in that circuit. 

Look on this one from 2005(attachment).

MarkE

Quote from: itsu on July 30, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?
Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Regards Itsu

There waveform looks like they had issues with grounding.  They did not offer any schematic of their measurement set-up.  So, determining exactly what was going on is basically impossible.  The reason that I think the bursts 400ns apart are two sides of one pulse is because the leading edge of the second burst is the opposite polarity of the first.  Their DC waveform is at about 7.4 Volts which makes no sense for a 12V supply.

Your exponential pulse is the sort of thing one would expect from a flyback which sort of looks like what they wired.  They describe the operation as a flyback as well.  I see no justification for the SCR.  And the SCR gate should be pull-dwon to the cathode.

Les Banki

Quote from: hartiberlin on July 30, 2014, 08:22:30 AM
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.

Hi Stefan & all others,

Please note that the title of this thread is misleading!

It is "only" 8 times 'Faraday'!

I received that Indian article on the 23rd of June, (5 weeks ago) from a friend in Germany.
Since then I have made a VERY thorough, in-debt analysis and extensive research into this method.

I have already designed a drive circuit but at this point in time it looks as if you cannot BUY, BEG, STEAL or BORROW
a single SITh!  (Static Induction Thyristor)

I have e-mailed one of the Indian article authors TWICE, NGK Insulators in Japan once,
(I also contacted the Australian agent for NGK Insutators two days ago), China's Trade Commerce for
names of manufacturers of SITh, etc., etc.

Needless to say, NO replies from ANY of them!

The method is REAL but some of the details are wrong.

I have already written a detailed report and was about to publish it all when I discovered this thread.

So, IF you guys are interested, please read the attached document I named: "Nano-pulse electrolysis"
I have also attached the Patent which EXPLAINS very well how this method works!

To some, like 'MarkE', for example, I have this advise:

Please do some STUDY on "Static Induction Thyristors" and on IES (Inductive Energy Storage) as well as
the difference between Inductive and Capacitive energy storage before you make further comments showing off your ignorance!!

To be blunt, you don't have a bloody clue HOW this method works!

One way or the other, I will get to the bottom of this in (hopefully) record time!

I may also be able to substitute the SITh with some other device (like a MOSFET).

More on all this later.....

Cheers,
Les Banki

MarkE

The joys of shrill. 
The first document is a set of shouted assertions, many that were pasted into the post above.
The patent document describes using SITs in a cascode configuration to build high voltage capable switches.  An IGBT could be used if the problem of the floating gate were addressed.

The patent describes charging the gate-anode capacitance with a portion of the inductor flyback.  The problem remains that a discharge path for the gate charge is not provided.  The next time that the circuit is to fire, the gate is charged deeply off.  Other embodiments in the patent that use pulse transformers overcome the problem with the cathode to gate winding of each pulse transformer.