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

[MarkE]

 
@MarkE,

Thank you for your explanation. 



From a pure Physics point of view of work performed by the piston, it is clear:

1.   Work done by the piston to fill the cylinder with HHO is the (HHO-Atm)pressure x Volume of the Cylinder.  HHO pressure can be 101% of Atm pressure.  The work done can then be 1% of Atm x Volume of Cylinder.

Once again, you stubbornly focus on a subset of the system and ignore the system as a whole leading to your accounting error.  The ideal gas law still holds.  One does not get to displace the volume of air that one displaces with HHO without performing work on the external atmosphere equal to P_{atmosphere_initial}*V of the cylinder.  Your fundamental error on which your false conclusions are based is easily seen by accounting for the identical loss of P_HHO*V_CYLINDER from whatever source you use for the HHO that you drive into the cylinder.  Why do you present yourself as unable to understand these obvious facts?

2.   Work done by the piston to fill the vacuum in the implosion process is Force x Displacement.  The force is Atm, Pressure x area of the Cylinder.  The Displacement is the height of the cylinder.  The work done is then equal to Atm pressure x area x height which is equal to Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is 100% times of stage 1.

The work released is (ignoring the water volume) identical to the work performed above.  The surrounding atmosphere acts as a gas spring Lawrence.  No more and no less.  The atmosphere is passive.  It does not generate energy.  It stores energy that you stubbornly refuse to account.

From the pure Mechanical Consideration, the work done by the HHO gas to fill the cylinder is 1% of the work done by the Atm Pressure.  We assume the HHO gas has been generated and stored in a tank with HHO pressure 1% more than Atm.  The Energy used to generate the gas is NOT considered in this example.

You insist on this absolutely incorrect accounting.  You are dead wrong Lawrence for the reasons that I have explained repeatedly.

May be we should let others comment on such calculations.  I consider the subject closed.  The work done or energy supplied by the Environment in one cycle = Atm Pressure x Volume of Cylinder.  This is the Bring-in Energy.

Then you insist on rejecting obvious fact in favor of a fantasy that you wish to entertain.

[ltseung888]

 Scenario D – "resonance break up" of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.

This is the most controversial part of the discussion.  Let me first quote assumptions that will not violate the Laws of Physics.  These assumptions may or may not have been verified experimentally.

1.    Water Molecules are electrical dipoles.  The oxygen end is more negative than the hydrogen end.  These dipoles can be compared with magnetism in an iron rod.  Tapping an iron rod in the North and South direction can turn the iron rod into a magnet.
2.    DC Pulsing water can be compared with tapping the iron rod.  The electric field is externally supplied by the DC voltage.  The pulsing is similar to tapping.  It will change the Electron Cloud distribution of the "water particles".  I consider "water particles" as any cluster of ions, atoms, molecules, crystal structures etc.
3.    The frequency of the Pulse is important.  In the field of Physics, there is the occurrence of resonance.  A continuous small external stimulation or vibration may build up to a huge internal vibration (resulting in destruction of structure in some cases.
4.    I assume that the DC Pulsing at the right frequency may alter the Electron Cloud Distribution and even break the hydrogen and oxygen bonds of the water particles.  This DC Pulsing may be done by an external Pulsing Source or may be via LCR resonance circuits. L is inductance or coils, C is capacitance and R is resistance.[/font]
5.    Radio stations rely on our tuning to the right frequency.  Missing that frequency means not receiving that station.  If we miss the "resonance frequency", we may not generate much gas.  The parameters governing such "resonance frequency" have not been scientifically laid out yet.  It is a "hit or miss" operation.  One technique by experimenters is to observe the sudden increase in rate of "gas mixture" production.
6.    The Indian paper claimed such a behavior.  There are at least 10 other similar claims on the Internet.  Most readers are familiar with claims related to the Stan Meyer or the Browns Gas generators.  The Indian paper is done in a more traditional scientific fashion with peer reviews and details of the establishment.  The results can be checked with access to the actual source.
7.    My assumption is that the "gas mixture" generated in the Stan Meyer type device where the cathode and anode are placed very close to each other is different from the hydrogen and oxygen gases generated from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds are different.  The "gas structures" are different.  Thus the energy contents associated are different.
8.    I further assume that the microscopic level or mechanism of breaking up of water molecules in classical electrolysis is different from DC Pulsing.  The classic Faraday energy model does not apply.
9.    I took the hint that – Browns Gas will lose its unique properties such as implosion when left for hours in a jar unused.  One explanation is the receiving of electromagnetic waves from the environment.  I assume the "gas mixture" has less energy than the hydrogen and oxygen gases from classical electrolysis.

Let me pause at this point and wait for comments.

[MarkE]

Scenario D – "resonance break up" of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.

This is the most controversial part of the discussion.  Let me first quote assumption that will not violate the Laws of Physics.  These assumptions may or may not have been verified experimentally.[/font]

1.    Water Molecules are electrical dipoles.  The oxygen end is more negative than the hydrogen end.  These dipoles can be compared with magnetism in an iron rod.  Tapping an iron rod in the North and South direction can turn the iron rod into a magnet.[/font]
2.    DC Pulsing water can be compared with tapping the iron rod.  The electric field is externally supplied by the DC voltage.  The pulsing is similar to tapping.  It will change the Electron Cloud distribution of the "water particles".  I consider "water particles" as any cluster of ions, atoms, molecules, crystal structures etc.[/font]
3.    The frequency of the Pulse is important.  In the field of Physics, there is the occurrence of resonance.  A continuous small external stimulation or vibration may build up to a huge internal vibration (resulting in destruction of structure in some cases).[/font]
4.    I assume that the DC Pulsing at the right frequency may alter the Electron Cloud Distribution and even break the hydrogen and oxygen bonds of the water particles.  This DC Pulsing may be done by an external Pulsing Source or may be via LCR resonance circuits. L is inductance or coils, C is capacitance and R is resistance.[/font]
5.    Radio stations rely on our tuning to the right frequency.  Missing that frequency means not receiving that station.  If we miss the "resonance frequency", we may not generate much gas.  The parameters governing such "resonance frequency" have not been scientifically laid out yet.  It is a "hit or miss" operation.  One technique by experimenters is to observe the sudden increase in rate of "gas mixture" production.[/font]
6.    The Indian paper claimed such a behavior.  There are at least 10 other similar claims on the Internet.  Most readers are familiar with claims related to the Stan Meyer or the Browns Gas generators.  The Indian paper is done in a more traditional scientific fashion with peer reviews and details of the establishment.  The results can be checked with access to the actual source.[/font]
7.    My assumption is that the "gas mixture" generated in the Stan Meyer type device where the cathode and anode are placed very close to each other is different from the hydrogen and oxygen gases generated from classical electrolysis.  The Electron Clouds are different.  The "gas structures" are different.  Thus the energy contents associated are different.[/font]
8.    I further assume that the microscopic level or mechanism of breaking up of water molecules in classical electrolysis is different from DC Pulsing.  The classic Faraday energy model does not apply.[/font]
9.    I took the hint that – Browns Gas will lose its unique properties such as implosion when left for hours in a jar unused.  One explanation is the receiving of electromagnetic waves from the environment.  I assume the "gas mixture" has less energy than the hydrogen and oxygen gases from classical electrolysis.[/font]

Let me pause at this point and wait for comments.

You rely on a series of assumptions and claims made over the years none of which have ever been successfully proven.  come up with a reliable replication of the claim of your choice and then there will be evidence worth talking about.  The Indian paper is poorly written, lacking a host of data that is necessary for the claims made to hold any credibility.  Stan Meyer was found by an Ohio court to have committed an "egregious fraud".  Nearly 20 years later, no one has successfully reproduced what Stan Meyer claimed to have done.  You do your own credibility no favors when you insist on invalid accounting and keep adding to a history of promoting unworkable ideas.

[ltseung888]

 Scenario D continued – "resonance break up" of Water molecules into some gas mixtures.

10. Zero point energy is often referred to the energy that will still be present when the temperature reaches absolute zero degrees.  The assumption is that thermal energy is zero.  However, in any space, there will always be electromagnetic waves and gravitational forces.  I assume that electromagnetic wave is the "Lead-out" or "Bring-in" Energy Source in this case.


11. The "gas mixture" may contain different levels of electromagnetic waves.  At the "resonance frequency", small stimulus from the outside may excite the "internal set up of the gas mixture" to break up the hydrogen and oxygen bonds.  This break up will release energy much larger than the sum of the outside stimulus.  This is the "Lead-out or "Bring-in" Energy Source.  In other words, the Energy is already available in the surrounding environment and the "water or gas mixture".  It is a matter of releasing them.  Such energy can easily be replenlished by the electromagnetic waves from the surrounding (or from Zero Point energy as some would like to call it).


12.  If a "resonance setup" can release such energy, the Stan Meyer car is theoretically possible.  The Stan Meyer device does not use implosion as it deliberately fed exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber – making use of explosion instead of implosion.


13. If the "resonance setup" is to be detected via the "hit and miss" method, the chance of getting a reproducible "hit" and accepted by the scientific community will be like winning the lottery.  Skeptics will keep saying – fraud and scam.


14. The successful team is likely to be one with Government Support.  They do not need to worry about mortgages and living expenses.  They can buy the most expensive and accurate scientific instruments.  (I learned the lesson of using the US$120 Atten Oscilloscope to try to get accurate results from the tiny Joule Thief Energy experiments).  They can have trained scientists and engineers to tune the equipment and correctly analyze the results.  They can build special scientific apparatus to do mid-stage verifications.  They can focus on "resonance tuning" for months or years without the wife or husband nagging.  They do not need to publish results and get jeered at.  They do not need to worry about venture capitalists or investors wanting to see results for their money or suing them in court.


15. I would expect the successful team will have to overcome the objections from other scientists who claim that since Perpetual Motion Machine is theoretically impossible, they are waiting their time and the Government Resources.  They may have to use the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory to overcome this first hurdle.  They have to study and re-think electrolysis; implosion; chemical reactions; electron cloud distributions; kinetic theory of gases; confirm the adiabatic energy exchange of the water bottle rocket; structure of "water gas"; resonance and resonance circuits, etc.  A whole research team or a new department at a University may need to be set up.  Many PhD students may be used to check out the hundreds of overunity claims on the Internet.


16. I expect my contribution will just be the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory.  Other posts will be treated as "speculation" from an old man who spends much time fishing, talking about politics and religion.  These posts will not be taken seriously.  This is perfectly acceptable.  Divine revealation may surprise us all.  A "speculation" may turn out to be the scientific truth.

More to come later.

[ltseung888]

You rely on a series of assumptions and claims made over the years none of which have ever been successfully proven.  come up with a reliable replication of the claim of your choice and then there will be evidence worth talking about.  The Indian paper is poorly written, lacking a host of data that is necessary for the claims made to hold any credibility.  Stan Meyer was found by an Ohio court to have committed an "egregious fraud".  Nearly 20 years later, no one has successfully reproduced what Stan Meyer claimed to have done.  You do your own credibility no favors when you insist on invalid accounting and keep adding to a history of promoting unworkable ideas.

Buy a toy water rocket.  Measure its temperature before and after the firing.