The downfalls of conventional electrolysis - and how to fix them

[iquant]

Any volume of water is going to absorb energy...  Like trying to boil 2 quarts of water in a microwave.
But...  a shallow 1to 2 mm sheet of water with a large surface area may be worth experiment.

I have not experimented with super saturated NAOH H2O or any other solution. I believe frequency alone should do the job. It just is so difficult to find the resonance at which water will break down. I have done a lot of reading and many suggested low frequency but I just was not able to accomplish much. Everything on our earth and the universe itself vibrates. Each element down to its sub-atomic level resonates. If one could find that element-specific frequency, one could slice metal like a piece of butter. I envision (some day) a multi-frequency rod that tunes itself to any element's harmonic resonance frequency that will be used to slice through that element just like we use a knife to slice through a tomato. Maybe far fetched, but I believe it will be done some day. That is why I believe you need a specific frequency to break up water. No chemical is needed or should be used.

[ramset]

From Farrah
PRICELESS!!

Here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=387.msg7579;topicseen

   

December 2010

The limitations of standard Faraday Electrolysis should be quite obvious to anyone and everyone that has taken the trouble to read and understand Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis. After all, they couldn’t be much simpler.  The amount of gases evolved under standard Faraday Electrolysis, is - and will always be - governed by the current through the cell/electrolyser.  Even if we keep the voltage to the realistic optimum of around 2 volts per cell to initiate and maintain electrolysis, then we are still always limited by the current that can be drawn through the cell at this voltage. With the power dissipated equal to, P = V x I, or P = 2V x I, even at just two volts the high current required produces lots of wasted energy in the form of heat. Under these conditions, the current needed to produce enough gas to run an ICE becomes enormous, and indeed impossible to provide continuously via an on-demand vehicle system. 

To electrolyse 1 litre of water (under ideal conditions of around 1.3 volts and 100% efficiency) requires 3.658kW of power per hour. Which, at 1.3 volts, equates to 2814 amps!  This would provide 2038 litres of oxyhydrogen.

Now if you check out this link you will see where the problems lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qzrI20VPCw

This emphasises the very real limitations of so-called brute force, Faraday Electrolysis.

So, is there another way?

Well, it has been proven that for the same amount of power, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis produces more combustible gases than Faraday Electrolysis. I say, ‘combustible gases’, because the high temperatures created by plasma discharges do not just involve the creation of radical species H+ and OH-, but also OH2 and O, reacting to form not only hydrogen and oxygen, but also highly combustible hydrogen peroxide H2O2.

If you are aware of the work done by Dave Lawton, who was himself active on forums a few years back, you will know that he claimed to be achieving 3 â€" 4 times more gas evolution from his Meyer-like electrolyser than Faraday’s Electrolysis Laws state was possible. Of course Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis were not at fault and still completely valid, so there had to be something else happening too.  Back then there was much theorising, much controversy, and of course much wild speculation. But now, a few years on, things look a little different and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit nicely to show us glimpses of the big picture.

One thing that was a feature of Dave Lawton’s electrolyser design was that the tubular electrodes were ‘conditioned’.  Conditioning is a term that is banded about quite a lot. For a long time it was considered a mysterious process, creating much speculation and debate, and indeed seen by some as a bit of a dark art. The problem was, that no one really knew what it was all about - how or why it apparently increased efficiency of the electrolyser - or indeed if it served any real purpose at all.

Further complications arise from the fact there seems to be two types of conditioning of the electrodes, or rather two interpretations.  The first is that running an electrolyser at a low current for a few hours, allows iron in the surface of the electrodes to ‘leach’ out.  That is, any microscopic areas of iron on the surface of the stainless steel electrodes, under working conditions will react with the oxygen being created to form rust.  Now obviously if we are losing oxygen to the iron to form an oxide, then we evolve less oxygen as a gas, so certainly this will be seen as a reduction in gas output.  When this iron reacts to form rust it usually leaves the surface of the SS electrodes to become a precipitate in the solution, and the chromium in the SS quickly acts to form a protective oxide coating. Once all the microscopic iron has been reacted, the chromium oxide coating on the SS surface does its job and prevents further reaction.  So this form of condition makes sense and indeed is good practice.

However, Dave Lawton’s electrode conditioning goes a step further.  By using hard water (that is water high in minerals) or indeed doping water with minerals, he built up a visible mineral coating, which consisted mainly of calcium carbonate, or scale.  Water that is filtered through limestone is very mineral rich and ideal for producing this coating.  But what does it do?

Well at the time, as I mentioned above, it was a mystery.  But not so now.

Dave Lawton claimed that his cells appeared to glow slightly in the dark, producing some kind of luminescence.  At the time, though interesting, not too much was made of this and little investigation or indeed real consideration was given to this phenomenon.

The interesting thing about this mineral coating was that, although it did not conduct electricity, having a non-measurable resistance on a digital multimeter and so effectively a great insulator, it was actually very porous.

What I know now, that no one realised at the time was that the luminescence was due to microscopic PLASMA DISCHARGES within the microscopic cavities of this porous mineral coating. And any apparent over-Faraday results were likely due to this phenomenon.

Now, CAVITATION produces similar results to plasma discharges in water due to the high temperatures and pressures created on a microscopic level but, unlike plasma discharges which are created by high currents, cavitation is induced mechanically by physical vibration.

So here’s the thing. Why not introduce all these elements into an electrolyser in order to â€" if possible â€" increase overall efficiency.

So here’s my idea: The Hybrid Electrolyser

An electrolyser that uses elements of Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and Cavitation.

I’m currently designing and fabricating, but the current freezing cold spell is hampering me somewhat. However, I’ve attached a couple of my initial designs in order that you can see where I’m going with this.

-------------------------------     
-------------------------------
Farrah

It's what you learn after you think you know it all that really counts!

[Gwandau]

the luminescence was due to microscopic PLASMA DISCHARGES within the microscopic cavities of this porous mineral coating

This is soo intriguing! What a beautiful way to initiate resonance, using the microscopic
dimensional boundaries created within the cavities.

Priceless indeed!  Thanks alot for sharing this.

Gwandau

[ramset]

Gwandau,

Yes ,A wonderful find [observation]!!,perhaps a way to tune [get the glow going]?

The slow road  to eureka!

Good to be excited ,and good to hear Farrah 's
Positive side! [very good]

Chet
PS
From "Yaro"

Here is my effort at replicating Mookie's experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6OIcjNl66E

12V, 6A. The electromagnet was set at 70V and it pulled 0.66 amps.

I used six 4 inch pizza cutters I bought from The Dollar store.

My observations:
The higher the amp draw the better the production.
I won't call it an avalanche. Accelerated production is a better term.
The container wall has to be thin. I tried a 3/8 " thick Plexiglass and it did not work.

[wojwrobel]

hello

i have been thinking how could the stanley meyer device work and i came to this:

what you guys think?