Hi,
I have seen a lot of videos on youtube about how you easily can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It says that the energy it takes to split water is less than the energy when the hydrogen and oxygen mixdure burns.
So then it should be possible to make a device that runs a piston engine, and let the exhaust pass a condenser to get the water back and split it again.
Then it should be almost limitless of fuel in water - I mean, the energy in water if we use Einsteins E=MC^2, 1 gram of water, or 1 gram if something else, should be able to power 1500 households for one year - at 100% efficiency.
I have tested HHO production, and it works well - also without electrolyte if the voltage is high enough. It is also quite dangerous to play with. Anyway, I want to discuss with you the posibility to make a very efficient device, that can recycle water into HHO - into water - into HHO - etc.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2010, 04:54:24 PM
Hi,
I have seen a lot of videos on youtube about how you easily can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. It says that the energy it takes to split water is less than the energy when the hydrogen and oxygen mixture burns...
Not using standard Faraday electrolysis. You need to hit the water
with resonance - often 42.8khz + two lower octaves, as pioneered
by Stan Meyer, Dave Lawton and Bob Boyce.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 11, 2010, 05:28:35 PM
Not using standard Faraday electrolysis. You need to hit the water
with resonance - often 42.8khz + two lower octaves, as pioneered
by Stan Meyer, Dave Lawton and Bob Boyce.
What kind of resonance? Will 42.8khz + two lower octaves work with any shape or size cell? Can you please give references to where in any documentation of Stan's, Dave's, and Bob and did you get this info from them? Have you done this yourself?If you have, please show me! I am very interested in this myself and I'm looking for some good info.
Thank you!
There should be a way to split water into hho and use it as a fuel and then capture the energy produced from it turning back in to water again.
@Paul-R :
You say we need a 42.8kHz, 21.4kHz and 10.7kHz generator? It should be easy to build. Also use a regular audio car amplifier (Most works well above 50khz). Then amplify the current and voltage to a quite high energy capasity.
I have also thinked of using high energy pulses to trig the production...how about that?
However, I have been told that AC will not work...so I guess a DC offset is required to keep the amplitudes in the frequency above 0V and not alternating + and - around 0V (?)
Do we need any kind of electrolysis, or will pure water do?
I can't wait to hit back on the oil companies - even if my country's welfare is based on oil production. The goverment tell us not to use oil, but still force us to use it because it is no focus in alternative energy - well it is, but you know how capitalism works... LOL ;D
Vidar
Quote from: nightlife on March 11, 2010, 08:48:21 PM
There should be a way to split water into hho and use it as a fuel and then capture the energy produced from it turning back in to water again.
By use of a simple condenser, and a small pump to pump the "water exhaust" back in the water container. What if it was possible to make gasoline by running electrolysis on the exhaust... reversing the combustion process?
Gasoline is basicly hydrogen and carbon. It combusts with oxygen in the air and leave CO2 and H2O. Maybe it is hard to convert CO2 into COO? Let CO2 be absorbed in water under pressure and then run electrolysis on it?
But it will be possible to convert that H2O into HHO - and overflow the water tank, or take conversion loss into account, and then be able to leave the water level constant.
So at the end we fill the gasoline tank and the water tank only once - then run the car forever...(?)
Vidar
I can see you guys are thinking this out rather well. Who would of thought that an audio amplifier and three special frequencies would be the key to limitless energy? It's genius! Pure genius! I can't wait to see you guys stick it to the man with these super simple devices. Let me guess, you plan on using a dry cell?
Quote from: HeairBear on March 12, 2010, 09:20:29 AM
I can see you guys are thinking this out rather well. Who would of thought that an audio amplifier and three special frequencies would be the key to limitless energy? It's genius! Pure genius! I can't wait to see you guys stick it to the man with these super simple devices. Let me guess, you plan on using a dry cell?
Thanks for the positive and encouraging reply ;) I have a question to you, however: Do you have any good ideas regarding dry cells? Because I do not see any potential in using those - yet.
Vidar
Quote from: HeairBear on March 11, 2010, 06:40:53 PM
What kind of resonance? Will 42.8khz + two lower octaves work with any shape or size cell? Can you please give references...
Yes, I can!
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
also, make a note of this:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WorkingWatercar/
One of the best referenced project around. (check out the rest of the
ebook, and print it if you have three reams of paper to hand.
Paul-R
Dry or wet, the differences in efficiency is negligible and need not to much consideration involving electrolysis. Although, a parallel design is a better choice by far than any series cell design.
Paul-R, I have read all of that site many times and most of it still makes me laugh. Nice try though! can you confirm any of what that chapter has written in it yourself? Have you had success with any one of those designs? I just can't imagine anyone whom has had any experience at all in electrolysis would say what you have stated earlier without definite proof and not regurgitating the words of others unchecked. I know you have been here at this forum for some time and your post count shows it. It is none the less sad that you have no evidence of your own to back up what you and others claim.
It pains me to see new people come here looking for information to better themselves only to be bombarded with hyperbole and less than pertinent information scantily gathered from unchecked sources. We have been over this subject many, many times on this forum and have proved it wrong every time. Why do you beat this dead horse over and over? I understand you have an opinion and you are entitled to it. But, opinions and facts are two different entities altogether and you must differentiate between the two. If you say 48.2Khz and two octaves is the way to go, please explain your thesis in detail. If you can truly show any working model, I will replicate it and confirm it.
Quote from: HeairBear on March 12, 2010, 10:48:05 AM
Paul-R, I have read all of that site many times and most of it still makes me laugh. Nice try though! can you confirm any of what that chapter has written in it yourself? Have you had success with any one of those designs? I just can't imagine anyone whom has had any experience at all in electrolysis would say what you have stated earlier without definite proof and not regurgitating the words of others unchecked. I know you have been here at this forum for some time and your post count shows it. It is none the less sad that you have no evidence of your own to back up what you and others claim.
It pains me to see new people come here looking for information to better themselves only to be bombarded with hyperbole and less than pertinent information scantily gathered from unchecked sources. We have been over this subject many, many times on this forum and have proved it wrong every time. Why do you beat this dead horse over and over? I understand you have an opinion and you are entitled to it. But, opinions and facts are two different entities altogether and you must differentiate between the two. If you say 48.2Khz and two octaves is the way to go, please explain your thesis in detail. If you can truly show any working model, I will replicate it and confirm it.
So, HeairBear knows more than Bob Boyce, eh?
Are you confirming Bob Boyce's work is valid? Or are you regurgitating what you have read?
Quote from: Low-Q on March 12, 2010, 09:03:50 AM
By use of a simple condenser, and a small pump to pump the "water exhaust" back in the water container. What if it was possible to make gasoline by running electrolysis on the exhaust... reversing the combustion process?
Gasoline is basicly hydrogen and carbon. It combusts with oxygen in the air and leave CO2 and H2O. Maybe it is hard to convert CO2 into COO? Let CO2 be absorbed in water under pressure and then run electrolysis on it?
But it will be possible to convert that H2O into HHO - and overflow the water tank, or take conversion loss into account, and then be able to leave the water level constant.
So at the end we fill the gasoline tank and the water tank only once - then run the car forever...(?)
Vidar
If one had a very potent overunity energy supply to source the energy...
Rather than targeting gasoline fuel from ICE exhaust, target; ethanol - ethyl alcohol
plus a little methanol for denaturing. Ethanol is chemically much simpler than gasoline
a would require less built-in QA quality assurance monitoring...it ignites at a much
higher energy than gasoline...and it's fumes are relatively safe to be around...Simply
dilute with water it in case of accidental spills. I think storing ethanol is much safer
than even storing hydrogen gas. Methanol, while even simpler, it and it's fumes are
poisons. One could absorb a little CO2 and H2O from the environment for chemical
process makeup feeds.
ethanol: C2H5OH vs gasoline: is a mixture of hydrocarbons some of which can
be isomers branched at different C positions.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: HeairBear on March 12, 2010, 10:59:15 AM
Are you confirming Bob Boyce's work is valid? Or are you regurgitating what you have read?
I have no plans to do either.
Thank you Paul, I admire your honesty... How could I convince you to try?
Quote from: HeairBear on March 12, 2010, 12:30:05 PM
Thank you Paul, I admire your honesty... How could I convince you to try?
I don't know. It would be a challenge to great to be bothered with.
With electrolysis, I can agree with you there. It's hard to accept that electrolysis is a very bad way to go about making HHO, but everyone who tries has to come to this very same conclusion. I think you are the smarter man and can see from the many posts here it ends in dismay. Me included! I started here to long ago like many of you. I still test and research water fuel, but, I have given up on electrolysis. It's a dead end.
If I were to show you how to build a Stan Meyer Tubular Demo Cell with off the shelf parts for less than $500.00, would you take the challenge? I'm talking replication here and not some slap together toy. This is the real deal and it took me some time to find a cheap way to build one, but I did it and made it easy so any one could do it.
In this video on youtube, it is mentioned 20kHz about 1 minute in the video. That is quite close to the already mentioned frequency earlier in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA).
The energy output is about 100 times the energy input...
Vidar
Now I understood the frequency part.
This is how I understand this: The frequency is randomly picked, but it has to be the same as the oscillation circuit made up by a coil and a capacitor. The capacitor is the water container with the two plates or cylinders in it. The coil is selected with low resistance to provide a high Q (Oposite of my nick) oscillation circuit. Such circuit will be able to build up extreme voltage over the capacitor and the coil with relatively low input voltage. In pure destilled water it requires about 2kV pr mm space to break apart the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom. And because water molecules are bipolare, one + side and one - side, it will be possible to pull that molecule apart.
Oxygen will be released on the positive connector and hydrogen at the negative - because the negative part of the water molecule consists mainly of electrons around the oxygen nuke. While the two positive hydrogen nukes shares electrons with oxygen, that side will be positive and attracted to the negative charged plate. How convenient is this?
Hydrogen is the matter which have the highest energy versus mass in the universe, but without salt or baking soda, pulling destilled water apart to HHO takes about 1/100 of the energy released when HHO fuse together into water.
This is great stuff. So I hope we all can gather to make good HHO generators that is useful to power anything from households to transportation.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 13, 2010, 08:04:31 AM
Hydrogen is the matter which have the highest energy versus mass in the universe, but without salt or baking soda, pulling destilled water apart to HHO takes about 1/100 of the energy released when HHO fuse together into water.
Was that last bit proven? I cannot see how a garage tinkerer would NOT have a self running car on water then. Or even, when not looping aything, just having a small battery to break up a tank full of water to provide HHO for the powerful engine.
Low-Q, you just have broken the old 42.8Khz myth. Yes, the frequency has to match the resonant circuit, but, I'm not so sure about the high Q. Although, resonance is not the trick to making copious amounts of gasses out of water. There is a bit more to it. There are two resonances Stan talked about and used the term loosely. There is a resonance in the cell called "Resonant Action" that is occurring between the plates which can be achieved without the LCR circuitry or "Resonant Charging Chokes".
Quote from: Low-Q on March 13, 2010, 08:04:31 AM
Oxygen will be released on the positive connector and hydrogen at the negative -
Its a strange technology which owes much to the idea of an opera singer
breaking a champagne glass by singing the note that the glass resonates
at.
It would seem that it is the voltage, rather than the current which fractures
the water molecule, and that is why the bubbles come off, not at the
plates but throughout the bulk of the liquid between them. It is not an
electolysis process at all.
At the UK Free Energy Conference in 2007 and 2008, we were shown an
implementation of the Stan Meyer technology; the Dave Lawton system.
When the power was switched on, there was a brief interval of about
half a second, and then the entire apparatus went milky white with
bubbles.
Quote from: HeairBear on March 13, 2010, 09:05:31 AM
Low-Q, you just have A the old 42.8Khz myth. Yes, the frequency has to match the resonant circuit, but, I'm not so sure about the high Q. Although, resonance is not the trick to making copious amounts of gasses out of water. There is a bit more to it. There are two resonances Stan talked about and used the term loosely. There is a resonance in the cell called "Resonant Action" that is occurring between the plates which can be achieved without the LCR circuitry or "Resonant Charging Chokes".
I am not 100% sure about the high Q, but high Q is essential to reach maximum amplitude with a very narrow frequency band. So voltage amplitude rises as the frequency band decrease (or Q increases). As it is the voltage that breaks up the water, high Q should be preferred to maximize the efficiency and highest possible voltage.
Further, you mention a second resonance system. Is that the mechanicanical resonance that is occouring between the mass in the tubes and the compliance in the fluid and bubbles between them?
Vidar
Quote from: Cloxxki on March 13, 2010, 08:49:14 AM
Was that last bit proven? I cannot see how a garage tinkerer would NOT have a self running car on water then. Or even, when not looping aything, just having a small battery to break up a tank full of water to provide HHO for the powerful engine.
First of all I do think that a "correct" HHO production isn't well known to hobbyists. Many still play with baking soda and 12V car battery at 30 amps. Second, I do not think the idea of recycling water steam into liquid water again is wery well established - or thinked of much.
Third, I do think that most people have the "traditional" way of thinking that you cannot get more out than in.
The last part is hard to accept, but I think there isn't more out than in, but every time there is a reaction between two matters, like burning H and O, they loose some mass in the fusion into water. This massdifference is seen as radiant energy we can harness. So my thougt is that the mass of the water will eventually dissappear as pure energy. This will however happen very slow. Because if you gain 2kWh, the energy production by use of 1 gram of water, will take over 2000 years to emty. Einsteins theories is a proof of this, and the whole deal isnt violating anything of the laws in physics - because mass IS energy, just waiting for a trigger to convert it into radiant and useful energy. And water is a very convenient matter to do this with.
Fourth: The goverments around the globe - what will happen with Norways economies if the production of oil, gas, and gasoline discontiniued because of the HHO? There are quite powerful forces which is trying to stop development of alternative energy that is a threat to oil production.
Vidar
I just have a question:
Is it a must to use a high frequency if the voltage is the essence?
I think of a simple transformer that is stepping up the voltage. Put that transformer into the power outlet, or using a SMPS powersupply for car audio amplifiers. Place a rectifier at the secondary winding and plug it into the steel plates in the water. 200 times more windings on the secondary winding will produce at least 2400V with a 12V input...
It should be possible to make as much kV as we want actually, and we do not need the baking soda or salt in the water.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 14, 2010, 06:27:36 AM
I just have a question:
Is it a must to use a high frequency if the voltage is the essence?
Yes.
There are two issues:
1. The effect of 42.8Khz
2. The effect of the static voltage across plates (tubes) which
are separated by a crucial proportion of the wavelength.
If you look at the Boyce 101 plate set-up, the "wave" goes
across the plates such that the nulls occur at the plates,
and the sine wave + and - portions lie between the plates.
For this reason, the manufacturing problems (challenges)
are not trivial. You can get the box built for you by a
chap called Ed Holdgate. (Don't bet your kidneys on a box
built by anyone else actually working).
Quote from: Paul-R on March 14, 2010, 09:28:34 AM
Yes.
There are two issues:
1. The effect of 42.8Khz
2. The effect of the static voltage across plates (tubes) which
are separated by a crucial proportion of the wavelength.
If you look at the Boyce 101 plate set-up, the "wave" goes
across the plates such that the nulls occur at the plates,
and the sine wave + and - portions lie between the plates.
For this reason, the manufacturing problems (challenges)
are not trivial. You can get the box built for you by a
chap called Ed Holdgate. (Don't bet your kidneys on a box
built by anyone else actually working).
Great, thanks! I will now start my replication of Mayers generator. I have just one consern regarding the resonance system: The capacity (Farads) of the plates in water will change as soon as it is starting to produce gasses. Pure water will make another capacity than when there is gas bubbles between the plates. So it will probably be hard to find the right capacity, or right coil in the circuit to make it resonance at 42.8kHz. Maybe it is better to have a fixed frequency generator that is amplified with a few watts so no resonance circuits are required?
Attached there is a picture of a waveform that has its base tone at 21.4kHz but contains equal amplitude of 1.5., 2., 2.5., and 3. harmonic. The frequensies are therefor: 21.4kHz, 32.1kHz, 42.8kHz, 53.5kHz, and 64.2kHz.
So with this generator there will be no drift in the resonant frequencies due to bubbles, temperature and other factors.
See also attached waveshape and spectrum.
Here is a link to a .WAV file I made just now with 5 seconds of this "sound" - if someone want to try this with your amplifier :)
http://www.lyd-interior.no/lydfiler/21400hz-plus-1.5-2-2.5-3harmonic-192kHz-sampling.wav (http://www.lyd-interior.no/lydfiler/21400hz-plus-1.5-2-2.5-3harmonic-192kHz-sampling.wav)
Vidar
This is a short clip showing the "milky white" phenomenon. Not overwhelmingly
instructive, but nonetheless, very inspirational:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/WFCrep.wmv
Also, don't forget to review Page 20 of 78 (onwards).
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
you know, i thought of something similar to this before, but i didn't have anything to experiment with and i couldn't find the specific answers i needed
i think a main problem is the purity of water, as well as the separation of the oxygen from the hydrogen
distilled water would work the best, i believe, because all impurities have been removed and i think it takes less energy for the separation process
while the electricity added does separate the oxygen and hydrogen, you need a method of actually separating them from each other
im not sure why hydrogen cars don't just feed the water back to the source, but my guess would be that the water might be "pure" in a chemical sense, but "dirty" when compared to the original source
other than that, the idea is so logical i don't know why it hasn't been done before, looking forward to hearing your results, il be following, sorry to say however i have no personal experience in these so i cant add a whole lot
I have now ordered electronic parts. One part is out of stock but is expected March 31.
I hope this works...
Vidar
Quote from: mr_bojangles on March 15, 2010, 01:27:11 PM
you know, i thought of something similar to this before, but i didn't have anything to experiment with and i couldn't find the specific answers i needed
i think a main problem is the purity of water, as well as the separation of the oxygen from the hydrogen
distilled water would work the best, i believe, because all impurities have been removed and i think it takes less energy for the separation process
while the electricity added does separate the oxygen and hydrogen, you need a method of actually separating them from each other
im not sure why hydrogen cars don't just feed the water back to the source, but my guess would be that the water might be "pure" in a chemical sense, but "dirty" when compared to the original source
other than that, the idea is so logical i don't know why it hasn't been done before, looking forward to hearing your results, il be following, sorry to say however i have no personal experience in these so i cant add a whole lot
I don't think that some "dirt" in the water will be a problem compared to the actual problem with emissions from gasoline and diesel. The reason why hydrogen cars is so rare is the oilcompanies! Hydrogen fuel is well known, but I think the technology is held back till the oil is emty...
What should the oilcompanies do when it was known to everyone that you can recycle water, have no emmision whatsoever, close to zero expence in fuel and maintanance? The technology is available and useful for those who live long enough to harness this energy - food poisoning and bullets are effective breaks that prevents further developing of such technology.
You don't need to separate hydrogen and oxygen. The HHO mixdure is already a perfect mixture. However, oxygen is much heavier than hydrogen, so it will be possible to separate them in a quite simple way. If you want to recycle the water steam after combustion, this would be the best way. You will never have to fill up the water tank again.
The engine must be engineered differently because the HHO mixdure burns very fast, so the ignition must happen after the piston has reach the top. Gasoline burns slow, so the ignition must happen before the piston has reached the top. A mixdure of gasoline and HHO will probably require a some later ignition, but not as late as with pure HHO fuel - for hybrid cars.
I will start with a hybrid because it is not possible to delay the ignition enough to run on pure HHO in my car.
Another thing is that old and simple engines have an ignition spark for every revolution. This will ignite the HHO mixdure on its way into the combustion chamber, and the HHO generator with all the tubes will probably explode!! That is however no problem in newer engines with an electronic controlled ignition.
It seems to me, the only thing holding back Hydrogen fueled cars is the storage capacity. You'd need a 30,000psi tank to store enough to go as far as you can on a gas tank. So far I've only found 10,000psi available.
[A author=woodsculptor link=topic=8882.msg233506#msg233506 date=1269112456]
It seems to me, the only thing holding back Hydrogen fueled A is the storage capacity. You'd need a 30,000psi tank to store enough to go as far as you can on a gas tank. So far I've only found 10,000psi available.
[/quote]
Humans landed on the moon in 1969. I cannot see that hydrogen storage should be a problem. The main problem is the oil companies. Another thing is that you can produce your own HHO, let it combust together with water injection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIx5wmOaWls&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIx5wmOaWls&feature=related)
If you can store a 50 litre tank of water at zero pressure, there is suddenly no problems in storing hydrogen fuel.
Vidar