Quote from: Marshallin on August 08, 2014, 07:31:33 AM
i think guys you are drifting out of the topic.

I fullfil my gaps in electronics, and looks like realy si-tyristor is not needed here.

Main chalenge will be calculation of size and winding of inductor for proper saturation.   

One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes that might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer these bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I would really like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating. 

:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: mscoffman on August 09, 2014, 07:43:02 PM
One thing that I don't know if anyone has discussed but, perhaps the low parts count of this circuit is allowing
the active device, the thyristor to listen to conditions inside the electrolyzer cell. Lets assume some pulse of
subatomic particles is ready to deposit a fairly large amount of energy into the cell. Listening for leading edge of the pulse
might allow the cell to be set-up for when the main body of the pulse arrives. This means if a cell has correlated
its behavior with the pulse, it might end up with significantly more energy then a cell that didn't. I especially like
the concept that knocking bubbles off the electrolzer electrodes might allow those bubbles to participate in future
reactions, you would want to buffer those bubbles up beforehand but then launch them during the leading edge of the pulse.
Of course I never make suggestions like this without there being a rather significant body of evidence from several different
areas of science that it is true. If in general natural systems were in a hair trigger condition like this, then a
random burst of RF EMI from these system might actually be a signal to initiate cell conditioning to accept an
incoming pulse. I really would like to discuss my main evidence, but I can't.

Looking at the device structure I suspect the si thyristor might itself be the active element in a number of different systems
showing overunity returns and then it just got an all around "bad name" for participating. 

:S:MarkSCoffman

What thyristors do well is: hold off large voltages, pass large currents with modest voltage drops, and turn on fairly quickly.  What they don't tend to do is turn off very quickly, or pass current with sub 1V voltage drops.  The Japanese tam were looking for a circuit to ostensibly produce short duration current pulses so as to avoid double layer formation.  Their waveforms suggest that they did not succeed with that circuit, which is why I suggest a CDI topology would be a better choice as far as their idea goes.  The Japanese team was looking at performing electrolysis on a large scale where average currents would be large and due to concentrating the current into narrow pulses, the peak currents would be enormous.  they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity.  They were seeking to overcome some loss mechanisms that are known to reduce efficiency well below the theoretical energy conservative limits.

All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.


Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.


Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.


Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.


Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!


Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).


In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.


Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.


That is 16.47 g per litre.


Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.


Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.

To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.


Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the "tail" current through the cell.


Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:


"ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL"
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)


Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!


The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m³, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.


Needless to say, it is all done to "help" you!!  You should be grateful......! 
Yeh,...right!

Quote from: MarkE on August 09, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
they did not claim, nor were they seeking over unity. 

As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

"And all this ABSURD nonsense about "overunity" here!

It is about time that someone (in this case, me) tells you all that running engines on water ONLY has ALWAYS been WAY "overunity", as it is,

without the need for "very careful measurements, rigorous scientific calculation" as you put it!

You don't believe it?

Fine.

Then you better explain HOW and WHY an ICE, with its 26% efficiency, runs beautifully, all day long on nothing but HydrOxy,

generated by  no 'fancy' circuit but quite ordinary electrolysis (but done CORRECTLY)!


The trouble is that most of you have fallen for all the BS "scientific" explanations for WHY this can't be done!

Try to tell that to all those around the world who have done it for several decades already.

Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998,

with the "government's" blessing, may I add!

Guys, it is time to cut the BULLSHIT!

You have all been had BIG time!

TRY to snap out of it!

THIS thread is about a new electrolysis method which can achieve 8 times 'Faraday' gas production!

Guys, you want FREE ENERGY, right?

Well, WAKE UP and pay attention!

STOP arguing and theorising!

Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!"


More to come.....


Cheers,
Les Banki

Quote from: Les Banki on August 10, 2014, 12:51:17 AM
All,

I want all of you to know that those who have criticised and ridiculed in order to discredit the two articles and their clear message (and by doing so they have actually attacked the authors!), have  demonstrated a total lack of practical knowledge of basic electrolysis methods!

I will briefly explain what they have missed.


Starting with the Japanese article:

First of all, the 'critics' have failed to understand the purpose of that article which was/is to publish the concept of this new method,

the nano-pulse power electrolysis.


Second, their experimental set-up was NOT following established practices or choice of materials.


Take for example the use of Platinum plates for the tests.


Since Platinum is a catalyst (in fuel cells), it can actually be detrimental to the electrolysis process!


Next is the distance between the electrodes, 3 cm (30 mm).


In real life applications, however, no-one would use 3 cm gap!
Period.


Then comes probably the most important factor, catalyst concentration.

The Japanese team put 1M (56 g) of KOH in 3.4L of water.


That is 16.47 g per litre.


Now, compare that to the Indian test set-up.

Their range of NaOH concentration ranged from 0.5 g to 15 g, ending up finding the optimum concentration of 4 g per litre of water.


Notwithstanding the difference between NaOH and KOH, (1 mole NaOH is 40 g, 1 mole KOH is 56 g)

there is a VERY LARGE difference between the two test set-ups.

To sum it up:

The Japanese tests used an electrolyte concentration of 16.47 g of KOH per litre of water while the Indian tests used only 4 g of NaOH per litre.


Further, the Indian test cells had a distance between the electrodes in the order of 1.5 – 2 mm while the Japanese team had 30 mm!!

Do you understand the significance of all the above??

On top of all that I have stated above, there are still ongoing arguments about the "tail" current through the cell.


Here I wish to add that there is an excellent article (which I have had for some time) dealing with that very subject:


"ANALYSIS OF INDUCTIVE CURRENT PULSE DYNAMICS IN WATER ELECTROLYSES CELL"
(4th World Hydrogen Technologies Convention, 2011, Glasgow, U.K.  Paper ID: 0103)


Arguments are still going on against the use of IES (Inductive Energy Storage), suggesting Capacitive Discharge instead,

WITHOUT disclosing the technical facts about the differences! For example, with CD, pulse amplitude cannot exceed the power supply voltage, simply because  the capacitor cannot charge

to a higher voltage than the power supply delivers!!


The IES has no such limitation. In fact, pulse amplitude is usually MANY times the supply voltage!
Then there is the energy storage capacity of the Inductive method,  2-20MJ/m³, which is at least one order of magnitude
LARGER than the Capacitive storage method.


Needless to say, it is all done to "help" you!!  You should be grateful......! 
Yeh,...right!




As a reminder, here is my Reply # 37 on August 04, 2014 (slightly edited)

"And all this ABSURD nonsense about "overunity" here!

It is about time that someone (in this case, me) tells you all that running engines on water ONLY has ALWAYS been WAY "overunity", as it is,

without the need for "very careful measurements, rigorous scientific calculation" as you put it!

You don't believe it?

Fine.

Then you better explain HOW and WHY an ICE, with its 26% efficiency, runs beautifully, all day long on nothing but HydrOxy,

generated by  no 'fancy' circuit but quite ordinary electrolysis (but done CORRECTLY)!


The trouble is that most of you have fallen for all the BS "scientific" explanations for WHY this can't be done!

Try to tell that to all those around the world who have done it for several decades already.

Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998,

with the "government's" blessing, may I add!

Guys, it is time to cut the BULLSHIT!

You have all been had BIG time!

TRY to snap out of it!

THIS thread is about a new electrolysis method which can achieve 8 times 'Faraday' gas production!

Guys, you want FREE ENERGY, right?

Well, WAKE UP and pay attention!

STOP arguing and theorising!

Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!"


More to come.....


Cheers,
Les Banki

Shrill seems to be your standard posting style.  So be it.

The Japanese paper proposed a hypothesis that delivering current entirely within short pulses would over come degradation in electrolysis efficiency particularly in large throughput cells.  The long tails shown in their report are counter to their concept as stated.  Their measurements did not show the improvements they theorized.  this leaves several choices:  Drop the concept.  Attempt to test the concept a different way.  Or, ignore the data and pretend it says things that it does not.  I have proposed that a CDI method as a way to test the concept in a different way.  CDI systems work by charging  modest capacitors to significant voltages, and then discharging into the load typically through an isolation transformer.  Where a flyback delivers I²*L/2 Joules per cycle, a CDI delivers V²*C/2 Joules per cycle.  The principle advantage of a CDI here would be to concentrate the charge and energy delivery into shorter periods of time as proposed in the Japanese paper.  The practical details of any power circuit design are a matter of competency.  While a flyback will theoretically rise to whatever voltage is required to maintain current flow, the right components must be selected or else at a minimum the efficiency will be poor, or worse components will fry.  See for example, John Rohner's many different design iterations.  A CDI is more complex a design undertaking than a typical flyback.  But just as one can't get blood from a turnip, one cannot get a rapid current pulse from an inductor discharging into a low resistance.  That point is reiterated by the most recent paper you've linked from the 2011 World Hydrogen Technologies Convention.

You are free to claim that the Japanese researchers selected inappropriate dimensions and/or electrolyte concentrations.  If you believe that, then repeat their experiments altering them in any way you like to see if you improve upon their results.  I have already provided you with a circuit that overcomes your inability to find the SITs that they used.

H₂ is a useful fuel. H₂ and CO are the components of syngas.  Each has a faster flame propagation speed and higher combustion temperature than pentane.  The trouble wiht H₂ is it isn't something that we find just lying around.  We have to convert some other feed stock, and doing so uses more energy than we are able to extract oxidizing the H₂. 

If when you proclaim:  "Or to the man I have personally known for 20 years who has been running his first "water car" since 1979 and the second one (a large van) since 1998, ..." you are suggesting that water is the fuel for either vehicle: then let's see either of these vehicles.  Let's see how they have broken the laws of physics as they are presently understood.  Of course if you can't actually produce either of these vehicles then your shrill proclamations fall flat.

MarkE,

As I told you before, you are NOT very good at this.....you should TRY to find a different occupation....!

Oh, so you are here to teach me about CDI, eh??
Perhaps you should have checked out my Water Fueled Generator Project (WFGP) before you shoot your big mouth off!

Most people on this Forum had enough of your ravings.

I have worked with "water fuel" for 20 years.
Perhaps you want to teach me about electrolysis, too??
How many electrolysers have you made?

Unlike you, I have NO problem running engines on water.
But YOU have a problem explaining THAT away!

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

Cheers,
Les Banki