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

[MarkE]

Let us talk about the different scenarios that may be possible to use water as fuel.  We shall use entire cycles in every scenario.

A.    The complete cycle for a normal electrolysis can be:
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a normal electrolysis setup.
3.    Use X units of Energy to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen gases in the normal electrolysis way.
4.    Feed the hydrogen and oxygen gases into a fuel cell (reverse electrolysis) and generate X units of electricity.

No Lawrence get at most 5/6ths X.

Or feed the hydrogen and oxygen gas as fuel for combustion.  X units of energy will be available to do work.  (Ideal case with no loss assumed.)

This is a recurrent problem with your unworkable free energy proposals:  Invalid assumptions.

5.    The result of 4 will be water again in the case of combustion. The result of 4 will be water as electrolyte in the case of fuel cell.
6.    Repeat from 1 or 2 again.

You must add new energy each cycle.

The above is a well known process.  Water can be changed into hydrogen and oxygen gases as fuel.  The problem is the large amount of X energy needed for electrolysis and the danger of transporting hydrogen and oxygen gases.

The bigger problem is that the process is lossy.  This is a lossy energy storage method.

B.    DC Pulsing can break up the water molecules into some form of HHO with much less energy.
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.
3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some "HHO gas mixture" that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X as in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)

The Indian paper claims are completely over the top and have not been validated by anyone.  They contradict the results of the Japanese paper that they are based on.

4.    The "HHO gas mixture" is used as fuel, releasing X1 units of energy.  This "HHO gas mixture" is then turned into water.  (There is some justification that the "HHO gas mixture" may be different from Hydrogen and oxygen mixture in that – Browns Gas, if left for hours, will lose its implosion property.  One explanation is that electromagnetic waves from outside will alter the structure of the Browns Gas.)

You are stating yet more assumptions Lawrence.

5.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
In this case, the amount of energy X1 to turn water into some "HHO gas mixture" can be much less than X.  There may be some electrical energy source needed to supply X1.  This is still acceptable as it makes it practical to use water as fuel.

You are premising this all on an unvalidated claim from a poorly prepared paper.

C.    Scenario B PLUS lead-out or bring-in energy Y1 via Implosion
1.    Start with water at room temperature.
2.    Use the water as electrolyte in a special Stan Meyer, HHO or some special type device.

Instead of "special" why don't you say what you mean: "magic"?

3.    DC pulse the Electrolyte with X1 units of Energy.  Some kind of resonance occurs. Produces some "HHO gas mixture" that is different from normal hydrogen and oxygen gas mixture resulting from normal electrolysis. X1 is much less than X in scenario A.  (May be 1/8 or 1/31 as discussed in the Indian Paper in this thread.)

You are pleading a special case without evidence.

4.    The "HHO gas mixture" is used as fuel in an Implosion fashion.  The Implosion will bring in Y1 Units of Energy.

Energy stored in advanced in the form of compressed gas (spring) rarifying due to the H₂ combustion gets utilized by the unspecified machine.  In order to repeat the cycle you need to compress the gas volume (spring) again.  This has no more opportunity for free energy than the lifts in your car's boot.

5.    The total energy available to use is X1+Y1.  This Bring-in System may be able to self-sustain.  X1 units of energy is fed back to generate the "HHO gas mixture" and Y1 units used to do work. The "HHO gas mixture" is then turned into water.

No, it cannot.  Because to raise the pressure so as to be able to extract work in the next cycle, the work extracted as the gas rarified has to be replaced by pumping in new hydrogen and oxygen gas, at an energy cost at least equal to the total energy difference generated by the implosion.

6.    Resulting water is fed back to start the process at 1.
This becomes a very attractive option.  The additional Y1 energy from the Implosion process may be able to supply the electrical energy in step 3.  The System becomes a Bring-in Energy System continuously bringing-in the kinetic energy of air molecules to do work and cool the environment at the same time.

Once again you rely on oversights and faulty assumptions.

(More to follow)

This is just one of many unworkable free energy schemes that you have promoted over the years.

[ltseung888]

No Lawrence get at most 5/6ths X.This is a recurrent problem with your unworkable free energy proposals:  Invalid assumptions.You must add new energy each cycle.The bigger problem is that the process is lossy.  This is a lossy energy storage method.

*** Scenario A does not use any Bring-in or Lead-out Energy.  It is just a "reversible" reaction.  A large number of X units of energy is involved in this process.  If we want to do any useful mechanica work W, we need to supply W units of energy from some other means. ***

The Indian paper claims are completely over the top and have not been validated by anyone.  They contradict the results of the Japanese paper that they are based on.You are stating yet more assumptions Lawrence.You are premising this all on an unvalidated claim from a poorly prepared paper.

*** Scenario B: When a paper is presented for peer review, we should give it a chance.  As Physicists, we should consider whether it is theoretically possible.  Theoretically, different electron clouds can be associated with the same group of atms and molecules - making the energy content different.  This is the basis of X1 units (much smaller than X) can be used to turn the same water into some "HHO gas Mixture".  The "HHO gas Mixture" electron cloud can be very different from that "gas mioxture" obtained from classical electrolysis.
** This Scenario B will also need an external supply of energy to do W units of work.  The advantage is that X1 is much smaller than X.

*** Scenario C: Instead of "special" why don't you say what you mean: "magic"?You are pleading a special case without evidence.Energy stored in advanced in the form of compressed gas (spring) rarifying due to the H₂ combustion gets utilized by the unspecified machine. 

** Implosion is NOT magic.  It has been and can be demonstrated in all Physics laboratoris all over the world. **

In order to repeat the cycle you need to compress the gas volume (spring) again.  This has no more opportunity for free energy than the lifts in your car's boot.No, it cannot.  Because to raise the pressure so as to be able to extract work in the next cycle, the work extracted as the gas rarified has to be replaced by pumping in new hydrogen and oxygen gas, at an energy cost at least equal to the total energy difference generated by the implosion.

** Please understand the Physics.  When a Pison goes to fill a vacuum, it does NOT compress any gas.  The Work is contributed by External Pressure or the Kinetic Energy of the air molecules.  In my diagram of the vertical piston, work is actually done to lift the picton upwards.  When the "HHO gas intake is open", the weight of the Piston will help to draw in the HHO gas. **

** The situation is NOT like a spring where the compression stores the energy.  The gas "disppears" and will not push back.  Please think about this comparison more. Do not use an invalide comparison.  **

Once again you rely on oversights and faulty assumptions.This is just one of many unworkable free energy schemes that you have promoted over the years.

I do not mind personal attacks.  Someone once commented: "Edison tried many thousand times before the success of the light bulb.  Before his success, there were geers."  Your comments do contain some science.  At the research stage, we can make assumptions so long as they are "possible".  So continue.  We can identify the pitfalls and misunderstandings.  The World will learn from our discussions.

[MarkE]

I do not mind personal attacks.  Someone once commented: "Edison tried many thousand times before the success of the light bulb.  Before his success, there were geers."  Your comments do contain some science.  At the research stage, we can make assumptions so long as they are "possible".  So continue.  We can identify the pitfalls and misunderstandings.  The World will learn from our discussions.

Lawrence I have pointed out material flaws in your claims.  I have noted your history of promoting many unworkable free energy claims.  Those are established facts.  If you are genuinely interested in finding some new energy source, then you would be well advised to make drastic improvements in your methods.

One can speculate possibilities.  It is absolute folly to assume things are true that have either been refuted or are not supported by strong evidence.  It is absolute folly to determine an energy balance without considering the entire cycle.

[sparks]

   If the cell forms a water capacitor and an inductance is added to the circuit then the circuit will reach resonance at some frequency.  Theoretically the energy supplied to the system is either stored in the magnetic field about the inductor or in the potential across the plates of the capacitor.
The voltage across the capacitor can be maximal while the magnetic field about the inductor is minimal and vice versa.   This condition can be maintained by input from a voltage source to overcome resistive losses in the circuit.   So a pulsed input will ring down at the resonant frequency.   This provides a pulsed voltage to appear across the cell as compared to a continual dc potential as in conventional electrolysis.  There is no current flow through the cell as this would represent a shorted capacitor.  There is however an electric field established through the water which stresses the covalent bonding of the water molecule.  As it is water is self-ionizing due to thermal movement of the molecules randomly stressing the hydrogen oxygen bond.  (This forms hydroxide and hydronium ions giving us the ph of pure water rising with increased temperature.)  If the field strips all 8 valence electrons from a water in a pulse-  the water molecule could actually blow up due to the high amount of positive charge.   This would cause two protons to be expelled from the water molecule.  Relaxation of the field and the electrons come back but now the condition for forming hydrogen and oxygen gaseous are more favorable than formation of water due to the columb explosion of the water molecule.

[MarkE]

   If the cell forms a water capacitor and an inductance is added to the circuit then the circuit will reach resonance at some frequency.  Theoretically the energy supplied to the system is either stored in the magnetic field about the inductor or in the potential across the plates of the capacitor.
The voltage across the capacitor can be maximal while the magnetic field about the inductor is minimal and vice versa.   This condition can be maintained by input from a voltage source to overcome resistive losses in the circuit.   So a pulsed input will ring down at the resonant frequency.   This provides a pulsed voltage to appear across the cell as compared to a continual dc potential as in conventional electrolysis.  There is no current flow through the cell as this would represent a shorted capacitor.  There is however an electric field established through the water which stresses the covalent bonding of the water molecule.  As it is water is self-ionizing due to thermal movement of the molecules randomly stressing the hydrogen oxygen bond.  (This forms hydroxide and hydronium ions giving us the ph of pure water rising with increased temperature.)  If the field strips all 8 valence electrons from a water in a pulse-  the water molecule could actually blow up due to the high amount of positive charge.   This would cause two protons to be expelled from the water molecule.  Relaxation of the field and the electrons come back but now the condition for forming hydrogen and oxygen gaseous are more favorable than formation of water due to the columb explosion of the water molecule.

One could apply AC at any frequency they like, but then have the problem that H₂ and O₂ would both evolve at each electrode.  The energy required to completely strip eight electrons is huge.  The likelihood that any such process would improve efficiency is next to nil.