by nlc » 21/04/08, 16:17
Well, let's go once and for all!
1) I find you really ironic and ... unnecessarily harsh in your words (nasty limit !?)
2) Did I say somewhere affirmatively that Meyer was not working?
No. I simply always clearly stated everything that I had noticed during my many hours of experimentation. Unlike many, I have always done my experiments by being as rigorous as possible, whether in setting up tests, or in measurements.
Contrary to what you may think, I didn't just focus on "prehistoric electrolyses without electronics" to use your words.
The electronics it is precisely my job figure you, and I also spent an incalculable number of hours to make tests of electrolyses managed electronically, with pulsed current / voltage in particular.
And it works ! Yes you read well, it works! Except that in all the tests I did, I could never do better than a simple prehistoric electrolysis.
It is for this simple and good reason that I never talked about all these tests on my site for example, because it has absolutely no interest, although there was still gas coming out of the electrolyser!
With all the hours of experience that I was able to do, I learned a lot of things that I relayed besides throughout the subject "improved electrolysis", in particular on the operation of a standard electrolysis, therefore in current mode .
If you have followed the subject from the start, you will see for yourself that I have never closed the door to the possibility of making surunity. I even managed to make it, but over a very short period of a few ms.
It was then, and after having understood that we cannot make faraday lie on standard electrolyses in current (even pulsed), that I explained what was, according to me, the only technique allowing to make permanent unit, or at least continue to improve performance.
Faraday never lying, even in pulsed mode (at the moment when the current passes), I concluded that to improve the yield, it was rather necessary to work on the reduction of the supply voltage.
I had noticed that at the very start of an electrolysis, when the electrodes are not yet covered with gas, a strong current can be passed through the electrodes even if the voltage is lower than the theoretical threshold voltage. (It is during this very short period that there is "overunit", because gas generation while the supply voltage is below the threshold voltage). This threshold voltage comes from the fact that once the electrodes are clogged with oxygen on one side, and hydrogen on the other, it behaves like a battery. To continue to circulate current in the electrolysis, the only solution is then to have a supply voltage greater than the voltage of the battery effect.
So to improve the efficiency of a current mode electrolysis, in my opinion the only solution is to succeed in passing the current under a lower voltage. And pulsed electrolysis could be a very good way to do it! I never denied it, that's why I actually digged the question a lot! Indeed, the goal would be that during the time or the current passes, we produce oxygen and hydrogen, but that they are evacuated from the plates during the time or the current does not pass. At the next ON time, we are left with less battery effect, which allows us to pass more current and at a lower voltage.
So I digged a lot this question there, made a lot of measurements (I'm pretty well equipped for that: power supply, digital oscilloscope, etc ...), but never I could not do better than the famous prehistoric electrolysis, for the simple reason that the OFF time of the pulsed current does not allow the gases to escape sufficiently for it to have an influence on the voltage of the battery effect. We have already exposed several techniques which could improve the pulsed electrolysis: to make so that the pulsation also makes vibrate the plates in resonance to try to release gases from the electrodes, to balance ultrasound to also take off the gas, to make circulate quickly a flow of electrolyte to extract the gas from the walls, etc.
So my conclusion on current mode electrolysis (pulsed or not), has always been to say that to increase the efficiency, you have to succeed in lowering the voltage, by reducing the battery effect. To lower the stack effect, there are not 36 solutions, it is imperative to get this fucking hydrogen and fucking oxygen out of the plates. Indeed, unfortunately Faraday never lies for electrolyses that run on current.
For the Meyer type electrolysis, which would seem to use another technique, namely the "cracking" of the water molecule by high voltage, I never said that it would never work. I myself made tests on it, and I even demonstrated (go see on the forum motor), digital oscillo curves to support, that we could actually manage to create strong overvoltages with a low voltage at the start and an LC resonance system.
Except that I did these tests with an air capacity (the 2 electrolysis plates but without water), and I showed that as soon as we put water, the most distilled is it, we have a resistance which prevents resonance and voltage build-up.
It is from there that I dropped the meyer tests because there is, in my opinion, something wrong with all his patents, or in any case it lacks elements, because it is impossible to have a sufficiently high resistance between the electrodes so that they can be considered as a perfect capacitor, and integrated into a resonant system allowing the voltage to be raised to several thousand volts.
I am still very close to what is done in the field, the only thing that bothers me is that I need more than "it works" to believe it. I like to understand things. I want it to work, but it takes more, in order to understand and make it reproducible. Or failing to understand, see exactly what is happening (abnormally high gas flow compared to the electrical consumption, etc ...)
Well, I hope things are clear now, and if you want more info, don't hesitate to ask!
0 x