ZPEnergy.com - Low voltage electrolysis

I find these comments re water electrolysis very instructive for all those interested to learn more about the subject, especially due to recent developments in the field from companies like XOGEN and GWE/WEM (from KeelyNet forum):

Christopher:

I suggest you might want to get some textbooks on electrochemistry, and start talking intelligently about your results. Gibberish about rate increases of number of bubbles of unknown size, is just that: gibberish.

First off, it is the CURRENT, in normal electrolysis that governs the rate of materials oxidized at the anode, and reduced at the cathode. Not the voltage. the Voltage or more correctly, the electric field strength, in Volts per Meter, is what makes the current flow.

So you are right and wrong about whether voltage matters to gas rate. it is only the current that determines rate of electrolyzing in a conventional sense. BUT the voltage is normally limited to near the cell potential for that species. And you must have a voltage to get a current. More importantly, it is the electric field strength that propels the ions - NOT the voltage. And electric field strength is a voltage thru a distance - so cell geometry is of paramount importance. (if you have 120V with electrode spacing of 0.3 meters [400V/m], you will actually get more current, and more gas from 12V @ 3mm!!! [4000V/m]) (back engineering from Meyer's many patents, it appears there is a threshold which needs to be achieved to get his effect - and it is around 600-800 V/m - which is VERY hard to achieve - the cell potential limits the voltage applied - so you have to use some kind of "resonant choke" system, to limit the current, while increasing the voltage to achieve this Efield strength)

Now it is known, from 150 years of empirical tests, that Faraday's Law for electrolysis is at work in normal electrolytic reactions. that is that it takes 96,500 Coulombs of charge, to produce 1 Mole of material reduced at the cathode.

1 Amp = 1 Coulomb per second.

A mole of gas is a lot of liters. In this case it is of both H2 and O2. it works out to 33,600 ml of the combined gas. (22,400 mls per mole of ideal gas, and here we have both H2 and O2 combined in a ratio of 2:1, so to get one mole of H2, the total volume of the mixture is 22,400 x 1.5 = 33,600)

translating the Faraday limit on electrolyzing, you get 1,253.5 mls per amp-hr.

Here is an excellent online tutorial about these things:

http://www.ausetute.com.au/moledefs.html

http://www.ausetute.com.au/faradayl.html

OK, so there are actually two rates or relationships at work here. One is the gas evolution rate, based on Faraday's laws for electrolysis, and Two, the energy rate to achieve a given amount of that gas evolution.

So there are two COP's to look at: one is the gas evolution rate, based solely on the current. and the other is the energy COP, based on the input power, output energy in terms of liquid heating, and output energy contained in the resulting gases.

OK, your example of getting 1,000 ml from 4.5A for 1 minute: The Faraday limit is 1,253.5 mls of your combined gas mixture, for 1 Amp-hr. Now you have 4.5 amps for 1 minute, so 4.5/60 = 0.075 Amp-hrs. Ideally you should only be getting 0.075 x 1,253.5= 94ml of gas!!!

But you appear to be getting far more than the Faraday limit. to the tune of a gas rate COP of (1,000/94) 10.64. (assuming you are not measuring steam or water vapor, from electrolyte heating - to be sure you have to run the gas thru a drying column that absorbs water vapor)

This is not surprising to me, I have done some experiments with Meyer/Xogen systems, and found you can exceed the Faraday limit with only DC - IF you use the correct cell geometry and exceed the normal cell potentials, and this makes a very high electric field strength - which is a serious KEY BTW.

I did not get that high a gas rate, and with only DC they were approx 1.2, and with some pulsed DC at various freqs, got as high as 1.4 gas rate COP. However my cells were very small, and used only 12V, 24 and 36V.

There is also the energy COP, and that is the important one.

There are 286,000Joules per Mole of this mixture, available when you recombine it (as in combustion). Now we know that 1 watt is 1 Joule per second. so we can figure out the energy COP too.

1 liter of this gas mixture has (1/33.6) 0.0297 Moles, and thus it has energy of (286,000 x 0.0287) 8,511 Joules.

Now you used 540 watts, for 1 minute to get that gas. So you input 540 x 60 = 32,400 Joules of electrical energy. Your energy COP, without accounting for liquid heating, is 8511/32400= COP of 0.263 (note you must also measure the liquid temp before and after, with it stirred and uniform, and calculate how much energy went into heating the water - which is added to the energy contained in the gas, for the true energy COP)

I hope you continue with your work, but do try to be more scientific and realistic about your results. otherwise you come across as just another "free energy flake" touting nonsense when you talk about 8 bubbles or 10 bubbles as a means of measurement. (not that you are a flake, but talking nonsense makes it easy for people to dismiss your results)

My test results starting first with the cell configuration, as it is paramount - indicated that even with DC, no pulses, there is a breach of the "Faraday limit", using correct cell geometry, and a high electric field strength. This is increased further by using some pulsed DC, and there are anomalous rises in gas rate COP at certain frequencies.

But I did not get over COP 1 regards energy COP - yet. But there was a correlation between gas rate COP and energy rate(accounting for liquid heating as well). when gas rate was low, energy rate was also low, not unlike your 0.26 result.

But when I got the gas rate COP up to 1.4, the energy rate went up to 0.86!!!

This was however, accompanied by severe liquid heating - so the right "window" of operation was not achieved.

No doubt you have to find the correct resonance of your specific cell, and water condition - to find that "sweet spot". (in addition to using the right kind of pulsing, and more importantly, the right kind of cell geometry) (cell meaning the electrode shape, size and spacing)

Sincerely,

DMBoss1021


Create an account	Home · Topics · Downloads · Your Account · Submit News · Top 10


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice. Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.