Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Basic Electrolysis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hmmm might I add....

    I just wanted to throw in that you both are correct. Yes a pulsed dc goes in but the transformer is converting that to ac via the bemf spike. If you wanted to have dc output from it you need to have another method to separate the original pulse from the resulting ringing, making the out put out of phase and increased in voltage potential. My only reference is Tesla and this is how he did it automatically. He used a arc gap. When the resulting bemf gets high enough it will arc across the space and after that you have an out of phase reaction to the initial dc pulse through the limiter or the arc space.
    Hairbear is pretty much on track here. Normally people use diodes but the same effect can be attained by an arc gap much like Tesla employed. This type of circuit is a method to get what you put in as an opposite reaction and limited to only one result that could trigger the arc space to fire. No matter how you see it a transformer does what Hairbear is saying. Even if you don't want the other half it is still there. Thats why we employ arc spaces and diodes to shun the initiator pulse to get an opposite higher voltage output but unfiltered that resultant waveform will be ac. With the required filter (diode or arc space) it it becomes a mirror of the input without the ac form. Tesla referred to it as an impulse transformer. When you add a capacitor to the circuit it becomes a disruptive impulse transformer.
    It's not that he is being childish it is because if we are to be figuring out this stuff we must maintain a certain methodology and it's terms as well. This way a confusion won't be passed on, then everyone gets confused. Hairbear means well but if you are going to be doing this stuff like this it is important to use the right terms and methods to explain what you are doing.
    I am not saying this to take sides. What I am saying is that if we are wrong or in error we must admit it, thank the person who gave us a nudge in the right direction, so that we don't confuse the rest who are learning. Now lets shake hands apologize to each other and move on.

    Comment


    • Hi JB, thanks for your input, I'm sure you've made HB's day.

      If you followed the previous posts you will see that, in my opinion at least, things started to get a little personal and aggressive, all from a rather innocuous comment I made.

      Anyway, let me ask you this. You say the spark gap in the ignition coil set up acts like a diode, well a diode as we know only passes current in one direction doesn't it.

      Yes a pulsed dc goes in but the transformer is converting that to ac via the bemf spike
      Why do you say the BEMF spike is AC? Surely it is just one high tension DC pulse going to a ground source. If it was AC, this would suggest that at some point the HV would become -15KV... would it not? How is it being converted to AC?

      Remember I'm not using a condensor that would normally be employed across a cars contact breakers, which would induce a slight ringing from its resonant action. No capacitor.

      Look if I'm wrong here, then I'm wrong, but I need to be fully satisfied that I understand the reasons why I'm wrong... if I am. I'm currently failing to see where the AC element is coming from. And if there is AC, this means that during ionisation of the air across the spark gap, electrons are moving firstly from the coil to ground, and likewise then from the ground to the coil. Are you really saying that we go from +15KV through 0V to -15KV?

      I'm really not convinced this is the case... but by all means convince me that it is.

      Incidentally, I assume we're on the same page when it comes to AC and DC. I don't class DC pulses as AC simply because it's pulsing on and off. I class AC as current the that completely changes direction due to an alternating voltage.

      Farrah

      Comment


      • Here's a little gem for you!

        YouTube - Water as a Dielectric

        Comment


        • electrolysis

          Hi all,

          I've been dabbling in colloidal silver. One of the processes is electrolysis. I have been bothered by the amount of Silver Hydroxide produced by this method. I have also been bothered by the tendency of everyone to assume if you have gas 'boiling" off and huge clouds of 'whispie' blue-silver haze emanating that you're producing colloidal silver. Well I have been following a rule of limiting the current loading to 1mA per square inch of silver anode area. Then I cut THAT in half. At this current loading no bubbles form at all. I suspect that H moves to saturation and out-gases at the air/water interface by diffusion. A TDS meter confirms an ionic solution.

          My latest video on this study is at:

          YouTube - So ... what is Colloidal Silver anyway ? ? ? ?

          'Gravity' is understood on a "practical' level but still not "TRULY" understood. I think 'electrolysis' is similar in this way.

          Greg
          Last edited by gmeast; 06-06-2010, 05:09 PM.

          Comment


          • @FarrahDay
            I for one happen to agree with you on the transformer issue, it is ironic that many are arguing that you cannot do anything out of the ordinary and yet by definition that is exactly what we must do. That is, we know for certain that what we ordinarily do does not work therefore a new perspective is needed. I for one have no issue producing direct currents from an induced secondary without diodes it is simply a matter of considering how one might accomplish this singular effect which few if any have done.

            @Hairbear
            The Bemf spike is called an inductive discharge and when an inductance is charged then disrupted the polarity reverses as can be seen on any oscilloscope but the current direction does not. We should not confuse current with voltage polarity as they are two different things, one is an effect of the other. So how do you produce a direct current on the secondary? There are many simple ways when you understand what is happening. A secondary with a large self inductance stored as interwinding capacitance within the secondary can produce no current flow when the initial current flows in the primary yet produce a high potential direct current discharge when the primary current is disrupted. Why does this work? It works because the energy of the initial inducing force from the primary is stored as an electric field between windings on the secondary due to the impedence of the coil, applying a potential and inducing a potential in an inductance are not the same thing.
            Once you think about it a little more I think you will find there are many easy and much more efficient means to produce a direct current on the secondary without diodes but you must consider the qualities of the fields as well as the potential and current flow.
            Regards
            AC

            Comment


            • plastic bags

              Originally posted by HairBear View Post
              Here's a little gem for you!

              YouTube - Water as a Dielectric
              In the video, the difference is capacitance measured (water constant 80 & 100) is not the plate flex but the two layers of plastic bag.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gmeast View Post
                In the video, the difference is capacitance measured (water constant 80 & 100) is not the plate flex but the two layers of plastic bag.
                A very good point! Good observation!

                Comment


                • Well thanks for your input AC.

                  I know I don't always see eye to eye with people (or rather they don't see eye to eye with me ), but believe it or not I'm always prepared to admit to making a mistake if that is the case. Afterall, it serves me no good to be at fault, while thinking I'm right. All I ask is that people explain themselves and show their reasoning.

                  But I've now come to the conclusion that it's sometimes better to leave people happy with the way they see things rather than try to explain why something doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps in future I'll just learn to let things go, eh.

                  That said, the video of the guy with the plastic bag full of water and him concluding that the result in the change of capacitance was due to the relative permeability of water made me smile. Like Gmeast says the plastic bag is the dielectric.

                  Assuming that he has tap water in the bag, he'd be in for a shock if he tried that experiment by sealing the edges of the plates and then putting the water directly between them. That would put paid to his idea of the water being a dielectric.

                  Frankly I don't know why people still think tap water has a dielectric constant of what, around 80?? When will people learn that tap water is a better conductor than it is a dielectric. The figure of 80 often quoted as the dielectric constant of water (I blame Meyer) assumes absolutely pure water, with no mineral impurities, no dissolved gases and no auto-ionisation. It is an ideal figure and nothing more. In the real world water never even comes close to that constant, because apart from the fact that gases in the air immediately start dissolving in it, it always exhibits auto-ionisation.

                  Farrah
                  Last edited by Farrah Day; 06-06-2010, 09:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • @Farrah Day and HairBear, about transformer output, there is simple test. Put a neon bulb at the transformer or car coil output. Observe the neon electrode. Lit at one side means you have a DC output, but I think the chance are slim.

                    If your coil really lit the neon bulb electrode only one side, change the frequency and see what happens.


                    About BEMF, Bedini use FWBR too. Only meaningfull if the BEMF produce it at AC. If you follow TPU, resonance is said to happen when the BEMF form complete sinewave.
                    Last edited by sucahyo; 06-07-2010, 05:09 AM.

                    Comment


                    • transformation of H2O to C+D+D

                      Important message

                      Found from:

                      http://www.offtop.ru/energy/reply.ph...c257789210a7d0

                      Hello!
                      My name is Alexander Baranov, I'm scientist of National University of the
                      Nuclear energy and the Industry, being outside the Russian Federation. I
                      develop the alternative "know-how" of energy which are Available me data,
                      allow to approve, that there has come the end of an epoch of oil and gas. As a
                      matter of fact, I am the enemy of Russia, successful realization of my theme
                      will essentially reduce receipt to Russia of money from sale of oil and gas.
                      And as to me is what to tell on the given theme, still and the dangerous
                      enemy.
                      I perfectly understand, my scientific activity can result in what consequences
                      for economy of Russia. Also I guess, what consequences can come for me
                      personally.
                      Nevertheless, I have made a decision, and I operate according to this
                      decision. The person has practically destroyed the inhabitancy, but there is
                      not passed yet a point of return, on my belief, it is necessary to accept
                      emergency measures for rescue of biosphere.
                      Today on December, 23rd, 2008 I have decided to write to you.
                      Earlier - did not see necessity, now it has appeared.
                      Each person has a strength, as well as at metal, and today there was an event
                      which has compelled to operate me as much as possible quickly, and is as much
                      as possible effective.
                      Water can be used as fuel in automobile internal combustion engines without
                      their essential alteration.
                      How it to make?
                      Water in itself is not fuel, and does not burn. But water is an initial
                      component of fuel, by simple transformations it will be transformed that
                      burns, for example, in metane, the chemical formula-CH4, propan-СН3СН2СН3 and
                      butane-C2H5. All these gases are hydrocarbons, that is contain two chemical
                      elements - carbon and hydrogen, and turn out from water the chemical formula
                      of section кластера-H20.
                      But allow, you will tell, in fact in water there is no carbon? No, but during
                      transformation to water it appears under scheme O=C+D+D, where About - oxygen,
                      With - carbon, D - deiterium (double hudrogen).
                      D, by the way is the most valuable chemical element for the nuclear industry.
                      For allocation of heavy water from usual into which it enters, complex,
                      expensive technologies are used. Here, it turns out without special problems.
                      That you have read through, it any more chemistry, is NUCLEAR reaction.
                      How it to carry out?
                      For this purpose the process externally reminding electrolysis is used, high-
                      frequency resonant transformer Tesla which impulses of a current transform
                      atom of oxygen so only is used, that it breaks up to three splinters - carbon
                      and two deiterium.
                      Power balance of reaction of full conformity with the law of conservation of
                      energy +50.
                      That is energy of combustion of gaseous products of decomposition of water in
                      50 times surpasses the energy spent for it.
                      For those who has not understood, I shall remind, that the Law of conservation
                      of energy - the organic law of the nature, consisting that energy of the
                      closed system is kept in time. In other words, energy cannot arise from
                      anything and cannot disappear anywhere, it can pass only from one form in
                      another.
                      Then superfluous energy in 50 times more spent whence has undertaken? Where a
                      mistake?
                      This that well-known energy of communication counted with Enstein’s formula:
                      delta E = delta M*C*C, where С-speed of light.
                      The known scientist, Boris Vasilevich Bolotov has constructed skilled
                      installation, on splitting water with the subsequent synthesis of
                      hydrocarbons, more in detail
                      <http://www.aif.ua/articles/article.aspx?IssueId=115&ArticleId=1835>
                      I confirm, working capacity of this installation.
                      The water having cluster structure, except for it can be transformed to fuel
                      due to redistribution of own internal energy after introduction of an
                      additive, for example a liquid mix of hydrocarbons which on weight can be less
                      than one percent.
                      Process of transformation reminds a chain falling костяшек a dominoe where in
                      a role of an initial impulse dropping the first костяшку the dominoe acts an
                      additive.
                      More in detail about this technology you can learn, having looked film, is
                      loaded repeatedly:
                      YouTube - Water as fuel Part1
                      YouTube - Water as fuel part 2
                      YouTube - Water as fuel part3
                      The edited copy of the letter with necessary references, changes and additions
                      is directed by me to English-speaking mass-media, and specialized editions.
                      Yours faithfully, Alexander Baranov
                      12/23/2008.
                      E-mail: baranov@california.usa.com <mailto:baranov@california.usa.com>

                      Comment


                      • Hi Luno

                        Interesting post - particularly regarding the idea of the transmutation of oxygen into deuterium and carbon.

                        I wish my Russian was a little better as then I might have had some idea of what the guys in the video are saying. What exactly are they adding to the water?

                        I remember reading somewhere, that during the development of the atomic bomb, initially Einstein himself did not think that any great amount of energy could be released by splitting the atom. It seems the great man did not predict the chain reaction - the so-called 'domino effect'.

                        Of course we rely on chain reactions all the time in combustion.

                        Luno, I see that the info in this post originally dates from 2008, what progress, if any, have you made since then?

                        Farrah

                        Comment


                        • H2O as fuel

                          Hi Farrah Day,

                          He adds 0.5-1 g of diesel oil per bottle. You need to shake and wait 3-5 minutes to transform the mixture in cluster structure. This water burns with yellow flame, but after some time this water will burn with blue flame like alcohol. The temperature arise to 1500-1600 °C. But you can arrive to 2000 ° C with certain concentration of diesel oil.

                          Comment


                          • I gotta try that!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Farrah Day View Post
                              Well thanks for your input AC.


                              Frankly I don't know why people still think tap water has a dielectric constant of what, around 80?? When will people learn that tap water is a better conductor than it is a dielectric. The figure of 80 often quoted as the dielectric constant of water (I blame Meyer) assumes absolutely pure water, with no mineral impurities, no dissolved gases and no auto-ionisation. It is an ideal figure and nothing more. In the real world water never even comes close to that constant, because apart from the fact that gases in the air immediately start dissolving in it, it always exhibits auto-ionisation.

                              Farrah
                              Farrah day

                              The guy in the video was wrong as i pointed to him.. ok but...

                              Man water is a dielectric 81, and does not matter how much contaminants it has. What change having contaminants or not is only the break down voltage. Or the min energy you need to add for passing the electrons to the conduction band. Even sea water is a dielectric... However only up to ~ 1,23 volts... after this voltage electrons enter in the conduction band. The same happens on semiconductors when you dope them...

                              If you could add 100 series plates each water isolated from the other you would have a 123 volts capacitor. of course as it is in series you have 100 time less capacitance than if it were only one but you have higher voltage rating.

                              Hope you understand my point...

                              Also water capacitor does not have the distance relation to capacitance... there is a constant as i tried to point time ago... And as such its breakdown limit voltage yes depends on contaminants... not much on distance...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by sebosfato View Post
                                Man water is a dielectric 81, and does not matter how much contaminants it has. What change having contaminants or not is only the break down voltage.
                                Sorry Seb, but I have to strongly disagree with you here.

                                The often quoted figure of 80 as the dielectric constant of water is assuming water in its purest form, and in its purest form it is an excellent insulator as the dielectric constant figure suggests.

                                However, add contaminants (salts, minerals, dissolved gases, oils, etc.) and things change drastically. Increase the temperature of the water and the dielectric constant also changes drastically...

                                Pure Water 80 (at around 20 deg C)
                                Pure Water (360°C) 10
                                Water (deionised) 29.3
                                Salt water 32
                                Water (heavy) 78.3
                                Water-in-oil-emulsion 24.2

                                ...but don't take my word for it.

                                Farrah

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X