Basic Electrolysis

[willy]

The old Ltd of Hermons

Farrah a great uncle of mine that met Hermon while in the air force and saw the car in person and said that Mr anderson showed the car to everyone on base one day. He is dead now actually both of them are but my dad said that my uncle talked about Anderson's car more than the SR-71 he flew. My uncle had drawings he had drew saying that he was going to have a water car one day. But my aunt by marriage is dead now too, so there is no telling where the drawings are now. Just my luck!

[Farrah Day]

Hi Willy

I've got serious doubts about how knowledgeable the author is on the subject due to some of the things he has stated, so I'm not inclined to put any faith into anything he says.

Personally I think the gas clustering thing is nonsense.

h2-01 then h4-02 then h8-04

What exactly does this mean? h2-O1? A hydrogen molecule and an oxygen atom?

h8-O4? 4 hydrogen molecules an 2 oxygen molecules... are what, clustering together in a particular volume of H2 and O2?

How would this clustering occur if not by pure chance, and what properties would this clustering of gases exhibit differently from... unclustered gases?

I'm failing to see anything of relevance here and feel that this clustering of gases is ill-thought conjecture at best.

Anderson sounds like one hell of a bloke, but I'm still as yet unable to locate any info on his actual electrolyser.

One thing that is concerning me is that it states that his electrolyser always produced the same amount of gas (more than required), and that this was stored until needed. I'm getting a funny feeling that he may, for instance have been electrolysing gas all night in order to have a good proportion stored for the following day. Ie, did he plug the car into the grid overnight... or something along those lines...?

[willy]

Anderson

Anderson suposedly used a 0.5 to 1 psi honeywell switch it was said that it could be heard cutting off and on while going down the road and at stop times he mentions that he used a blower fan ducted into the cell, it makes me wonder if he had a ionzer in with the blower. It also talkes about the 13 inch round cell having holes in the very center where the high voltage was connected there is a pdf online that shows the system and tells four or five pages on the cell. I have a gut feeling that the car was real just because my uncle was a stand up guy and he was hooked on the idea after seeing it in person.

[Farrah Day]

I'm not suggesting the car was not real, but the lawnmower version is powered by a cylinder of hydrogen... it's an enormous leap to any on-demand system.

I'm inclined to disregard all talk of deuterium as you simply can't make this stuff in an electrolyser, and even if you could I'm not sure it would serve any useful purpose as implied. I'm somewhat baffled why Anderson would even suggest that deuterium was being made - maybe deliberate misinfo!

What does interest me is the possibility of him ionising the water with pulsing high voltages, which in essence is what I'm attempting to do with my Closed-Loop Electrolyser. I'd have a better idea if I could at least see a depiction of his electrolyser set up. Unfortunately there only seems documentation of his sparkplug patent... which I find rather strange, as surely the on-demand electrolyser would be of far greater value.

[HairBear]

I have to agree with Farrah when she says the writer is probably muddying up the water(pun intended), so the article should be discarded and better info needs to be found if possible. I have no doubt this car was real and functional, but once again, the info is being suppressed?

"Herman P. Anderson, a man of many talents, is known as 'King of the Ion' and is the world's leading authority on ions."

[Farrah Day]

I have to agree with Farrah when she says the writer is probably muddying up the water(pun intended), so the article should be discarded and better info needs to be found if possible.

Are you trying to get back on my Christmas card list??

[HairBear]

LOL! We've got 6 months to go yet. I hope I can remain a "good boy" till then. Do you know what I want for Christmas this year? I don't either... Oh well...

Good morning Farrah!

[witsend]

Farah - HairBear - I've asked this before. If electrolysis needs a DC current - then why not direct collapsing inductive voltage via a diode back to the same battery or an alternate battery to recharge it. That way - surely - the second cycle with that 'negative' component - can be used - as well as the 'on' cycle. All it needs is a circuit path at the far end of the inductor back to the positive terminal of the one or other battery.

Classical assumption states that you cannot get more from the supply source than first delivered. No need to argue this. However - if that energy is stored on an inductor and then returned to the supply or to another supply - to replenish it - then the amount of energy actually delivered is the sum of both cycles. Yet the energy that is available for the electrolytic process is equal to the voltage applied during the closed circuit conditions of the switching cycle - during the 'on' period. We've pretty well proved this. I simply do not understand why that circuit can't be used in this mode. Unless it's because the process requires slow switching speeds. But that's also OK. The circuit is not frequency dependent. You can switch it slow or fast.

So. You apply energy during 'closed circuit conditions'. The cell experiences DC voltage - ONE WAY. Then you interrupt the path. The cell gets no more energy. But the amount of energy first applied is then routed to an alternate supply source - thereby conserving its energy. Then you apply energy from the replenished source and it - in turn is fed back to the original supply. So. Two batteries and effectively the one charges the other. Meanwhile both 'on' cycles initiate the electrolysis required. Surely this is doable.

The point is that we've sort of shown that the amount of energy delivered can pretty well be completely returned to recharge either the supply or another battery. This flies in the face of but is definitely evidential. And I would have thought that in the process you have the added advantage of the required electrolyis to generate your gasses. Just a thought. I guess it's a bit off your current topic. (No pun intended).

[willy]

What about the linking of cells output to input in three or more. Is this bulls...! or what thanks. Chad aka. willy

[HairBear]

Hi Rose, in my opinion, the efficiency of the circuit/s are not as much as an issue as it is the water itself. Most of the losses, in my experience, comes from the heat generated in the cell. With electrolysis of water, less current will always produces less gas. Even though we may be able to use the ideas you are purposing, the losses will still be unchanged in the cell, rendering any efficiencies gained prior to the cell lost. But, that does not mean circuit design is not a major part of the process as a whole.

Willy, none of what you have brought to the thread is BS. It's the article I posted that is BS. It's obvious the author is clueless or is intelligent beyond our comprehension. That doesn't mean Hermon's devices didn't work as stated, we just don't have a lot of info to make a sound judgment from the chair. If you have the time and resources, why not give it a shot?

[witsend]

With electrolysis of water, less current will always produces less gas.

Hi HairBear and thanks for answering. I'd almost given up hope. Here's the thing. One only needs a good inductor - something with minimal resistance and the current flow would not then be seriously impaired. This will - in any event - increase the voltage stored on the inductor which will add to the value of the energy returned to recharge the supply. The beauty of this circuit with electrolysis is that any energies delivered to the cell will be DC and yet one can take advantage of that 'off' cycle. Just a thought. Regarding 'cell losses' - it will, then, at least not cost quite as much in each cycle. Must help things - I would have thought. Anyway. That's the only half way intelligent suggestion that I can come up with. Still struggling with the circuit design and still don't know what the effect would be with lead acid and alkaline batteries in parallel. But it's all been teasing my mind and I can't seem to find the reason for it not to work.

[HairBear]

Rose, was is it exactly you are trying to accomplish? Are you testing your own electrolysis cell?

[witsend]

Rose, was is it exactly you are trying to accomplish? Are you testing your own electrolysis cell?

OK HairBear. Let me try this again. I'm obviously being obtuse.

I get it that there are losses related to the electrolytic process that Farrah is trying to address. One of the losses relates to the application of a DC current to the cell. The object presumably is to ensure that the amount of energy generated in the cell is equal to or nearly equal to the amount of energy delivered by the supply - in this case - a battery.

Well. What we've proved is that it is possible to 'recycle' current flow. This is highly contended - but has been conclusively proven on our own circuit and on sundry replications. I don't want to argue the merits of the application. It's fraught and it relates to my own unconventional take on the properties of currrent flow. But what cannot be argued is that it is possible to return energy to replenish a supply. That much cannot be argued against the evidence. So. It would not take much of a variation in the circuit to get this benefit to Farrah's cell. That way - the energy applied to the circuit can also get 're-cycled' as we've proved we can do on our own circuit. All the more seductive because it would, probably, need the application of two batteries in parallel. That way you could effectively get a continual DC and yet get the advantages of replenishing the supplies.

But no. I have never experimented with electrolysis. Only with returning energy to replenish a supply. But this latter has been exhaustively studied and widely accredited. It certainly is feasible to 're-cycle' current and this definitely flies in the face of. At the risk of 'spamming' which actually is not the intention here - we're actually developing a very basic application based on this device which should be useful for our own disadvantaged communities. And the really good news is that it's being developed on campus - so it'll be studied by our academics. It's almost getting respectable. LOL. But the technology is really exploitable in many different ways. Electrolysis - I see as being tailored to this.

[HairBear]

That still does not address the main issue of the water heating to a boil. The cell will boil dry and produce mostly water vapor and very little H and O.

[witsend]

That still does not address the main issue of the water heating to a boil. The cell will boil dry and produce mostly water vapor and very little H and O.

Sorry HairBear. I get it. The problem then is to keep the water in a 'bound' liquid condition? I have no idea how this is circumvented. Way out of my depth.