 Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me. |
Forum Index : Microcontroller and PC projects : Nothing ever changes...
  Page 3 of 6   |
|||||
| Author | Message | ||||
| Tinine Guru  Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Faraday's electrolysis requires current which converts to heat and therefore it's an inefficient method of producing hydrogen. In a conventional ICE, the spark plugs don't drain the battery, even though they require 40,000+ volts because they draw no current. Stanley Meyer and others discovered that high voltage, at a specific high frequency is able to split the hydrogen from the oxygen. Like a conventional sparkplug, no current required. Meyer's latest development was an injector that directly replaced a sparkplug. The HT lead provides water AND the high voltage/high frequency signal. The new sparkplug replacement produced and ignited the hydrogen IN the combustion chamber. |
||||
Poppy Guru Joined: 25/07/2019 Location: GermanyPosts: 486 |
Probably almost none, but actually some and that will be a factor within some calculation.  Andre ... such a GURU? | ||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 3676 |
The current may be small but is not zero. Depending on what you're considering it may be negligible but that is an easy trap to fall into - i.e. sometimes it will not be negligible. John |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
As long as you have fuel in your car, you can keep driving with the lights burning and AC at full blast because the alternator can handle it. The point here is about the fuel source. An army general was just assassinated and now it's costing me more to get from a to b  Edited 2020-01-07 22:28 by Tinine |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
I'm with CaptainBoing (I think). It's certainly plausible on the face of it that you can get more useful power out of a particular engine by injecting a higher energy fuel source into the combustion chamber, like with a jet afterburner, and that could be a valuable improvement, but that's not the same as saying that you're getting more energy out of the system than you're putting into it. As far as high-voltage, low-current splitting of hydrogen and oxygen from water, with a net increase in usable energy, I don't have anything like the expertise to evaluate it. It's probably as possible, on the face of it, as cold fusion was to the many truly expert researchers who tried without success to replicate the findings of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989--they doubted it on principle, but gave it a try because the potential benefits were huge. In any case, it doesn't seem like anything which a malevolent corporate "they" could suppress for long, even if they had the inside scoop and the patents. PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
On that note; the Japanese car companies, plus Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Bill Gates and now even Google are revisiting Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (formerly known as Cold Fusion). Edited 2020-01-08 02:53 by Tinine |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Whilst the technician in me would love to see the Meyer system come to be, the implications of every single existing internal combustion engine being suddenly converted to run on water are scary. Then again, some states prohibit capturing rain water without a permit (tax). |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
An interesting subject with a very long history in the American west: Rainwater Capture Always a bridesmaid, never a bride, as much as I'd like to see it be otherwise. (Though the same could be said for "hot" fusion, though it has a much better theoretical grounding.) Per wikipedia: "Meyer's patents have expired. His inventions are now in the public domain, available for all to use without restriction or royalty payment. No engine or vehicle manufacturer has incorporated Meyer's work." ~ Edited 2020-01-08 05:13 by lizby PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
You just compared Meyer to Pons and Fleischman. P&F couldn't reproduce their claimed results whereas Meyer had a running vehicle that was examined by all and sundry. Did you even bother to watch the "It runs on water" documentary? You'll never "see" if you don't bother to look. The bonus eye-opener for me was the cavitating water pump at the start of the documentary. We once built a new piece of equipment that, on start-up, the hydraulic pump would make a horrible noise. Current draw was normal, we were monitoring it because we suspected a bad pump. In no time at all, 100 gallons of hydraulic oil had become so hot that we tripped the thermal sensor. Turned out that a bad intake coupling allowed air to be sucked in to the piston pump, causing cavitation. The heat wasn't a result of loading, it was a result of cavitation.  |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
Per wikipedia again: "His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed." PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
He was, understandably, very paranoid at this stage. He went through hell just to get the patents. Imagine having a product that would eliminate the need for gasoline in existing vehicles....it's a death sentence. Deeply religious and he could've sold his designs and patents at any time, just as GM sold out to Texaco. He didn't want this technology to be shelved. Let me guess, you buy the official story that Epstein committed suicide, right? This nonsense happens all the time. |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Graphene. Are you familiar? Not developed by NASA or some huge petro-chemical company. It was a couple of guys at the University of Manchester, playing around with pencil lead. Sometimes these things happen. Edited 2020-01-08 07:06 by Tinine |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
Have you heard the one about the water-powered car? If not, don't worry — the story will come round again. And again. PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Ridiculous. Yeah it's normal to spend 27 years of one's life and going to the expense of filing so many patents. I hold 3 US patents and let me tell you...it ain't cheap... Just to pull a prank. BTW, the BBC reported the collapse of WT7, 20+ mins before it actually collapsed. The announcer was sat in front of the live video feed, clearly showing the building fully intact. 20 mins BEFORE it happened Edited 2020-01-08 08:32 by Tinine |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Once again, not true. The whole idea with filing a patent is to be circumspect. He divulged a lot but omitted key information because once a patent is issued, anyone can reproduce the results and change just enough to avoid an infringement. Patents are a joke, today. All a patent does is reserve you the right to sue over an infringement but you never find contingency representation. It's payment upfront and then it becomes a war of attrition. Whoever has the deepest pockets wins. |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
I was always uncertain about the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to this (since the phrase is little more than words to me anyway), but the formulation I saw somewhere today makes sense. It appears that the claim is that a process can separate some of the hydrogen and oxygen in water to produce gases (we know that electrolysis does this), and that hydrogen and oxygen can be burned, producing water again. Some of the energy of the burning can be diverted to other uses, and the remainder fed back into the process to repeat again with the same water produced by the burning. There appears to be no loss of hydrogen or oxygen atoms. Sounds like perpetual motion to me. PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Tinine Guru Joined: 30/03/2016 Location: United KingdomPosts: 1646 |
Something gets lost somewhere. A guy who is doing something similar with his Suzuki Samurai gets 250 miles/gallon when recycling the water but much less (forgot the number) when not recycling. |
||||
| Paul_L Guru Joined: 03/03/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 769 |
You guys have gone round the bend! Aristotle's earth, fire, water and air indeed! Using electrolysis to separate H2O into the separate 2H + O and then recombining them into H2O is a lossless reaction, unless you lose heat to the local environment. When you pass an electrical current through liquid water in an attempt to break apart the H2O molecule some of that current produces plain old heat, which goes somewhere. You might lose heat energy to the local environment by conduction or radiation, or you might absorb energy into the remaining gaseous water molecules equal to the heat of vaporization of water (which depends on the temperature and pressure in the local environment) producing steam, and then release that energy into the local environment from the steam molecules resulting in the steam condensing into liquid water. After you manage to produce some dissociated oxygen or hydrogen molecules you find that they will be gaseous because the local environment is well above the boiling point of liquid oxygen or liquid hydrogen so they will absorb the heat of vaporization of oxygen or hydrogen molecules from the local environment resulting in the temporary storage of potential energy in the gaseous hydrogen or oxygen. Then when you attempt to recombine the resultant hydrogen and oxygen gasses back into water you will initially form ice crystals which will then absorb the heat of fusion of water from the local environment resulting in a further storage of potential energy in the liquid water but you will generate an electrical current which can do some useful work. If you avoid all of the heat loses implicit in these reactions you will produce a completely efficient battery, commonly called a fuel cell! The problem is that you can't avoid all the heat loses. You guys have gone round the bend! Paul in NY |
||||
| JohnS Guru Joined: 18/11/2011 Location: United KingdomPosts: 3676 |
Where does the electricity come from? Well, a battery or alternator. Neither is 100% efficient or even close, so there's a net loss. Also, the wiring is not lossless. Overall you need to keep supplying some more electricity to keep the process going. John |
||||
| lizby Guru Joined: 17/05/2016 Location: United StatesPosts: 3027 |
Paul--I think what you did was explicate, in technical terms, what I summarized in layman's terms, except that the claim is that you can extract useful work from this (ideally) "lossless" cycle and so achieve "above unity". That's what seems dubious to me. If shadetree mechanics can achieve this, why isn't it more widespread? PicoMite, Armmite F4, SensorKits, MMBasic Hardware, Games, etc. on fruitoftheshed |
||||
| Page 3 of 6 |
|||||
 Print this page |
