Future Energy hydroxy cell

[lamare]

I've been involved in this particular area of science for a long time now. I'm not trying to recall what I was taught at school, nor have I only recently opened a book on electrolysis, so what you accept as explaining things, I don't and can't.

At this stage the science behind any over-Faraday results is still an unknown, and based on what we know - or think we know - you clearly have your theories and I have mine. Given what I know, I think that the most likely explanation relates to the use of an electrolyte such as Sodium Hydroxide - a possible reaction of which I believe I detailed on my Closed-Loop Electrolyser thread. But until we pin down what is really happening - which may just be far more complicated than we anticipate - we're just left with theories and trial an error replication attempts.

Okay, let me first thank you for the discussion so far, because you have asked the right questions and challenged me.

Now let's wrap up the discussion for now.

My take on the WFC is that there is nothing unusual about the reactions going on. It's all about how to get the power and how to apply it to your fluid.

Now we know you can perform electrolysis using the normal Farday way, which comes down to driving a current trough your fluid. That can be done using the power from the electric field for free with the techniques I analysed from Gray, Puharich and Meyer. No problem.

Then it may be that it is also possible to perform the same reaction inside the fluid, by applying the current and the energy in another way. If that works, and the statements by Meyer and Puharich as well as Naudin's experiment suggest it does, then that way is probably more efficient, because you are independent of the contact area of the tubes for the production of your gas.

So, as far as I can tell, it's only the last part we disagree on. I think it is likely that this is possible, you think it is not. Fair enough for me, cause it doesn't really matter that much at this moment. What counts is that we now know how to get the power and how to design the electric circuitry to get these things working, while tapping the power from the electric field.

Time will tell if there is only one mode of operation, classic Farday, or that it is also possible to perform the exact same reaction "in fluid" and wether or not that is more efficient, if it works.

To me, it doesn't really matter what will turn out to be correct eventually. It's not about who is right or wrong, it's about getting these things to work! And I am sure all the information discussed in this thread will make it happen pretty soon.

So, thanks again for the discussion so far and for the time being we can agree to disagree on this detail. No problem.

[Farrah Day]

Let me ask you a question that may explain things:
Why would ions release charges across a dielectric (on a ss tube f.e.) to a plate, "rather than simply bond to neutralise... as we know they do?"

Because there's an electric field that pulls the electrons across the dielectic, either as a leakage current or by dielectric breakdown, depending on the strength of the electric field.

I'm not really sure what you think you are explaining here Lamare, but if you've asked yourself that question and found your answer satisfactory, then so be it.

I've been involved in this particular area of science for a long time now. I'm not trying to recall what I was taught at school, nor have I only recently opened a book on electrolysis, so what you accept as explaining things, I don't and can't.

At this stage the science behind any over-Faraday results is still an unknown, and based on what we know - or think we know - you clearly have your theories and I have mine. Given what I know, I think that the most likely explanation relates to the use of an electrolyte such as Sodium Hydroxide - a possible reaction of which I believe I detailed on my Closed-Loop Electrolyser thread. But until we pin down what is really happening - which may just be far more complicated than we anticipate - we're just left with theories and trial an error replication attempts.

[lamare]

Controlling the resonance mode of the driving coils

Hi all,

I have added a new section to my article:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

--::--
Controlling the resonance mode of the driving coils

I have stated above that you can choose what kind of signal to feed your WFCs with by controlling the resonance mode of your driving coils. Quarter wave resonance gives you low voltage, high current in the middle, half wave resonance gives you high voltage, low current in the middle. But how can you control this?

The answer to that question lies in the phase difference between voltage and current going trough a coil. There is a 90 degree phase shift between the voltage and the current. And it is that difference you can use to control the resonance mode of the driving coils, simply by making sure the resonance mode you want has a 360 degree phase shift all around the feedback loop, as explained here:
RC Oscillator

For an oscillator to oscillate sufficient feedback of the correct phase, ie "Positive Feedback" must be provided with the amplifier being used as an inverting stage to achieve this. In a RC Oscillator the input is shifted 180o through the amplifier stage and 180o again through a second inverting stage giving us "180o + 180o = 360o" of phase shift which is the same as 0o thereby giving us the required positive feedback.

In a Resistance-Capacitance Oscillator or simply an RC Oscillator, we make use of the fact that a phase shift occurs between the input to a RC network and the output from the same network. for example.

RC Phase-Shift Network

The phase shift network can also be implemented active, as explained here:
Analog Wide Band Audio Phase Shift Networks

--::--

[lamare]

No they're not!

And I reiterate:

It's not so much about current flowing as charge exchanging. Current flow through the fluid is ionic, OH- and H+. Why would these two ionic species swap charges rather than simply bond to neutralise... as we know they do? We may not need current, what we do need is a charge exchange medium... or another mechanism entirely.

Look, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this Lamare, as there is not really anything you said in that last post that I can agree with. This is also likely the reason why you and I see Meyer in completely different lights.

Why should we have to disagree? Either it works, or it doesn't. And either way, we should be able to explain why or why not.

Let me ask you a question that may explain things:
Why would ions release charges across a dielectric (on a ss tube f.e.) to a plate, "rather than simply bond to neutralise... as we know they do?"

Because there's an electric field that pulls the electrons across the dielectic, either as a leakage current or by dielectric breakdown, depending on the strength of the electric field.

[Farrah Day]

And ions are a charge exchange medium!

No they're not!

And I reiterate:

It's not so much about current flowing as charge exchanging. Current flow through the fluid is ionic, OH- and H+. Why would these two ionic species swap charges rather than simply bond to neutralise... as we know they do? We may not need current, what we do need is a charge exchange medium... or another mechanism entirely.

Look, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this Lamare, as there is not really anything you said in that last post that I can agree with. This is also likely the reason why you and I see Meyer in completely different lights.

[lamare]

I see. Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. If it did gases would continually evolve from water due to self-ionisation and intermolecular movements alone.

This I feel is where we really start to see things differently due to our individual knowledge bases and personal experience.

Not necessarily. You see, there is a difference between "continually evolve from water due to self-ionisation and intermolecular movements alone" and when you provide energy to the ions that are present in the fluid....

And ions are a charge exchange medium!

Now I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no difference, cause there is. Ions are not the same things as electrons, but as far as I am aware the currents normally going trough the fluid occur for 99.99% because of ions in the water, since pure water is not a good conductor. And as far as I remember this can happen, because these ions become nutralized at one plate by either taking or releasing an electron. And these subsequently become charged again, because they either react with f.e. H+ or OH- ions, or they drift to the other plate.

So, all things considered, I think there is not much of a difference at all. And given that both Meyer and Puharich claimed they were able to produce gas without current, most likely along the way I explained, I think there is a really fair chance this way of thinking is indeed correct.

And remember: H+ and OH- ions aren't the only ions in the fluid when you add an electrolyte! You do add that to be able to drive a current trough your water, and Puharich gives pretty good numbers about what would be the best concentration of salts in your water....

[Farrah Day]

What difference would the path the current takes make?? If you have the current, you have the reactions, right?

No!

I mean, you need a current. Fine. With normal electrolysis you force it trough your wires and your plates. Now you let it flow inside the fluid. What difference does that make for the reactions by which you create your gasses??

If you have a current, you have a current. What more could you wish for???

I see. Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. If it did gases would continually evolve from water due to self-ionisation and intermolecular movements alone.

This I feel is where we really start to see things differently due to our individual knowledge bases and personal experience.

It's not so much about current flowing as charge exchanging. Current flow through the fluid is ionic, OH- and H+. Why would these two ionic species swap charges rather than simply bond to neutralise... as we know they do? We may not need current, what we do need is a charge exchange medium... or another mechanism entirely.

The reaction or reactions that require the least energy will take precedence, and it takes far less energy for OH- and H+ to recombine as a water molecule than it would to pull the electron off the hydroxy ion. In fact the recombination of ionic species to form the water molecule is exothermic.

But anyway, why are we even arguing the toss about this, Fast Freddy's on the cusp of divulging the secrets to us all!

[lamare]

Granted Lamare, but now relate this to the creation of hydrogen and oxygen! Exactly what reactions are you expecting or suggesting brings us to gases evolving?

What difference would the path the current takes make?? If you have the current, you have the reactions, right?

I mean, you need a current. Fine. With normal electrolysis you force it trough your wires and your plates. Now you let it flow inside the fluid. What difference does that make for the reactions by which you create your gasses??

If you have a current, you have a current. What more could you wish for???

[Farrah Day]

I think you miss an important detail. When the fluid is in resonance, you not only have an electric field, but also an ion current going trough the fluid. The only thing is that this current goes back and forth *within* the fluid, so it's there but it doesn't reach your tubes...

I am missing the point... what does this achieve in our WFC?

There's a phase difference between current and voltage, which is also present in standing waves inside a medium, such as a fluid! The areas where you have high voltage, you have low current and the areas where you have high current, you have low voltage....

Granted Lamare, but now relate this to the creation of hydrogen and oxygen! Exactly what reactions are you expecting or suggesting brings us to gases evolving?

So, this is the current/voltage distribution you would want in your WFC...

Why??

[lamare]

I'm all for electric fields inducing greater ionisation, (more OH- and H+), but by itself this does not get us any gas evolving, and these ions will quickly re-associate back into water if left to their own devices.

I think you miss an important detail. When the fluid is in resonance, you not only have an electric field, but also an ion current going trough the fluid. The only thing is that this current goes back and forth *within* the fluid, so it's there but it doesn't reach your tubes...

See for example this figure:
Physics Answers | Resonance Frequency for RLC Ci, The figure shows voltage and current graphs for a series ci

The figure shows voltage and current graphs for a series RLC circuit.

There's a phase difference between current and voltage, which is also present in standing waves inside a medium, such as a fluid! The areas where you have high voltage, you have low current and the areas where you have high current, you have low voltage....

Update: this is a better resource:
Chapter 15: Antennas

An antenna, which will exactly support a standing wave from end to end, is called a resonant antenna.

Figure 15-2 shows the current and voltage distribution on a full-wave conductor. You will notice that again the voltage maxima occur at the end of the conductor and the current there is zero

So, this is the current/voltage distribution you would want in your WFC...

[Farrah Day]

Quote:
Normal electrolysis is done by performing two half reactions:
Electrolysis of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reduction at cathode: 2 H+(aq) + 2e− → H2(g)
Anode (oxidation): 2 H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4 H+(aq) + 4e−

What is essential for this to happen is that electrons have to be transferred from one half reaction to the other and that it takes energy to do this.

I think the question wether or not this process can be done using standing (electric) waves inside the fluid, which are certainly capable of delivering the required energy, is this:

Do the electrons have to go trough an electrical circuit no matter what?

Can't they just "jump over" if the energy needed to do that is available in the shape of an electric (and/or magnetic) field?

If your answer is "No", then why do you think this is necessary?
After all, the reaction the other way, i.e. the burning of the fuel, can certainly be performed without the need for wires and the like.....

That equation you show is only the final and ultimate part of the process, and hence is very lacking in detail.

Consider this. All we have in plain water is the ionic species, OH- and H+ (or H3O+). Water is continually ionising fro H2O into OH- and H+, and then back again. The O-H bond is the weak bond, we don't get 2H and O conveniently evolved when water dissociates.

I'm all for electric fields inducing greater ionisation, (more OH- and H+), but by itself this does not get us any gas evolving, and these ions will quickly re-associate back into water if left to their own devices.

So what we would need to happen would be the ionisation (OH- ,H+) stage, followed by somehow then breaking the OH- bond to leave O and H-. If the H- then had a greater affinity to bond with the H+, all is well. No doubt the lone oxygen atom would join with another oxygen atom to become a molecule, and hence we would end up with 2H2 and O2.

However, this is all complete conjecture, and I see no way that high current pulsed DC, a la FF, could play a part in that.

I just don't see FFs high current system having any similarities to my closed-loop electrolyser concept, which is more on the line of what you are suggesting.

[lamare]

I believe they said it was Sodium hydroxide or KOH, one of the two.

Puharich talks about using weak electrolytes:

The Puharich papers on electrolysis

The Component III water solution is more properly speaking ,ideally a 0.1540 Molal Sodium Chloride solution, and such is a weak electrolyte.

Andrija Puharich: Water Decomposition by AC Elecrolysis >

The most precise way to measure the applied energy from Component I to Component II and Component III is to measure the power, P, in watts, W. Ideally this should be done with a precision wattmeter. But since we were interested in following the voltage and current separately, it was decided not to use the watt meter. Separate meters were used to continuously monitor the current and the volts.

This is done by precision measurement of the volts across Component III as root mean square (rms) volts; and the current flowing in the system as rms amperes. Precisely calibrated instruments were used to take these two measurements. A typical set of experiments using water in the form of 0.9% saline solution 0.1540 molar to obtain high efficiency hydrolysis gave the following results:

rms Current = I = 25mA to 38 mA (0.025 A to 0.038 A.)

rms Volts = E = 4 Volts to 2.6 Volts

The resultant ration between current and voltage is dependent on many factors such as the gap distance between the center and ring electrodes, dielectric properties of the water, conductivity properties of the water, equilibrium states, isothermal conditions, materials used, and even the pressure of clathrates. The above current and voltage values reflect the net effect of various combinations of such parameters. When one takes the product of rms current, and rms volts, one has a measure of the power, P in watts.

P = I x E = 25 mA x 4.0 volts =100 mW (0.1 W)

and P = I x E =38 mA x 2.6 volts = 98.8 mW (0.0988 W)

At these power levels (with load), the resonant frequency of the system is 600 Hz (plus or minus 5 Hz) as measured on a precision frequency counter. The wave form was monitored for harmonic content on an oscilloscope, and the nuclear magnetic relaxation cycle was monitored on an XY plotting oscilloscope in order to maintain the proper hysteresis loop figure. All experiments were run so that the power in watts, applied through Components I, II, and III ranged between 98.8 mW to 100 mW.

This resonance however is achieved through control of two other factors. The first is the molal concentration of salt in the water. This is controlled by measuring the conductivity of the water through the built in current meter of Component I. There is maintained an idea ratio of current to voltage I/E = 0.01870 which is an index to the optimum salt concentration of 0.1540 Molal.

[lamare]

How to drive your WFCs...

Based on all that has been discussed here, I think this is how to drive your WFCs in principle:

Article:Free Electric Energy in Theory and Practice - PESWiki

Since the WFC should be considered as being a resonant cavity, in Meyers words, we should match the resonance frequency of the driving coils to the resonance frequency of the WFCs we want to drive. Since we want to drive the while thing from the electric field, without having to provide current ourselves, we have to make sure everthing is in balance and therefore we have to drive two identical loads out of phase, such that we can tap a signal somewhere that we can use to maintain the resonance in the WFCs with trough a feedback circuit, basically as Puharich did.

With this, you can choose what kind of signal you want to feed your WFCs with. If you want to drive them with current, then you have to make sure your driving coils are in quarter wave resonance. If you want to drive them with voltage, you have to make sure your driving coils are in half wave resonance.

So, have fun with this and make it happen!

[lamare]

We still haven't got a clue how this could be happening or the science behind it, which is why details such as frequencies, waveforms and the appropriate schematic are so crucial. Without the critical details we could play around with this until the cows come home and never see results - and I've quite a few years of playing around with this stuff and not seeing results to know that!

Normal electrolysis is done by performing two half reactions:
Electrolysis of water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reduction at cathode: 2 H+(aq) + 2e− → H2(g)
Anode (oxidation): 2 H2O(l) → O2(g) + 4 H+(aq) + 4e−

What is essential for this to happen is that electrons have to be transferred from one half reaction to the other and that it takes energy to do this.

I think the question wether or not this process can be done using standing (electric) waves inside the fluid, which are certainly capable of delivering the required energy, is this:

Do the electrons have to go trough an electrical circuit no matter what?

Can't they just "jump over" if the energy needed to do that is available in the shape of an electric (and/or magnetic) field?

If your answer is "No", then why do you think this is necessary?
After all, the reaction the other way, i.e. the burning of the fuel, can certainly be performed without the need for wires and the like.....

[Farrah Day]

Tad, I'd certainly settle for verification of the claims by the guy from NASA... as long as he is a retired scientist and not a retired NASA janitor, lol!

Lamare, I think you're doing a great job. I may not agree with all you say or suggest, but it certainly offers new perspectives on things.

As I keep emphasising, the real problem is, other than producing loads of gas, we don't really know what we are trying to achieve, do we? We don't even know exactly what conditions are required to achieve the claims.

How is the water being influenced by various frequencies, voltage, current... if indeed it is at all. What reactions are actually taking place that would allow for extraordinary over-Faraday results?

We still haven't got a clue how this could be happening or the science behind it, which is why details such as frequencies, waveforms and the appropriate schematic are so crucial. Without the critical details we could play around with this until the cows come home and never see results - and I've quite a few years of playing around with this stuff and not seeing results to know that!

There is simply so much still unknown or unwritten about all this that we are still not in a position to say, oh, this reaction and that is occuring, so to induce or enhance it, we need to do this and that. One crucial piece of the puzzle is all it might take, but as yet it's eluded us.

If we can get even just one confirmed replication then we can sort ot the science later. But we need details.