A PWM Control Project for Hydrogen Generation.

[Exo]

If you don't know what those "things" orbiting around atoms are, you might be at the wrong forum.

Lol, that one has to hurt! :lol:

 

[Optikon]

i woke up @ 3 in the morn last nite and couldn’t sleep, then I got thinking about perpetual motion (which did not help). Ive com to the conclusion that it IS possible. Think about a satellite orbiting the earth, itll never stop. And think about atoms, with those little things (I forgot wut they are called) orbiting around them . . .
Another thing I thout about was this: say you have an engine. It would need to be started somehow of course, but wut if as the engine is running, ALL of the heat that it produces, is converted back into energy and used to power the engine. Well, that’s my take on the matter
:lol:

Zach, don't be so fast to come to your conclusion that perpetual motion machine is possible.

lets say you get your satellite orbiting like you suggest. Lets also say that by some miraculous engineering efforts, it loses zero energy while orbiting. Not 1E-100 joules, ZERO. ok thats nice. But its useless. To get it to do any useful work an exchange of energy (conversion) will have to take place and that will have loses. which means if that energy is put back into keeping it orbiting it will be less and energy has been lost to a form that we cannot use.

I think one key point of all hypothetical perpetual motion machines is they assume an energy conversion can take place with zero loss and that is simply not possible. Its not possible even assuming many ideal situations like zero friction, 100% quantum efficiencies etc..


Read up on the 3 fundamental laws of thermodynamics. I've seen them summarized nicely as follows:

1) you can't win. (no created energy from nothing)
2) you cant even break even. (universe tends towards more disordered state. i.e. energy becomes locked up in unusable forms)
3) its the only game in town.

Surely you jest about the things orbiting around the atom.

 

[John Sorensen]

Don't forget the fourth law:

4) The heat on someone else takes the heat off of me.

j.

 

[tansis]

Claims for over unity devices are always a good way way to start a spirited debate. Meyer may be an unsung genius but like all talented inventors was cautious to a fault regarding just how the device worked.
Simply put... "Show me the money!" Students of history and Sci-Fi will recall the tale of the fabled Dean Drive propulsion system. The patents may give the general "flavour" of the device or process involved but little key points like freaquency / plate spacing / waveform shape are all notably absent. He (Meyer) may have discovered a more efficient method of gas production, perhaps some amateur tinkering will settle the argument. The future promises to be interesting, the patent expires in three years you say, hmm. Fithtieth anniversery of space flight, Virgin Galatic begins service, construction of world first fusion reactor.....

 

[zachtheterrible]

If you don't know what those "things" orbiting around atoms are, you might be at the wrong forum.

picky picky. . . electrons. i, um, temporarily forgot :roll:

lets say you get your satellite orbiting like you suggest. Lets also say that by some miraculous engineering efforts, it loses zero energy while orbiting. Not 1E-100 joules, ZERO. ok thats nice. But its useless. To get it to do any useful work an exchange of energy (conversion) will have to take place and that will have loses.

well, i guess im not really talking about perpetual motion that would really accomplish anything. :lol:

I think one key point of all hypothetical perpetual motion machines is they assume an energy conversion can take place with zero loss

thats wut i was going on, like my example with the engine if ALL the heat were able to be converted back to energy . . . ya gotta admit though, they'd be incredibly efficient.

If you are referring to energy cannot be created nor destroyed (conservation of energy) then as far as physics knows that is true. But it is also true that the second law of thermodynamics will guarantee that we will eventually never be able to recover the energy in a useful form.

how did they come to that conclusion??


i guess we'll just have to wait a couple trillion years to see if the universe comes to a state of no energy and matter, and then ill admit i was totally stupidly wrong :lol:

 

[bmcculla]

Supposedly the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Why this is happening is beyond me though but apparently fairly well supported measurements indicate it.

thats wut i was going on, like my example with the engine if ALL the heat were able to be converted back to energy . . . ya gotta admit though, they'd be incredibly efficient.

100% efficient to be exact :wink: The theoretical maximum efficiency of a standard internal combustion engine is only something like 70% (our automotive experts can correct me on this one). There always seems to be (or rather there always is) something that steals a little energy making your system less than 100% efficeint.

As to electrons they don't actually orbit. They just have a probability of being in various places in that orbit. If I remember quantum mechaics correctly they don't really even need to move like an orbiting satalite - they just sort of exist at all points in the orbit untill you measure where they are. Once you measure them they chose a location. Quantum mechanics is really weird.

 

[tansis]

Perhaps the radiolytic decomposition of water may yield some clues

 

[zachtheterrible]

As to electrons they don't actually orbit. They just have a probability of being in various places in that orbit. If I remember quantum mechaics correctly they don't really even need to move like an orbiting satalite - they just sort of exist at all points in the orbit untill you measure where they are. Once you measure them they chose a location. Quantum mechanics is really weird.

ZOOOOOOOM!!

WHOA, WHAT WAS THAT!?!? WUTEVER IT WAS JUST FLEW OVER MY HEAD!! :lol:

 

[magickaldan]

Gasoline-Powered Car
The efficiency of a gasoline-powered car is surprisingly low. All of the heat that comes out as exhaust or goes into the radiator is wasted energy. The engine also uses a lot of energy turning the various pumps, fans and generators that keep it going. So the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine is about 20 percent. That is, only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell5.htm

100% efficient to be exact Wink The theoretical maximum efficiency of a standard internal combustion engine is only something like 70% (our automotive experts can correct me on this one). There always seems to be (or rather there always is) something that steals a little energy making your system less than 100% efficeint.

 

[Optikon]

As to electrons they don't actually orbit. They just have a probability of being in various places in that orbit. If I remember quantum mechaics correctly they don't really even need to move like an orbiting satalite - they just sort of exist at all points in the orbit untill you measure where they are. Once you measure them they chose a location. Quantum mechanics is really weird.

Erwin Schrodinger derived these probabilities. They're known as wave-functions. The electrons don't even have to remain in the orbits so to speak they are just most likely to be found there. There is a small chance that it will be found elsewhere. It is this principle that makes tunnel diodes work. In these diodes, the electron does not have enough energy to cross the gap (depletion region?) but it does anyway due to this quantum mechanical effect! It cant jump the bandgap so it "tunnels" through so-to-speak..

 

[dingo]

Nigel, You right about the motor. But Generating the Volume of Hydrogen to run a motor in a care at Reasonable speeds is quite a feat.

According to documented results, Stanley Meyers did it, Very Cost Effective. It not only ran the car, it generated the power to keep it going indefinately. It claims to run on Just water, Appearently this is quite well documentated.

Sorry, but I don't believe it! (as I suspect you don't?) - it's yet another 'perpetual motion machine'. As it's supposedly patented, all the details are freely available - yet it doesn't appear that anyone else can dulicate it!.

Looks to me like yet another scam!.

Not exactly perpetual motion, it is using water as fuel. Maybe no one can duplicate because some multinational like OPEC might own the patents and buy out anyone else that even comes close. Who knows but like you I am skeptical too.

 

[tansis]

We all have our doubts, and yet water as a fuel source is not as far fetched as it would seem. Controlled nuclear fusion creeps ever closer to becoming a reality...

https://www.iter.org/
"Delegations from China, European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States met at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna on 18th June 2004 to advance the ITER negotiations.

The two potential Host Parties, European Union and Japan, presented their positions, taking account of recent bilateral discussions on a broader approach to realising fusion energy."


NASA -
**broken link removed**

INDUSTRY-
https://users.tm.net/lapointe/IEC_Fusion.html

Lets hear it for the amateurs!
**broken link removed**
**broken link removed**

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

We all have our doubts, and yet water as a fuel source is not as far fetched as it would seem. Controlled nuclear fusion creeps ever closer to becoming a reality...

Except this thread is about using energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen - then burning them in an engine, and expecting to get more energy out than you used splitting them!.

More than 100% efficiency? - now that would earn you a good degree :lol:

 

[tansis]

The same principle applies in both cases, more energy is released
than effort put in.

Water is one of this planets most odd chemical compounds,
in theory it should be a gas! Comercial / conventional direct current electrolysis requires huge amouts of power, yet water splits quite easily
under the action of certain forms/wavelengths of radiation.

Numerous patents can be found for similiar systems, each with a different
idea about voltages / freaquency / duty cycle

**broken link removed**

yields some interesting ideas, points ten (UV laser ) and thirteen (magnetic field) in particular. Even John Keely is reputed to have some success with puerly mechanical vibrations at around 620hz

 

[Oznog]

The same principle applies in both cases, more energy is released
than effort put in.

Water is one of this planets most odd chemical compounds,
in theory it should be a gas! Comercial / conventional direct current electrolysis requires huge amouts of power, yet water splits quite easily
under the action of certain forms/wavelengths of radiation.

Numerous patents can be found for similiar systems, each with a different
idea about voltages / freaquency / duty cycle

**broken link removed**

yields some interesting ideas, points ten (UV laser ) and thirteen (magnetic field) in particular. Even John Keely is reputed to have some success with puerly mechanical vibrations at around 620hz

Yep, there are plenty of patents, and every one of them is 100% fake. You don't have to prove a patent works anymore, they don't have the resources to check up on your claims or even try to understand your claim.

Water is not too mysterious- there is no theory I know of that suggests it's supposed to be gas any more often than it is now as water vapor.

Electrolysis is already pretty efficient. You can't get around the fact that it takes a certain number of joules/mol to break water into hydrogen & oxygen. Magnets, vibration, etc won't change the energy needs by law, not just experience.

Well, there's always the potential that another process- powerful microwaves, intense light, etc could somehow put in the energy to break water up. It's pointless if it's generated by electricity because the electricity can already be used efficiently for electrolysis so there's nothing to gain by using another step. If you could do it with sunlight, that's potentially phenomenally useful, but there is just no simple, cheap, effective way to do this. Solar cells can power electrolysis- but the cost effectiveness of solar cells is a problem in any power generation effort.

 

[tansis]

The efficiency of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis comercially is typically about 75-80%. Sounds good, until you remember that electric power generation efficiencies (steam from whatever heat source into electrical energy) is typically 30-35%. This makes the true overall conversion efficiency of water to hydrogen via commercial electrolysis only 20-25%. Thermolysis, a process in which steam is heated sufficiently to dissociate it into hydrogen and oxygen without a catalyst, requires very high temperatures that just aren't economical. However will not rule any process out just yet :lol:
That leaves thermochemical hydrogen production - the use of chemical reactions that free hydrogen at lower temperatures than are required by pure thermolysis. The two most highly developed thermochemical cycles are the sulfur-iodine and the calcium-bromine cycles. Both contain at least one reaction that requires temperatures greater than 750ºC, higher than is achieved by current electrical powerplants in normal operations. Argonne National Laboratory anounced research results on a new copper-chlorine thermochemical cycle in which the chemicals used are not consumed and are recycled. The reaction proceeds at 40% efficiency at only 500 degrees C. Thus a hydrogen production facility could be piggybacked on existing electrical powerplants at a higher overall efficiency than electrolysis.

 

[Oznog]

That leaves thermochemical hydrogen production - the use of chemical reactions that free hydrogen at lower temperatures than are required by pure thermolysis.

Sounds nice! And probably quite plausible (plenty of hydrogen generation schemes you see on the web are pure fiction). If there's one thing a power plant makes well, it's heat...

 

[bryan1]

this maynot be the right thread to say this but anyway,
I'm currently undertaking in a project on my farm to extract free power just using water and the sun. O'kay firstly I've got a pulser bore pump that will work off as little as 10 cfm of air pressure, the plan here is to use 2-80 watt solar panels using a maxi-maxiser circuit to work the 3/4 hp motor directly off the solar panels, and this will pump the water 300 metres at 150 metres elevation to a 20,000 gallon tank situated on top of my property. Then by using a 4" pipe and reducing the pipe over 500 metres downhill to a 1/2" pipe which will go through a 600 watt dc motor with a turbine which develops 16 amps@24volts to charge my deep cycle batteries. Not only will this give me plenty of battery storage but the excess power will be used to supply another pump to send the waste water back over the hill to start the process again.
I know this isn't perpetual motion but in my book it's an effiecient way to get free power using a few electronic circuits and about 4 kilometres of piping.

cheers Bryan1

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

this maynot be the right thread to say this but anyway,
I'm currently undertaking in a project on my farm to extract free power just using water and the sun. O'kay firstly I've got a pulser bore pump that will work off as little as 10 cfm of air pressure, the plan here is to use 2-80 watt solar panels using a maxi-maxiser circuit to work the 3/4 hp motor directly off the solar panels, and this will pump the water 300 metres at 150 metres elevation to a 20,000 gallon tank situated on top of my property. Then by using a 4" pipe and reducing the pipe over 500 metres downhill to a 1/2" pipe which will go through a 600 watt dc motor with a turbine which develops 16 amps@24volts to charge my deep cycle batteries. Not only will this give me plenty of battery storage but the excess power will be used to supply another pump to send the waste water back over the hill to start the process again.
I know this isn't perpetual motion but in my book it's an effiecient way to get free power using a few electronic circuits and about 4 kilometres of piping.

Interesting idea, and ecologically sound, I have only a few comments about the scheme in general:

1) Do the solar panels provide enough power to pump the water all that way, and how much water can they pump in direct sunlight?. I'm presuming bright sunlight isn't a problem where you are?.

2) It seems rather pointless using a pump fed from the batteries to send water back up the hill - turn the water off to the turbine, and leave the stored energy in the water tank. Every change of energy has losses, the electricity generated by the turbine only recovers a portion of the energy in the falling water, likewise the pump sending the water back up the hill will only pump a fraction of the water it took to generate the electricity.

By leaving the water in the tank until needed you are maximising the capability of the system.

Stored power systems are practical, but you need a source of 'free' energy - in your case the sun, in Wales there's a stored power station built in a mountain. They do tours around it, it's pretty impressive - you drive into the mountain in a bus!. Power stations work most efficiently at their specified rating, so during off-peak periods they use power from other stations to pump water inside the mountain to a lake at the top. Then during peak demand they open a valve and use the turbines to supplement the normal power stations.

It's well worth a visit!.

I'd be interested to hear how you get on, it looks a fun project.

Funnily enough, not far from the stored power station is a place called CAT (Centre for Alternative Technology). Again, this is a great place to visit, they have all types of solar panels, windmills, turbines etc. with loads of information about doing as you are. They even have a water power funicular (not sure about the spelling?) cable car which takes you up the hill. Their website is at .

 

[chemelec]

I would be Really Surprised if your two 80 watt Solar Panals could actually run a 3/4 Hp Motor.