Would like some help with electrolysis circuit. [updated]

[tuxamd]

Thanks, I plan to have lots of probes though. Surface area is something I definitely worked out nicely. It's basically going to be a pvc pipe about a 1.4 ft long. Through it will be going 1.5 ft long rods that are threaded to increase surface area. It was the most simple yet effective design I could think of. The goal here is for me to try to make as much hydrogen and oxygen as possible.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Thanks, I plan to have lots of probes though. Surface area is something I definitely worked out nicely. It's basically going to be a pvc pipe about a 1.4 ft long. Through it will be going 1.5 ft long rods that are threaded to increase surface area. It was the most simple yet effective design I could think of. The goal here is for me to try to make as much hydrogen and oxygen as possible.

Would you please fill your location in?.

Then we all know where to avoid!, so as not to get caught in the huge explosion :lol:

 

[Exo]

You could always use a small fuse (50 or 100mA Fast blowing) to test your circuit unloaded when it's done - Then, if you made a mistake you might be lucky and have a blown fuse before any other damage is done.

When your circuit is working replace the fuse with the 5A one to allow full load.

 

[tuxamd]

Btw could someone check over some of the parts I found and see if there's anything else needed if it's not too much trouble? I greatly appreciate all the help from everyone. This is basically an alternative energy project and if it works (or if it doesn't) I'd gladly share all my experiences with it along with photographs I've been wanting to build this thing for 2 years. I'll probably post pictures of the electrolisys chamber in a week or 2 at most, I just need a drill press to finish it.

Hehe I'm in Florida, so there's no mountains to stop the blast better go move up north if you live here :lol:

Also I posted an updated version like that person said. I'm still not sure what to do with that one trace going nowhere, sticking out on the left. And are those things I changed like the one face on mars guy said ok to do? I added them into the new circuit design. If anyone spots any useless things in it feel free to let me know, soldering isn't my hobby

 

[Exo]

The 20K throttle pot is wrong.

You should put 1 side of it on the + of the battery, the other on the - and use the slider to go to the, now unconnected, throttle input.

Also just noticed you want to buy a 5A supply in stead of using a car battery, in wich case you should eighter use a lower rated fuse 4A for example and limit to that - or get a more powerfull supply - 6A for example.
Your fuse should be rated lower then your supply - otherwise the fuse won't protect the supply as it should.

Also, if you can't find 0.01 µF try searching 10nF - wich is the same

 

[tuxamd]

I was thinking do I even need it? It seems like there are already enough throttle and whatnot controls on there. Should I just get rid of it completely? Also what should I do with the one line leading nowhere?

 

[Exo]

I would stick with the pot - It's the simplest and allows for tweaking.

 

[chemelec]

Tuxamd, This is the "Hydrostar" Design, and you are only showing Part of the Circuit, But Either way, It Really Doesn't Work as You Expect it to.
Your Just Waisting your Money.

Here is a Write-up on my website:
**broken link removed**

Take care............Gary

 

[tuxamd]

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard of the term hydrostar. I just found mine for free on KeelyNet. I know the design works for a fact, but I don't know if this circuit and specific way of going at it is the right one. I've seen video footage of Stanely Meyer's (I believe that's the spelling) device in action. Plus the guy isn't trying to sell plans or anything on it, he's just constantly developing it to be better and better in his lab. As far as the people that sell plans, well all they do is gather anything free they can on the net and try to sell it. It's nice to see someone else here that has tried this. I'll have to look into this a little bit more before making the conclusion of weather to continue with this specific circuit or not or to try a different way of approaching the experiment. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

This is the first mention of the actual use for the device, would I be correct in assuming it's basically supposed to work as a 'pertetual motion' type device?.

Or is it just supposed to provide increased efficiency in some way?, if so where does the extra energy come from?.

 

[tuxamd]

If so where does the extra energy come from?.

Well that's what I was hoping to test Stanley Meyer had to demonstrate his hydrogen generator live in the Patent Office because they wouldn't believe him how much hydrogen it would generate, yet he did and he did receive a patent for doing so.

The way I see it, is it's just not that developed yet, some way or another it does work. Nobody is trying to earn money from it, or gain any publicity (nobody ever gains publicity from even working controversial devices, just look at Tesla's life) so the way I see it is there's no reason to make all of these things up. Either way I'd like to try this, and experiment with it, perhaps succeed even.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

If so where does the extra energy come from?.

Well that's what I was hoping to test Stanley Meyer had to demonstrate his hydrogen generator live in the Patent Office because they wouldn't believe him how much hydrogen it would generate, yet he did and he did receive a patent for doing so.

So, he received a patent for the high amount of energy generated by his system, that's a LONG way short of being 'perpetual motion'!.

Assuming his hydrogen generating system is 99% efficient? (though I doubt it would approach that), he's still losing 1% of the supplied energy. Then, again assume the motor burning the hydrogen is 99% efficient (and it won't be ANYWHERE near that!), he's now losing 2% of the supplied energy. An alternator needs to be powered from the motor, again assume 99% efficiency (again, it will be nowhere near), so you're now making a net loss of 3% - PLUS whatever energy you're trying to draw from the motor (for moving a car or whatever).

Ignoring the energy require to actually do something, where does the 3% loss be powered from? (which will actually be a great deal more than that).

 

[chemelec]

The Circuit that you presented is Not Stanley Meyers design. Although his does about the same thing.

For those persons Not knowing about this Stuff:
The Purpose of these devices is Presumeably to run a car on Water.
Some Believe Stanley Meyers did it. I DON'T.
And there is No real Proof anywhere he really did.

But anytime you convert from one energy to another, there are Losses. So to get More energy from the Hydrogen than you would have from the Electricity is HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

The Two main Discussion groups on Hydrogen generation are:

**broken link removed**

https://oupower.com/phpBB2/

There are Believers in these Forums, But Personally its a Waste of Money. Many of these guys have spent Well up into the Thousands of Dollars on this.

In Reality, Yes it would be Perpetual Motion.
Because if it did work Efficienty, than yopu could Generate the Electricity to do it, as well as Run your car, As well as Condense the water created and Re-Use it

Fat Chance, Knock yourself out.

Gary

 

[tuxamd]

Thanks for the links, I wasn't aware of those websites. I understand you don't believe in these devices but I won't lose anything even if this doesn't work. Either way I'll gain some experience and try some stuff out. By the way, since yours didn't work, is there any negotiable means I could obtain the project where you left it off? What I mean is the circuit.

I can't imagine how any of the people that chose to experiment with controversial devices spend 1000s on these. Are those real figures you got from them or just assumptions?

And also, where did the name hydro star ever come from anyways?

I just remembered another thing. Even if this can't power a car simply on water, I'll enjoy using this as a welder. I'm sure not too much modification would be needed. It might not be as good as professional Brown's Gas models but it will do enough to get basic welding jobs done. I know it will produce hydrogen for sure.

 

[chemelec]

YES, I Mean Thousands of Dollars, Some in the Tens of Thousands.

The Actual article on the Hydrostar is a 23 Mb file in a PDF File. You will find it somewhere on the net, If you Search for it. Sorry, I have it on CD, but it Doesn't actually say who Designed it.

If you also go to:
**broken link removed**
You will find a Simpler Circuit for Hydrogen Generation that I designed for those wishing to just experiment. In my opinion, it will work as well as the Hydrostar.

Any Direct Questions, Email Me.

 

[wkendelewarrior]

I'll tell you guys where the extra energy comes from and it's not a perpetual motion machine... here's the answers... All of you electronics geeks like myself know that a capacitor has the ability to store a charge. And if you get into the theory of it, when a capacitor discharges the electons built up on one side store energy like the molecules in a rubber band so the force at which the electrons discharge is greater than the force (electrical potential) that was put into it. That being said, which one of those capacitors in this hydrostat circuit (which by the way I'm helping my dad to build so I know how you feel on a lot of your questions) has the ability to store and discharge as much power as this circuit claims that it can, the answer... none of them. The capacito that is doing the majority of the work is YOUR WATER. The dielectric constant of pure water is 89. if you know what that means you're in good shape, if you don't just know that the dielectric constant of air is 1 and is the basis for the scale and the constant for ceramic (the most common capacitor material) is around 1200. The reason that your largest capacitor is your water (since it has a lower dielectric constant that ceramic) is because of the area of your plates. The value of your capacitor is determined by the area of your plates (A), distance between your plates (d) and the dielectric constant (K) (which means by the way that you want a small gap between your plates to give it greater capacitance) C=(A)(d)/(K). So there is one of your answers. As for the perpetual motion machine, it is not, because it would have to create enough energy to recombine the hydrogen and oxygen which, if you know anything about chemistry, is not just a matter of putting the two elements together in a tank and letting them sit, it takes a trigger powered by energy to recombine them and this machine is not doing that, it cannot do that or it would be a perpetual motion machine. One thing that not many people have heard is that most physicists have some theory on how much energy chemicals have (don't forget water is a chemical) and on the upper end of the scale (and admittidly a seemingly unnatainable goal) one physicist belived that if you could turn 4 drops of water completely into energy you could power the city of New York for 6 months... do I believe that? Naaa, it's just a theory and something for those of you who don't think this is possible to mull over. Thanks for reading.

Andy

 

[Oznog]

All the ideas about generating hydrogen and oxygen from a car's alternator to help run the car are false.

As a nontechnical illustration, the biggest alternator out there that puts out a couple of HP- and consequently loads the engine down with a couple of HP of drag on the engine- only converts a limited number of grams per minute. And this can never be bypassed because it takes a huge amount of electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. No catalyst or exotic process can ever change this as it would be a violation of Conservation of Energy laws. Many claims have been made, all are bunk, the "reports" abound for decades yet you'll notice no one's ever made a commercial process shown to work despite the universal need for energy.

There is also an alternate theory that small amounts of hydrogen/oxygen would make the gasoline burn more efficiently. Actually I couldn't rule out the possibility of small gains in certain circumstances, who knows, but it's not going to be able to make gasoline burn much better than it does now (and I would still find it extremely unlikely and require proper proof of any such effect). The idea that there's a bunch of combustion energy remaining in gasoline that is on the brink of being unlocked and some small additive will modify it is false. Been studied hard by chemists for decades.

There is "alternate energy" use of making hydrogen from household electricity and burning it in a car. This is potentially useful since it doesn't involve gasoline, the electricity might be supplied by nuclear power or even a very large solar array. This is an interesting idea for solar, it doesn't need batteries to do this, it can make use of all the sunlight available and it's not problematic for the device to stop working when clouds pass over. Aside from the cost problems, downside is hydrogen doesn't really get stored on a vehicle in a space-efficient or weight-efficient way unless cryogenically liquified which takes a lot of refrigeration power. Hope for its future is in fuel cells, which are far more efficient than combustion and thus require less hydrogen to be carried in the first place.

 

[vhol9324]

Did you ever get it built? I just started the construction of the same project. I have the full schematic fot the electrode circuit. Please contact me at mholmes128@yahoo.com or 804.859.1234. My name is vernon