In-Situ Hydrogen Production
Hydrone
current (rather than plain DC current) that reached efficiencies in
excess of 90%. Apparently, if the pulsing current is operating at a
certain frequency, the separation of oxygen and hydrogen gases occurs
almost spontaneously at currents well below 1 Amp. So much hydrogen is
produced that it can be used to run an internal combustion engine,
which in turn runs a 12-volt alternator, which in turn powers the
electrolysis circuit.
I have done some preliminary research and found the following patents
in the US database. You can go to
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm and enter those numbers to
view the patents for yourselves.
4,394,230 method and apparatus for splitting water molecules
5,089,107 bi-polar auto electrolytic hydrogen generator
3,980,053 fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines
...and the "Meyer" patents:
5,293,857 Hydrogen gas fuel and management system for an internal
combustion engine utilizing hydrogen gas fuel
4,798,661 Electrical circuit control system for a hydrogen fuel
gas generator
4,936,961 method for the production of a fuel gas
...as well as the Xogen patent:
6,126,794 apparatus for producing orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen
If you go to www.tathacus.ca (partial owner of Xogen) and check out
their Press Releases section, you'll find these interesting ones:
14-Sep-2000 Xogen unveils hydrogen generator via webcast
03-Oct-2000 Xogen secures US patent #6,126,794
14-Dec-2000 Xogen Hydrogen Technology tested by Alberta
Research Council
28-Mar-2003 Tathacus announces Proof of Concept prototypes
30-May-2003 Xogen technology passes independent inspection
By the way, interesting how their press releases show "not for
dissemination into the United States", don't you think?
To further put a twist on things, I found plans here
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm and another copy of them
here http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm. These
plans were the only ones that I've found that provided a clear and
detailed schematic of the control circuit needed to produce the
pulses.
I believe that this concept bears some merit and am interested in
building a small-scale prototype. I will have reached my goal if I can
produce a unit that consumes less than, say, 50 watts of electricity
and can electrolyze water in sufficient quantity to run a standard
home propane barbecue.
I have built the circuit from the above plans (you can get to them
directly here
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2_carplans_fig1.gif) and have a
few things to report...
For one, the MOSFET transistor should be an IRF510 -- not an IFR510.
Also, the lettering of the leads (g,d,s) do not seem to correspond to
the diagram. I checked the datasheet for that part at www.mouser.com
and made the necessary corrections.
The circuit does produce a saw-tooth wave at the electrodes and
adjusting the 20k pot for the throttle does change the voltage from 1
to 6 volts at pin-5 of the NE555. However, the 2k pot for the
frequency adjust along with the bank of capacitors connected to the
DIP switch do not seem to have any effect on the frequency of the
pulses. I have even completely removed the capacitors in the bank
(figuring the DIP switches might be stuck in the On position) and did
not see any change in the waveform produced. On the other hand, the 2k
pot for pulse-width adjustment did have a slight effect on the
waveform.
I have checked, re-checked, and triple-checked my circuit and
connections and everything is connected exactly as it is shown in the
schematic. Obviously there is an error somewhere with regards to the
oscillator. Is there any Electrical Engineer out there that knows this
subject better than I do and could provide some advice? I've verified
that the pinout of the CD4069 chip matches that of the schematic's and
I've connected the appropriate pins together as it illustrates. It's
the only piece of the circuit that doesn't seem to be working.
Perhaps it is a problem with the capacitors I'm using? Being a
Mechanical Engineer, I don't know the functional difference between
electrolytic, ceramic, and dc-film capacitors. The way I see it, the
only difference is the price. Also, some capacitance values were only
available in ceramic disk or Tantalum format while other values were
available in multiple formats. If there is more to it than that,
please review the schematic and share your insights on this thread. I
would love some help right now.
I am open to collaboration and sharing of my findings if there is
someone interested. As it is now, I'm working in a one-man team on
this and would welcome any expertise or insight.
Sincerely,
Hydrone.
G. R. L. Cowan
Hydrone wrote:
>
> I have heard and read about electrolysis systems that use pulsing
> current (rather than plain DC current) that reached efficiencies in
> excess of 90%. Apparently, if the pulsing current is operating at a
> certain frequency, the separation of oxygen and hydrogen gases occurs
> almost spontaneously at currents well below 1 Amp. So much hydrogen is
> produced that it can be used to run an internal combustion engine,
> which in turn runs a 12-volt alternator, which in turn powers the
> electrolysis circuit.
>
> I have done some preliminary research and found the following patents
> in the US database. ... [flush]
Lies are patentable.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
how cars gain nuclear cachet
Don Lancaster
It is enormously difficult to properly measure pulse power.
This is the usual source of these outrageously "not even wrong" and
utterly bogus claims.
Since electrolysis involves a double integration, only the dc term of
any pulse component contributes significantly to electrolysis. An
electrolysis cell is inherently nonlinear and thus does convert certain
ac terms down to dc where a normal electrolysis can then proceed.
Faraday's law ain't broke.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf for a detailed analysis.
An electrolysis efficiency of 100 percent would be wildly unacceptable
for hydrogen bulk energy apps due to the staggering loss of exergy.
Electrolysis is the process of converting lots of very valuable kilowatt
hours of energy into significantly fewer kilowatt hours of significantly
lower value. It is thus wildly inappropriate for hydrogen energy
generation. Especially from high value sources such as pv solar or
retail grid.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
Some recent Nebraska tests have conclusively shown that getting a
patent, framing it, and placing it on an east facing wall appears to
significantly reduce the risk of walrus attacks.
Winners are in the marketplace.
Losers are in the patent repositories.
See http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Don Lancaster
Also, if you dig deeper into the Xogen fiasco, you'll find out where
their parent company admits they had been had to Canada's equivalent of
the SEC.
The whole sordid scam was apparently foisted off by a Meyer disciple.
fkasner
I find it a rather amusing "coincidence" that just as this nonsense
rears up again with posts from "hydrone" that we find a post from
Michael Hannon on the usenet once again.
FK
Dan Bloomquist
Hydrone wrote:
>
> I believe that this concept bears some merit and am interested in
> building a small-scale prototype. I will have reached my goal if I can
> produce a unit that consumes less than, say, 50 watts of electricity
> and can electrolyze water in sufficient quantity to run a standard
> home propane barbecue.
>
I have a BBQ and I'll guess it run at about 4 to 5 thousand watts. If it
were possible to get any kind of over unity, it would be really big
news. But for the same reason this really big news hasn’t happened, this
won’t work.
If you are not looking for over unity, stick with the propane.
Electricity is 3 to 4 times more expensive for the equivalent heat.
Best, Dan.
--
if( this == NULL )
return that;
Dan Bloomquist
fkasner wrote:
>
> I find it a rather amusing "coincidence" that just as this nonsense
> rears up again with posts from "hydrone" that we find a post from
> Michael Hannon on the usenet once again.
> FK
>
Interesting. I did a little looking at the archives. Could the Lenz guy
be Hannon?
Don Lancaster
Apparently his garage failed to qualify for the X prize.
Don Lancaster
Now that you mention it, the ad hominum baiting is suspiciously
identical.
What has amazed me about the entire post history for years back is how
someone can consistently be 100 percent wrong fully 100 percent of the
time.
It is sort of like having a student consistently score zeros on all of
your twenty question true-false tests.
A bot cannot be ruled out.
But WHY?
Hydrone
don't usually post this soon after watching a group but I'm at my
wit's end. I guess Don is right in that someone could probably submit
a bogus patent application and polute the USPTO database. Despite his
debunking, though, I'm still not convinced that we can't use the
bipolar nature of the water molecule as leverage to break it apart. I
believe the effect was likened to that of an opera singer shattering
crystal when hitting the right note.
I guess I can't prove to anyone that the findings in the Puharich
patent are true; just like no one can seem to prove to me that they
are false.
Anyway, I continue undaunted and the current task at hand is to figure
out a way to modify the circuit so that I can vary the pulse
frequency. Hopefully, if I can accomplish that, I can test the
hypothesis to my satisfaction. If it doesn't work, I'll stop there,
won't bother investing more time, won't feel guilty. If I do manage to
get some major success, then I'll continue on.
I can't explain why I'm compelled to do this... just that I am. I
honestly have no other motives. And I can't let it drop until I give
it a fair try worthy of my abilities. That means figuring out a way to
make electrical pulses with a cheap, simple circuit. I'm sure there
are some plans out there free for the taking that show how to make a
simple but flexible pulse generator. Would anyone happen to know of a
site?
By the way, no I'm not Michael Hannon (whoever he is), I'm not a
"Meyer disciple" (whatever that is), and I'm too straight-forward to
be wasting my time trolling like the Lenz guy. I simply honestly
believe that this principle works, and if that is so, I should be able
to prove it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hydrone
Don Lancaster
Note that the first resonant frequency of the bipolar water molecule is
around 1.415 GIGA Hertz or thereabouts.
This is tens to hundreds of MILLIONS of times higher than the
frequencies involved in audio pulses.
Even at that frequency, there is no expectation whatsoever of anything
unusual happening that would in any manner violate either Thermodynamic
fundamentals or Faraday's law.
The entire pulse concept is laughingly bogus. Thermodynamic first
principles absolutely and positively GUARANTEE this.
Even if it were not, there is still the exergy issue to be addressed
that clearly tells us that ANY form of electrolysis will cause a
staggering loss of energy value. Hydrogen is produced commercially by
the reformation of methane. Electrolysis is reserved ONLY for those
applications where the value of the hydrogen greatly exceeds its
laughingly meager energy content. And the ONLY on demand.
Your time would be much better spent taking a community college physics
course or reading back issues of IJHE.
You can easily read Faraday out of Great Books.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3F551710...@tinaja.com...
...
> An electrolysis efficiency of 100 percent would be wildly unacceptable
> for hydrogen bulk energy apps due to the staggering loss of exergy.
The exergy of the hydrogen produced by electrolysis is, for a 100% efficient
electrolysis step, exactly the same as it was before. All totally reversible
steps have zero change in exergy. Don doesn't know what he is talking about,
in this case.
Don Lancaster
Please show an amortized process electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity
that is able to return so much as one tenth of what you started with.
One percent is enormously difficult and highly unlikely.
Fred B. McGalliard
> "Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:
> >
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F551710...@tinaja.com...
> > ...
> > > An electrolysis efficiency of 100 percent would be wildly unacceptable
> > > for hydrogen bulk energy apps due to the staggering loss of exergy.
> >
> > The exergy of the hydrogen produced by electrolysis is, for a 100%
efficient
> > electrolysis step, exactly the same as it was before. All totally
reversible
> > steps have zero change in exergy. Don doesn't know what he is talking
about,
> > in this case.
>
> Please show an amortized process electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity
> that is able to return so much as one tenth of what you started with.
>
> One percent is enormously difficult and highly unlikely.
Don. Don. Don!. Wake up and smell the physics. We were addressing your
failure to grasp the idea of exergy, and misapplying it badly. Now you want
to amortize it? I have not yet seen an equation for
chemistry/thermodynamics/physics that includes amortization? Come off it
Don. You may be right that the hydrogen electrolysis/fuel cell system is a
looser, but your reasons are totally incorrect, and will, if unchallenged,
yield incorrect decisions over the use of hydrogen to build synthetic fuels
that are much more practical. This is just like in high school, you not only
have to have the right answer, you have to be able to show your work.
Dan Bloomquist
Hydrone wrote:
>
> I guess I can't prove to anyone that the findings in the Puharich
> patent are true; just like no one can seem to prove to me that they
> are false.
>
> Hydrone
The thing to do is ditch that schematic and either use the 555 straight
up or use a conventional pulse circuit. There are tons of -good- designs
in electrical circuit books. Mr. Lancaster has written some.
Ron Herfurth
snip
>
> Please show an amortized process electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity
> that is able to return so much as one tenth of what you started with.
>
> One percent is enormously difficult and highly unlikely.
>
> Don Lancaster
If electrolysis and the fuel cell were each 50% efficient wouldn't you get
back 25% of what you put in? I'm assuming the hydrogen goes straight through
with out being compressed or stored just like your challenge:
"electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity".
ron
G. R. L. Cowan
What is the name, what are the specs, who is the maker
of this 50-percent-efficient air-breathing fuel cell?
Don Lancaster
>
> Hydrone wrote:
> >
> > I guess I can't prove to anyone that the findings in the Puharich
> > patent are true; just like no one can seem to prove to me that they
> > are false.
> >
> > Hydrone
Michael Faraday has conclusively proven this to you several centuries
ago.
Don Lancaster
Assuming the amortization and interest was free.
In reality, they would be the dominant expenses.
The longer you run the system, the more it costs you.
You have to include ALL of the energy that goes into ALL of the system
components, not just the feedstock. Plus the energy equivalent of the
capitialization.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:3F565932...@eagle.ca...
>
>
> Ron Herfurth wrote:
> >
> > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F562123...@tinaja.com...
> > snip
> > >
> > > Please show an amortized process
electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity
> > > that is able to return so much as one tenth of what you started with.
> > >
> > > One percent is enormously difficult and highly unlikely.
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
> > > Don Lancaster
> >
> > If electrolysis and the fuel cell were each 50% efficient wouldn't you
get
> > back 25% of what you put in? I'm assuming the hydrogen goes straight
through
> > with out being compressed or stored just like your challenge:
> > "electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity".
>
> What is the name, what are the specs, who is the maker
> of this 50-percent-efficient air-breathing fuel cell?
Don't be stupid, Graham. If you are electrolysing and converting straight
back to electricity you have both H2 and O2 in their stoichiometric
quantities.
His figures are conservative in both respects.
Roland
--
Roland and Lisa Paterson-Jones
Forest Lodge, Stirrup Lane, Hout Bay
http://www.rolandpj.com/forest-lodge
mobile: +27 72 386 8045
e-mail: forest...@rolandpj.com
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> > Hydrone wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess I can't prove to anyone that the findings in the Puharich
> > > patent are true; just like no one can seem to prove to me that they
> > > are false.
> > >
> > > Hydrone
>
> Michael Faraday has conclusively proven this to you several centuries
> ago.
Don, you really are a dumb-ass. Faraday's law states that the current
through the electrolyte is proportional to the products.
Faraday's law is independent of power. If you can find a way to push current
through at low power you are not breaking Faraday's law.
What's your point?
G. R. L. Cowan
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
>
> "G. R. L. Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F565932...@eagle.ca...
> >
> >
> > Ron Herfurth wrote:
> > >
> > > "Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3F562123...@tinaja.com...
> > > snip
> > > >
> > > > Please show an amortized process
> electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity
> > > > that is able to return so much as one tenth of what you started with.
> > > >
> > > > One percent is enormously difficult and highly unlikely.
> > > > Many thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Don Lancaster
> > >
> > > If electrolysis and the fuel cell were each 50% efficient wouldn't you
> get
> > > back 25% of what you put in? I'm assuming the hydrogen goes straight
> through
> > > with out being compressed or stored just like your challenge:
> > > "electricity--->hydrogen---->electricity".
> >
> > What is the name, what are the specs, who is the maker
> > of this 50-percent-efficient air-breathing fuel cell?
>
> Don't be stupid, Graham.
I'll do asbestos I can. Hey, wait a minute,
no-one said anything about asbestos! Oh no!
> If you are electrolysing and converting straight
> back to electricity you have both H2 and O2 in their stoichiometric
> quantities.
>
> His figures are conservative in both respects.
So it should be no problem for him,
or anyone who likes answering FABNAQs,
to find documentation of actual installations
that have oxygen tankage along with their H2 tankage.
Hydrone
wrote:
>Note that the first resonant frequency of the bipolar water molecule is
>around 1.415 GIGA Hertz or thereabouts.
>
>This is tens to hundreds of MILLIONS of times higher than the
>frequencies involved in audio pulses.
>Even at that frequency, there is no expectation whatsoever of anything
>unusual happening that would in any manner violate either Thermodynamic
>fundamentals or Faraday's law.
>
>The entire pulse concept is laughingly bogus. Thermodynamic first
>principles absolutely and positively GUARANTEE this.
>
>Even if it were not, there is still the exergy issue to be addressed
>that clearly tells us that ANY form of electrolysis will cause a
>staggering loss of energy value. Hydrogen is produced commercially by
>the reformation of methane. Electrolysis is reserved ONLY for those
>applications where the value of the hydrogen greatly exceeds its
>laughingly meager energy content. And the ONLY on demand.
>
>Your time would be much better spent taking a community college physics
>course or reading back issues of IJHE.
>
>You can easily read Faraday out of Great Books.
Wow, well thank you Don, for your reply. This one's actually got some
numbers and information in it. Ok, sorry, I couldn't resist but you
strike me as the type that likes to hear his own voice... not that
there's anything wrong with that... moving on.
If it is so impossible, then it must mean that the stuff at
www.tathacus.com is completely fraudulent. Did you even bother to take
a look? If it's such a scam, they sure designed a website that blows
yours away.
In fact, I've been to your website before as a result of various
searches and dismissed it as a dot-com-wanna-be so I never dug deeper.
Now here I am, talking to that website's head-honcho and, had I dug
deeper, I would've save myself some time. Small world.
Anyway, I guess I'll drop this whole resonant-hydrolysis thing.
Thought there was more to it but you're right, after reading through
your voluminous posts and articles I can summarize it like this: the
electrons have to come from somewhere. Thanks also to Dan for your
suggestion of using a straing 555 circuit but I guess the point is
moot now.
Oh well. Thanks for the wisdom.
Hydrone.
Don Lancaster
Don't thank me.
Thank Faraday.
fkasner
The lowest frequency absorbable by a water molecule (and not in the
liquid state) is one for rotation. If you want to break the bonds of the
water molecule to get hydrogen you will have to absorb in the infrared.
Now that is considerably above the the frequency cited above! It is
nonsense to believe you can find some way to jack up an audio frequency
to a harmonic in the infrared. What do you think the amplitude would be
of such a harmonic. Does anyone know how to spell zero?
FK
User
>By the way, no I'm not Michael Hannon (whoever he is),
Wow. Michael Hannon. Now there's a name that hasn't been batted
around s.e.h in quite some time. What ever happened to that loon?
Did he finally blow himself up?
Don Lancaster
Apparently he is now reposting.
Sock puppets and all.
Also apparently, his garage failed to qualify for the X prize.
robert luis rabello
Hydrone wrote:
> I have heard and read about electrolysis systems that use pulsing
> current (rather than plain DC current)
Why do I bother reading this forum? How many times have we been down
this path?
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:u2vclv8ce3p7m04pr...@4ax.com...
> >Note that the first resonant frequency of the bipolar water molecule is
> >around 1.415 GIGA Hertz or thereabouts.
This is, perhaps, an estimate of the internal chemical bond frequencies of a
non-dissociated H2O molecule at STP. Don can you provide some more
information?
Electrolysis, on the other hand, deals exclusively with dissociated ions in
a solution.
The dissociation of pure water at STP is small, but there are still
gazillions of ions floating around. Ion drag in a partially dissociated
fluid is a well modelled phenomenon.
A DC current through a solution (including pure water, which is partially
dissociated), has to overcome both the ion drag, and the energy at the
electrodes to convert the H(3O)+ and OH- into H and O. As the (nuetral) H
and O are formed at the electrodes, they form a buffer, until gravitation
and molecular motion bump them away and upwards.
There are many ways that pulsed voltage might take advantage of this simple
model, but almost certainly more ways that it can take advantage of the real
situation.
> >The entire pulse concept is laughingly bogus. Thermodynamic first
> >principles absolutely and positively GUARANTEE this.
Why? First law is conservation of energy. We may be talking about second law
violations, but even a second-law compliant, but very efficient electrolyser
would be useful. Note that you might consider thermodynamic laws to be
'first principles'. They're not. They're simple our best attempt at
explaining the world around us.
> >Even if it were not, there is still the exergy issue to be addressed
> >that clearly tells us that ANY form of electrolysis will cause a
> >staggering loss of energy value.
Crap. The same crap from you, but still crap.
> ... I can summarize it like this: the
> electrons have to come from somewhere.
Indeed. What we're more interested in, however, is how much energy it takes
to put those electrons in the right place.
Give your idea your best shot and post the results. Don't give up on the
advice of good people on the net. If you do, then there's no distinction
between dogma and fact.
Hydrone
<nob...@home.com> wrote:
> Why do I bother reading this forum? How many times have we been down
>this path?
>
>
>
>robert luis rabello
>"The Edge of Justice"
>Adventure for Your Mind
>http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782
>
Agreed, by the way, maybe someone should post an FAQ
once-in-a-while... might've saved myself the bandwidth.
Damn... I can't believe I fell for this hook-like-and-sinker.
Fortunately I didn't invest anything except some electronic parts and
some personal time.
It just really bothers me that a business can post things like
http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2003-05-30.pdf naming names,
dates, places, etc. stating that the technology has passed an
independent inspection. And only two months prior to that
(supposedly), they release this
http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2003-03-28.pdf announcing the
unveiling of two proof-of-concept prototypes using the supposed
high-efficiency electrolysis.
I saw the inquiry-related stuff that Don was talking about here:
http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2001-07-31.pdf where the
Canadian Exchange suspended their trading pending an audit of their
claims. But judging from the press release on May 30th, 2003 (first
link in this post), it looks like everything is hunky-dory. No mention
of them having been "had". Plus, it took two years to do the audit...
so you would think that it stood the test of time.
I checked their symbol on the Canadian Stock Exchange (go to
http:www.cdnx.com, lookup symbol: TTC) and it closed at $1.10 today.
So it looks like they're trading again.
If this is a fraud, then it is currently ongoing, isn't it?
Isn't there something that can be done about this?
Has anybody looked into this company already?
If so, is there someplace I can read up on it?
If not, shouldn't authorities be notified?
Hydrone.
Don Lancaster
Canadian penny stocks are, by definition, frauds.
robert luis rabello
Hydrone wrote:
>
> Agreed, by the way, maybe someone should post an FAQ
> once-in-a-while... might've saved myself the bandwidth.
I didn't mean to snipe at you--sorry! We've just discussed "pulsed
electrolysis" to death over the years and I'm a little weary of it. . .
>
> Damn... I can't believe I fell for this hook-like-and-sinker.
> Fortunately I didn't invest anything except some electronic parts and
> some personal time.
Don't feel bad--experience is a good teacher! Having written that, a good
thermochem text would save a lot of unnecessary expense. Mr. Lancaster is
wise in that advice.
> It just really bothers me that a business can post things like
> http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2003-05-30.pdf naming names,
> dates, places, etc. stating that the technology has passed an
> independent inspection. And only two months prior to that
> (supposedly), they release this
> http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2003-03-28.pdf announcing the
> unveiling of two proof-of-concept prototypes using the supposed
> high-efficiency electrolysis.
Anything goes in the wild world of the world wide web!
> I saw the inquiry-related stuff that Don was talking about here:
> http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2001-07-31.pdf where the
> Canadian Exchange suspended their trading pending an audit of their
> claims. But judging from the press release on May 30th, 2003 (first
> link in this post), it looks like everything is hunky-dory. No mention
> of them having been "had". Plus, it took two years to do the audit...
> so you would think that it stood the test of time.
I live in Canada. Trust me--anything done by the government moves at a
glacial pace up here!
> I checked their symbol on the Canadian Stock Exchange (go to
> http:www.cdnx.com, lookup symbol: TTC) and it closed at $1.10 today.
> So it looks like they're trading again.
Hang on to your wallet!
> If this is a fraud, then it is currently ongoing, isn't it?
> Isn't there something that can be done about this?
> Has anybody looked into this company already?
> If so, is there someplace I can read up on it?
> If not, shouldn't authorities be notified?
Anyone can make a claim. At this point, there's really nothing "illegal"
going on unless the regulatory officials can prove that fraudulence is
actually taking place. These people are knowledgeable about money and
finance, not technology.
robert luis rabello
Oh, and one more thing. There's this little disclaimer on their web site:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information displayed herein is for informational
purposes only. It is
not an offer to buy or sell securities. No stock exchange has neither
approved nor disapproved of
the information contained on this web site.
Hang on to your wallet!
robert luis rabello
Roland Paterson-Jones
> I saw the inquiry-related stuff that Don was talking about here:
> http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2001-07-31.pdf where the
> Canadian Exchange suspended their trading pending an audit of their
> claims. But judging from the press release on May 30th, 2003 (first
> link in this post), it looks like everything is hunky-dory. No mention
> of them having been "had". Plus, it took two years to do the audit...
> so you would think that it stood the test of time.
>
> I checked their symbol on the Canadian Stock Exchange (go to
> http:www.cdnx.com, lookup symbol: TTC) and it closed at $1.10 today.
> So it looks like they're trading again.
So test your hypothesis. Short the stock. Check out:
For a very interesting graph.
Roland Paterson-Jones
news:3F596061...@home.com...
> Hydrone wrote:
> > Agreed, by the way, maybe someone should post an FAQ
> > once-in-a-while... might've saved myself the bandwidth.
>
> I didn't mean to snipe at you--sorry! We've just discussed "pulsed
> electrolysis" to death over the years and I'm a little weary of it. . .
Robert, where did you jump out from? Where have 'we' discussed pulsed
electrolysis to death?
Not a flame, I'm genuinely interested. I hold faith in theories whereby
action at the electrodes is more important than the average current through
the electrolyte. I want to see the discussion. I'm more than happy to be
wrong.
robert luis rabello
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> I didn't mean to snipe at you--sorry! We've just discussed "pulsed
> > electrolysis" to death over the years and I'm a little weary of it. . .
>
> Robert, where did you jump out from? Where have 'we' discussed pulsed
> electrolysis to death?
Perhaps you were not active on the list at the time. Mr. Hannon and "J.W."
were very fond of pulsed electrolysis, as were other Meyer disciples that
occasionally posted here. Are there no archives for Usenet?
> Not a flame, I'm genuinely interested. I hold faith in theories whereby
> action at the electrodes is more important than the average current through
> the electrolyte. I want to see the discussion. I'm more than happy to be
> wrong.
Many people here know considerably more about this topic than I do. As the
years have gone by and my knowledge about hydrogen has increased, my enthusiasm
for it as an energy carrier has diminished proportionally. The people who have
advocated pulsed electrolysis in this forum nearly always claim that it is a
nuclear, rather than chemical, process. Further, the claims have never been
substantiated in independent, peer reviewed scientific journals. That fuels my
skepticism.
Besides, commercial electrolyzer manufacturers already make claims of "90%
current efficiency" for their top of the line electrolyzers. (You and I simply
cannot obtain one of these machines because the manufacturers will not sell one
to an individual.) What advantage would pulsed current electrolysis have over
a state of the art electrolyzer? Unless the device operates outside of
Faraday's principles, or causes them to be re-examined, there would be no point
to building a pulsed current electrolyzer.
Roland Paterson-Jones
> Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> > Robert, where did you jump out from? Where have 'we' discussed pulsed
> > electrolysis to death?
> Besides, commercial electrolyzer manufacturers already make claims of
"90%
> current efficiency" for their top of the line electrolyzers. (You and I
simply
> cannot obtain one of these machines because the manufacturers will not
sell one
> to an individual.) What advantage would pulsed current electrolysis have
over
> a state of the art electrolyzer? Unless the device operates outside of
> Faraday's principles, or causes them to be re-examined, there would be no
point
> to building a pulsed current electrolyzer.
What are Faraday's principles in this context?
As far as I have been able to discern, Faraday's Law simply relates the
current (number of electrons) to the chemical reaction balance. How does
this relate to pulsed current and power?
robert luis rabello
Roland Paterson-Jones wrote:
> As far as I have been able to discern, Faraday's Law simply relates the
> current (number of electrons) to the chemical reaction balance. How does
> this relate to pulsed current and power?
>
The claim from pulsed electrolysis advocates, is that pulsing significantly
reduces the electrical power necessary to liberate hydrogen from water. Hence,
they believe it is more "efficient". It's interesting that these claims are
normally made for devices that do not separate the hydrogen from oxygen--often
both gases (ridiculously called "Brown's Gas" by some devotees) are generated
for use.
No one of the Meyer / Brown discipleship crowd, whom I have read in this
forum anyway, seems the least bit concerned about safety with these kinds of
devices. I too, have played with electrolysis, but only with great care!
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> Besides, commercial electrolyzer manufacturers already make claims of
"90%
> current efficiency" for their top of the line electrolyzers.
That's not such a great claim. The real biggy is that a lot of the voltage
in a standard cell goes to processes that just produce heat. So you can get
even a 100% current efficiency, and still have a very inefficient cell,
wasting most of it's electrical energy as heat.
User
<rol...@rolandpj.com> wrote:
>"Hydrone" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:u19ilvgpa037b0e46...@4ax.com...
>
>> I saw the inquiry-related stuff that Don was talking about here:
>> http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2001-07-31.pdf where the
>> Canadian Exchange suspended their trading pending an audit of their
>> claims. But judging from the press release on May 30th, 2003 (first
>> link in this post), it looks like everything is hunky-dory. No mention
>> of them having been "had". Plus, it took two years to do the audit...
>> so you would think that it stood the test of time.
>>
>> I checked their symbol on the Canadian Stock Exchange (go to
>> http:www.cdnx.com, lookup symbol: TTC) and it closed at $1.10 today.
>> So it looks like they're trading again.
>
>So test your hypothesis. Short the stock. Check out:
>
>http://tsedb.globeinvestor.com/invest/investSQL/tsx.show_chart?iaction=Generate&pl_period=36W&pl_primary_listing=TTC-X
>
>For a very interesting graph.
It's interesting to note the timing of that "event" relative to this
press release:
http://www.tathacus.ca/press_releases/2002-11-26.pdf
robert luis rabello
"Fred B. McGalliard" wrote:
That's not the way I understood the claim, but you may be right. I have
yet to build an electrolyzer that could convert better than 25% of the current
I put through it into hydrogen gas--no matter how clever I tried to be with its
design.
Fred B. McGalliard
...
> That's not the way I understood the claim, but you may be right. I
have
> yet to build an electrolyzer that could convert better than 25% of the
current
> I put through it into hydrogen gas--no matter how clever I tried to be
with its
> design.
The original of this stuff was electrical separation of metals and the like
where an avagadro's number of charges transferred produces an avagdro's
number of single charged molecules plating out on the electrode. If the
voltage is not too high, and there are no competing effects, the only way
for the carrier to get across is by conduction of the ion that will be
neutralized at the electrode, and released. I am pretty sure this works for
most ions, and I thought it should work for hydrogen as well as any other
gas. Now you do have to watch out that you account for the gas dissolved in
the electrolyte, and compensate for pressure and temperature of course.
nano tech personnal
strip that causes an reaction and causes an charge of +1.5V and some
alagator clips<<<<
Michael Hannon
etc?
The reason I'm asking is that Meyer's devices do not function at all in the
presence of an electrolyte - the unit automatically shuts down.
What this means is simple - no electrolyte, no electrolysis.
What Meyer was dealing with was a resonant phenomenon - not electrolysis.
No one who is willing to admit it has ever replicated Meyer's design in a
working model. You might want to look at Puharich's patents as well, but as
I said, don't look for a miracle, and if you find one, keep your mouth shut
about it, or suffer consequences you aren't prepared for, rest assured.
Meyer's last words as he was dying were that he was murdered.
"Hydrone" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:i84alv0gfk50ghbfh...@4ax.com...
> I have heard and read about electrolysis systems that use pulsing
> current (rather than plain DC current) that reached efficiencies in
> excess of 90%. Apparently, if the pulsing current is operating at a
> certain frequency, the separation of oxygen and hydrogen gases occurs
> almost spontaneously at currents well below 1 Amp. So much hydrogen is
> produced that it can be used to run an internal combustion engine,
> which in turn runs a 12-volt alternator, which in turn powers the
> electrolysis circuit.
>
> I have done some preliminary research and found the following patents
> in the US database. You can go to
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm and enter those numbers to
> view the patents for yourselves.
>
> 4,394,230 method and apparatus for splitting water molecules
> 5,089,107 bi-polar auto electrolytic hydrogen generator
> 3,980,053 fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines
>
> ...and the "Meyer" patents:
> 5,293,857 Hydrogen gas fuel and management system for an internal
> combustion engine utilizing hydrogen gas fuel
> 4,798,661 Electrical circuit control system for a hydrogen fuel
> gas generator
> 4,936,961 method for the production of a fuel gas
>
> ...as well as the Xogen patent:
> 6,126,794 apparatus for producing orthohydrogen and/or parahydrogen
>
> If you go to www.tathacus.ca (partial owner of Xogen) and check out
> their Press Releases section, you'll find these interesting ones:
> 14-Sep-2000 Xogen unveils hydrogen generator via webcast
> 03-Oct-2000 Xogen secures US patent #6,126,794
> 14-Dec-2000 Xogen Hydrogen Technology tested by Alberta
> Research Council
> 28-Mar-2003 Tathacus announces Proof of Concept prototypes
> 30-May-2003 Xogen technology passes independent inspection
> By the way, interesting how their press releases show "not for
> dissemination into the United States", don't you think?
>
> To further put a twist on things, I found plans here
> http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm and another copy of them
> here http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm. These
> plans were the only ones that I've found that provided a clear and
> detailed schematic of the control circuit needed to produce the
> pulses.
>
> I believe that this concept bears some merit and am interested in
> building a small-scale prototype. I will have reached my goal if I can
> produce a unit that consumes less than, say, 50 watts of electricity
> and can electrolyze water in sufficient quantity to run a standard
> home propane barbecue.
>
> I have built the circuit from the above plans (you can get to them
> directly here
> http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2_carplans_fig1.gif) and have a
> few things to report...
>
> For one, the MOSFET transistor should be an IRF510 -- not an IFR510.
> Also, the lettering of the leads (g,d,s) do not seem to correspond to
> the diagram. I checked the datasheet for that part at www.mouser.com
> and made the necessary corrections.
>
> The circuit does produce a saw-tooth wave at the electrodes and
> adjusting the 20k pot for the throttle does change the voltage from 1
> to 6 volts at pin-5 of the NE555. However, the 2k pot for the
> frequency adjust along with the bank of capacitors connected to the
> DIP switch do not seem to have any effect on the frequency of the
> pulses. I have even completely removed the capacitors in the bank
> (figuring the DIP switches might be stuck in the On position) and did
> not see any change in the waveform produced. On the other hand, the 2k
> pot for pulse-width adjustment did have a slight effect on the
> waveform.
>
> I have checked, re-checked, and triple-checked my circuit and
> connections and everything is connected exactly as it is shown in the
> schematic. Obviously there is an error somewhere with regards to the
> oscillator. Is there any Electrical Engineer out there that knows this
> subject better than I do and could provide some advice? I've verified
> that the pinout of the CD4069 chip matches that of the schematic's and
> I've connected the appropriate pins together as it illustrates. It's
> the only piece of the circuit that doesn't seem to be working.
>
> Perhaps it is a problem with the capacitors I'm using? Being a
> Mechanical Engineer, I don't know the functional difference between
> electrolytic, ceramic, and dc-film capacitors. The way I see it, the
> only difference is the price. Also, some capacitance values were only
> available in ceramic disk or Tantalum format while other values were
> available in multiple formats. If there is more to it than that,
> please review the schematic and share your insights on this thread. I
> would love some help right now.
>
> I am open to collaboration and sharing of my findings if there is
> someone interested. As it is now, I'm working in a one-man team on
> this and would welcome any expertise or insight.
>
> Sincerely,
> Hydrone.
>
pete
` "Hydrone" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
` news:i84alv0gfk50ghbfh...@4ax.com...
[excerpted]
` > I have heard and read about electrolysis systems that use pulsing
` > current (rather than plain DC current) that reached efficiencies in
` > excess of 90%. Apparently, if the pulsing current is operating at a
` > certain frequency, the separation of oxygen and hydrogen gases occurs
` > almost spontaneously at currents well below 1 Amp. So much hydrogen is
` > produced that it can be used to run an internal combustion engine,
` > which in turn runs a 12-volt alternator, which in turn powers the
` > electrolysis circuit.
` Are you using an electrolyte, such as potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide,
` etc?
` The reason I'm asking is that Meyer's devices do not function at all in the
` presence of an electrolyte - the unit automatically shuts down.
` What this means is simple - no electrolyte, no electrolysis.
` What Meyer was dealing with was a resonant phenomenon - not electrolysis.
` No one who is willing to admit it has ever replicated Meyer's design in a
` working model. You might want to look at Puharich's patents as well, but as
` I said, don't look for a miracle, and if you find one, keep your mouth shut
` about it, or suffer consequences you aren't prepared for, rest assured.
I presume you are aware that what's described above is simply
impossible? You can invoke all the "resonance" you like, but
you can't liberate chemical bonds without energy, and you can't
get that energy back from recombination in sufficient quantity
to repeat the process, without some losses, let alone have any
extra liberated to do work on top of this.
` Meyer's last words as he was dying were that he was murdered.
Maybe by an investor who got wise?
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Don Lancaster
The Meyer ludicrosity is analyzed in depth in
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse153.pdf
Xogen carefully duplicated Meyer's experiments and had to publish stock
investment disclaimers as a result. Admitting they have been had was an
unheard of action for a Canadian penny stock.
Faraday's law guarantees that only the DC term of any pulse waveform
normally contributes to the actual electrolysis; the higher frequency
terms simply cause cell heating and inefficiency.
Faraday's law ain't broke.
It is incredibly easy for a clueless incompetent to undermeasure pulse
waveforms, leading to wildly wrong conclusions. Tutorials appear in the
same TECH MUSINGS series.
Even if the "perfect" theoretical 116 percent electrical efficiency of
electrolysis could be acheived, it STILL would be UTTERLY USELESS for
bulk hydrogen energy apps, because of the staggering loss of exergy.
Electrolysis is the process of converting very high value kilowatt hours
of energy into very low value kilowatt hours of energy. It is pretty
much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into Mexican pesos.
No matter what your energy scheme, if you throw electrolysis (or any
other staggering exergy loss process) into the middle of the conversion
scheme, you WILL end up with a useless net energy sink.
Even if an ultra cheap electrical source could be found (grid
electricity and pv solar are orders of magnitude way too expensive),
there would CERTAINLY be much better things to do with it than
electrolysis for bulk energy storage.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
fkasner
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Are you using an electrolyte, such as potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide,
> etc?
>
> The reason I'm asking is that Meyer's devices do not function at all in the
> presence of an electrolyte - the unit automatically shuts down.
>
> What this means is simple - no electrolyte, no electrolysis.
> What Meyer was dealing with was a resonant phenomenon - not electrolysis.
>
> No one who is willing to admit it has ever replicated Meyer's design in a
> working model. You might want to look at Puharich's patents as well, but as
> I said, don't look for a miracle, and if you find one, keep your mouth shut
> about it, or suffer consequences you aren't prepared for, rest assured.
>
... snip ...
Once again you must be educated. The bond energy of the H to O bond in
water absorbs in the IR. This is a huge multiple of the low frequency
currents attributed to Meyer's scam. The harmonic of the fundamental
frequency would have a close approximation to zero amplitude at this
multiple. Approximately zero amplitude means approximately zero effect.
Sorry but the basic physics of the question denies your vague allusions
to a method for electrolysis.
FK