- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Messages
- 25,510
What you're saying seems devoid of any meaning I can discern. Perhaps it's the way you're saying it, or perhaps there is something I'm missing, but I'm not getting it.
sound frequency resulting from coil windings
- Thread starter jikwan
- Start date
- Status
What you're saying seems devoid of any meaning I can discern. Perhaps it's the way you're saying it, or perhaps there is something I'm missing, but I'm not getting it.
Be aware that they are not rated for prolonged duty, IIRC.
this here is a simple explination
put 2 s steel plates in tapwater
attatch a clip onto one of the plates and the same on the other
use 12v one clip is pos the other neg
switch it on and youll see hydrogen gas coming from neg plate and oxygen from the pos plate
this is highly combustable and you can run your car on this gas
to get a litre of gas you might have to wait 15 mins using
10amps. thats a lot of energy for just 1 litre of gas
the gas bubbles form very close to the plate and obstruct
the new formation of bubbles. but if you keep hitting the
plate you will get better production---a vibrator even better
production. the best way, by far is using a frequency that
make both the plates resonate just like a tuning fork
resonates. production goes up ten fold and more
less amps are used also
the tines of a tuning fork move from side to side and
would fling off any attatached gas bubbles very quickly
(if they were immersed in water)
there is an electrical way to make both plates resonate
thats what im after
HellasTechn
- Apr 14, 2013
- 1,579
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 1,579
The fact that you may get a sound of the same freq does not mean that it will sound the same in your ear !!!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Messages
- 4,968
This is beginning to sound like an HHO scheme to get "free" energy from the electrolysis of water. Whether a stainless steel tube vibrating at some "magic" resonant frequency improves hydrogen production by a factor of ten is irrelevant. You simply cannot get more energy out than you put in by electrolysis. Sure, you can generate hydrogen (or more likely, Brown's Gas) but you pay a price in electrical energy required to do so. Electrolysis is NEVER 100% efficient. The energy lost during electrolysis is NEVER recovered when the gas that is produced is burned. To claim otherwise is pseudo-science (or more accurately, hogwash) and that is not allowed here.
There is some validity to the concept of a "hydrogen economy" where cheap and plentiful electricity is used to form hydrogen gas by electrolysis of water. Improving the rate of hydrogen generation is certainly a worthy goal toward that end. Two problems immediately occur: (1) where do you get dirt-cheap electricity and (2) how do you store, transport, and use the hydrogen?
A few hundred square miles of photovoltaic solar cells or windmills scattered around the earth could produce enough power to generate commercial quantities of hydrogen, and a few more square miles of the same could be used to convert hydrogen gas to a cryogenic liquid for storage and transport world wide, but that still leads to the problem of how to use it. I doubt everyone can afford a cryogenic refrigerator to keep the hydrogen liquid until it is ready to use to power a fuel cell or (gasp!) burn in an internal combustion engine.
Research is being done as we speak to "dissolve" hydrogen in a type of "sponge" that has a huge area-to-volume ratio. You adsorb the hydrogen onto a few zillion square meters of surface that is folded up to occupy a volume the size of a thimble. Then you just apply a small amount of heat to release the hydrogen. Invent that "sponge' and I can guarantee it will make you a fortune overnight... unless someone steals the "formula" and publishes details on the Internet.
It isn't a question of danger. No one cares if you get careless and blow something or yourself up... well, I might care a little, but I also believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection to evolve a species. I believe even more in human intervention (genetic engineering) to evolve a species in the direction you want it to go. Problem is, we still don't know exactly how to encode DNA to produce desirable and predictable results. Best we can do so far is take a few snippets here and there from existing DNA (which is already encoded) and transplant them. Making a snippet of DNA from "first principles" and splicing that snippet into existing stock is the next breakthrough in genetic engineering. We are very close to accomplishing that now. Imagine gengineering a plant that uses sunlight and water for photosynthesis but exhales hydrogen gas instead of (or in addition to) oxygen. Leave out all that organic chemistry involving carbon and cut straight to the chase! No CO2 emissions necessary: burn hydrogen and oxygen and all you get is water. Add sunlight and re-cycle. Now THAT would be a real hydrogen economy and someone would make a fortune selling those seeds that grow the plants.
There is some validity to the concept of a "hydrogen economy" where cheap and plentiful electricity is used to form hydrogen gas by electrolysis of water. Improving the rate of hydrogen generation is certainly a worthy goal toward that end. Two problems immediately occur: (1) where do you get dirt-cheap electricity and (2) how do you store, transport, and use the hydrogen?
A few hundred square miles of photovoltaic solar cells or windmills scattered around the earth could produce enough power to generate commercial quantities of hydrogen, and a few more square miles of the same could be used to convert hydrogen gas to a cryogenic liquid for storage and transport world wide, but that still leads to the problem of how to use it. I doubt everyone can afford a cryogenic refrigerator to keep the hydrogen liquid until it is ready to use to power a fuel cell or (gasp!) burn in an internal combustion engine.
Research is being done as we speak to "dissolve" hydrogen in a type of "sponge" that has a huge area-to-volume ratio. You adsorb the hydrogen onto a few zillion square meters of surface that is folded up to occupy a volume the size of a thimble. Then you just apply a small amount of heat to release the hydrogen. Invent that "sponge' and I can guarantee it will make you a fortune overnight... unless someone steals the "formula" and publishes details on the Internet.
It isn't a question of danger. No one cares if you get careless and blow something or yourself up... well, I might care a little, but I also believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection to evolve a species. I believe even more in human intervention (genetic engineering) to evolve a species in the direction you want it to go. Problem is, we still don't know exactly how to encode DNA to produce desirable and predictable results. Best we can do so far is take a few snippets here and there from existing DNA (which is already encoded) and transplant them. Making a snippet of DNA from "first principles" and splicing that snippet into existing stock is the next breakthrough in genetic engineering. We are very close to accomplishing that now. Imagine gengineering a plant that uses sunlight and water for photosynthesis but exhales hydrogen gas instead of (or in addition to) oxygen. Leave out all that organic chemistry involving carbon and cut straight to the chase! No CO2 emissions necessary: burn hydrogen and oxygen and all you get is water. Add sunlight and re-cycle. Now THAT would be a real hydrogen economy and someone would make a fortune selling those seeds that grow the plants.
and therein lies the truth
@jikwan, you are NEVER going to get as much energy out as what you put in, what you are planning is relatively pointless
you are wanting to use lots of electrical power to generate a small amount of hydrogen gas which is going to generate an even smaller amount of power when burnt in an engine
I let it go for a while, but it has become obvious that you don't see the problems here
thread finally closing
Dave
- Status
Similar threads
