|
The
Miracle Mirage of Pulsing
There has been so much hoopla lately on many web
sites trying to sell “hydrogen boosting technology” that include the
miracle mirage of pulsing technology that claims to enable an electrolyzer to produce vastly more gas than what
could be accomplished with normal DC electrolysis. This all started with the illusions of
a patented inventor in the 1980s called Stanley Meyer. To get a brief history of Meyer and his
“inventions” read the web pages linked to the following links.
Stanley Meyer Story and Wikipedia article on Stanley Meyer
I
decided early in our development of the Hydrogen Boost system that I
would not spend a lot of time chasing a golden goose, and so I only spent
limited time trying to reproduce the claims of Stan Meyer and the
originator of the Joe
Cell. Both “technologies” claim to
be able to run a car on basically free energy. Both methods proved to me to be nothing
more than normal electrolysis. If
you want to chase the golden goose of either breed, I invite you to use
the Internet to research about the claims before you spend any money trying
to reproduce them.
Stan Meyer’s claim of massively over-unity gas
production claims to be caused by pulsing the electrolyzer’s
power at some magical resonant frequency, and others in the field claim
that their system works by pulsing a complex signal at a number of
different frequencies at the same time.
I have been saying for too many years now the same things that the
experts at Stan’s fraud trial did, it does nothing to change the nature
of the electrolysis. It is still
normal electrolysis no matter how broken up the power delivery is to the
electrodes. It still requires a
passing of ions or electrons through the electrolyte and the forming of
oxygen at one electrode and hydrogen at the other.
I have, however, read George Wiseman’s (of Eagle
Research) claim of gas bubbles being formed between the electrodes in
some of his tests with a transparent container. I do not have an explanation for this
other than that it might be possible that the gases are formed at the
electrodes in minute bubbles that congregate and accumulate into visible
sized bubbles somewhere between the electrodes. George thinks it could be electrically
expanded water gas that is not steam.
The purpose of this article is to address the issue of
pulsing the electrolyzer’s power in an attempt
to multiply gas production beyond unity.
I have experimented a number of times
with the use of pulse width modulators, both directly and as a triggering
signal for a solid state relay. I
have convinced myself that there is no benefit of pulsing. In fact when pulsing at a duty cycle of
less than 100% all the pulsing did was reduce the gas output proportional
to the duty cycle, as expected.
I suspect that all the experimenters claiming
over-unity gas production are calculating power with the use of
instruments not designed to measure current in a complex waveform, and
therefore unreliable. I have seen
claims by others that lead e-groups and groups of inventors, that say
they have achieved over-unity gas production, some ten fold or more. I have not seen the evidence, and for
some reason they claim that they cannot show us the evidence because
their invention is so valuable they are scared they will be subject to
black ops if evidence were made public.
This excuse may be okay for people not interested in
investing in these inventions but some of these inventors are looking for
research funding and still refuse to show evidence. It should not be difficult to have a
couple wires going into a box containing their magic equipment and from
there have wires coming out going to an electrolyzer
that produces the gas into a measuring apparatus like a water
displacement setup (upside down bottle of water in a bucket of water with
a gas hose leading down into the bucket and up into the bottle). A video could easily show an ammeter
and voltmeter testing the normal DC current, from a visible car battery, going
into the box and a clock timing the gas
displacing the water from the bottle. Is this too much to ask for evidence of
over-unity gas production? Or is
everybody subject to the miracle mirage of unsubstantiated claims?
In case you are one of those experimenters who has a way to get over-unity hydrogen gas production from
water electrolysis, I have $10,000 I would like to invest. Show me the evidence and you can have
the research funding you need. If
you are successful there is more where the first $10,000 came from.
By the way, in case you didn’t read the articles from the links above, Stan Meyer was convicted
of “gross and egregious fraud” before he died at a restaurant while
meeting with his brother and two “investers.” His brother Steven went on to start a
company in Canada
called Xogen with the same technology, claiming
free energy, and over-unity gas production. The company that owned 25% of Xogen stock was yanked from the Canadian stock market
for about a year while a technology audit was done. The resolution of the audit was a
retraction of any free energy and over-unity claims and it was admitted that
the apparatus electrolyzed water at an efficiency of only 75%. Our electrolyzer
is also 75% efficient but is compact enough to fit in the engine
compartment of most vehicles. Xogen’s model was about the size of a bed of a pickup
truck.
Don’t be subject to the miracle mirage of pulsing power
to an electrolyzer. It only reduces the possible gas
production rate of that electrolyzer.
|
