Re: New form of DC current?
- View SourceWhen you apply a potential across pure water, doesn't it take a small
amount of time for the water molecules to swivel into alignment with
the electric field?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gary S." <garys_2k@...> wrote:
> People have fiddled with the waveform sent to an electrlyzer over
> over again, looking for "resonance" and other ideas to change the
> conversion energy. All have failed. While I'm not saying EVERY
> possible waveshape has been tried, over all the frequencies, even
> quantum mechanics suggests that there's nothing to be gained by
> imposing an AC signal onto the electrolyzer.
> OBTW, there is no need to reverse the current direction to have
> honest to God AC applied to the current. Varying the voltage
> periodically, even if it never reverses, means that AC is being
> applied. Add up the vectors.
> The only thing that I think is new with this latest gadget is using
> the reversing current to shake the wire electrodes, thereby shedding
> the bubbles more quickly. This could improve the electrolyzer's gas
> output at the expense of increasing its power input.
> --- In email@example.com, "Tom Schum" <thomasjschum@>
> > The AC I am talking about is superimposed on the DC bias of the
> > electrolyzer and never reverse-biases the electrolyzer. This is
> > in keeping with the "Sully DC" concept. If the amplitude is too
> > the electrolyzer will go into AC operation, which would be bad.
> > The high frequencies I referred to in the link are only the tip
> > iceberg, probably far from the best frequencies for any useful
> > maybe even dangerous.
> > The patent seems to cover the application of high frequencies to
> > electrolysis generally.
> > Tom Schum
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gary S." <garys_2k@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But applying AC for electrolysis is usually not good, due to
> > > matching issues. There's more good stuff on electrolysis here:
> > > http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
> > >