hi there,
elephant wrote:Evidence and figures, please! As long as I do not know the figures for the quantity of gas produced by a PWM, I will not lose a single kopeck and not a single second trying to reproduce the experiment.
In my opinion, the only interest of a PWM is that it could possibly produce gas without electrolyte, but, unless I am mistaken or omitted, no one has yet produced convincing figures.
If you have figures, publish them, otherwise shut up Evil or Very Mad
hey shut up yourself then
no, I'm kidding, I'm going to raise a bit: I'm not talking to you technically about HHo production with PWM, I'm talking about the "ALL SHORT" PWM: are you going to deny its definite advantages? this is what makes it possible to have top current for stepper motors and proven qualities of battery regeneration, all thanks to the pulse train.
there are lots of ways to orchestrate these wave trains, you know that.
one of mey's patents describes the successive stages of the wave train to separate the water molecule, but this is another story for when you are 50 ... (private joke let's point it out)
therefore nothing to publish. I just note that its use of PWM allows a greater production of gas for less current, the link with PWM technology (puls with modulation) is obvious I have nothing to prove.
marco wrote:Still alive the 405 turbo fried ???
+ than ever! =)
but since I drive for free I don't bother to put an electrolyser, simply I see that everything is logical, and especially that the site that I quoted brings new elements, for those who would be interested of course. for the others, well too bad!
maloche wrote:no time to respond in detail to all this tintouin
ah well i see the seriousness that takes a blow, suddenly!
I never said it was true, I just said "it's not 'not true'".
what you call inconsistency is actually a can, I take it as a doubt, and a possibility, as a utopia (look at the real definition) and that's what bothers me, especially that you take more than one in your tumultuous fall, this is what bothers me the most ...
so technically, since this is the essence of the debate (well anyway!)
captmaloche wrote:I already put on my previous post the values of HHO recommended by the type, but when I read up to 50% savings, I strongly doubt (The energy comes out of space time with a special 4th dimension touch ? Cheesy Grin)
well I'm not going to discuss your doubt of the 50% savings, I'm like you. but the site speaks well of "20 to 60%": so you exaggerate, which I spend my time pointing out to you.
captmaloche wrote:Hydrogen will undoubtedly reduce unburnt fuel, around 5% on a properly tuned vehicle, then how would you explain it?
where does the 5% come from? what proof, source, calculation rule? which engine? what conditions?
So once again I do not have to explain and it is certainly not up to me to answer, the why of the how of% which would exceed YOUR rule of calculation.
I only stressed one thing on their part: to make significant savings, you have to find THE right ratio. look, I'm just repeating this! I even gave a link that you couldn't find! a little hard for a moderator ... but I also read that to check, there, you do not have time, I see ...
captmaloche wrote:The production of HHO is done chemically only if there is displacement of an electron (current), and there is no inertia, I tested it, so there is very little chance that a PWM or other because it supplies the electrodes by pulse train improves the efficiency
I don't know if it's good French but I can't understand you, excuse me:
I insist again: if the electric current does something, the PWM technology will only improve it, it is an easily demonstrable point it seems to me, if you prove that the PWM technology is harmful to the electric element which is supplied, then there I am taker.
So: you say that there is no inertia, what is this inertia? Are you talking about the inertia of water, the electrolyzer, the current?
can you also put a link that shows what you are saying, about the HHo production which is only done with a swell of electron, thank you.
it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I think there is not just ONE rule that governs the production of HHo via electrolysis ...
however, zero inertia is never exactly zero, and
"Kinetic blocking imposes a large electrical voltage to obtain a decent current, and therefore a significant efficiency."
according to your wikipedia link. therefore it is possible via a specific electrical signal. n / A.
captmaloche wrote:after, there remains the possibility of a "resonance" which has NEVER been verified, it is not for lack of trying, ask nlc
I did not tell you about resonance as it seems to me, and it is not because you have not arrived that it is not true, there is still a world, for whom you would you take i ask you ?!
you can deny the resonance, but not tell everyone that it does not exist because you are moderator.
captmaloche wrote:The atm pressure bottle test. is very valid, it makes it possible to determine the volume of gas produced in relation to an energy consumption: this makes it possible to fix a production yield to within a few%. note that the higher the T ° of the electrolystic bath, the better the yield
we are not talking about that here, but since you insist, well you forget in your rule full of parameters, like the T ° C of the electrolysis according to a time scale, the evaporation of water, the presence or not an electrolyte, the increase in pressure on a time scale, finally your rule is too summary.
just for the sake of clarity, it's a u = ri rule and doesn't take into account the PWM, so I'll tell you "yes there is a link factor" but you make a difference which is considered negligible by you alone.
for me it is much higher than your so-called 5% improvement in combustion, which come out of which we do not know where ...
So that's what I say: you exploit yourself the negligible% by directing them where you want your reasoning to go: you exaggerate, especially as a moderator you should observe a right of reservation.
I'm not even talking to you about what you quote from wikipedia your extremist and troll friend, you will understand the link with what I just said if you are as intelligent as I think (and I think).
captmaloche wrote:Any other presentation of an electrolysis is only sterile palaver, if there are no real tests.
precisely: the site that I linked is a summary of 15 months of internal testing and the rest of the other users, forums etc: that's why there is new information, and that I posted this link.
captmaloche wrote:Quote:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectrolyse_de_l'eauThe energy efficiency of water electrolysis can vary significantly. The efficiency range varies between 50-70% [1], while others indicate 80-94% [2]. These values refer only to the efficiency of the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy of hydrogen. The energy lost during the generation of electricity is not counted.
I especially remember that the production efficiency of HHO on board a vehicle is 15 to 20% max, it's already 80% of fuel wasted in the air
you see, you exaggerate again: nowhere are indicated in what you quote the 15 to 20% of which you conclude.
you are moderator.
in your reasoning, not once do you want to take into account that at a certain% of production there is a significant gain.
so
> you don't take into account what I'm saying
> you exaggerate your results wikipedia
> you are moderator and you are kidding me
to put you on the track I even told you that for oil it works, and for pantone you have to suspect that it is the same thing.
but you are unable to take it into account in your reasoning, you reflect in a parallel way, while being stubborn on rules that you have drawn up and towards which you believe hard as iron not to move forward: I say it's normal that you will NEVER advance.
I want to note that you have cut one of your Wiki quotes, the last one on the electrical efficiency of the electrical conversion which is worth its weight on wikipedia:
wikipedia wrote:"So when considering a nuclear power plant converting the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen by electrolysis, the total efficiency is in the order of 25-40% [3]."
wow! must leave, stuff like that!
I put back the link, which does not work on your post:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectrolyse_de_l'eaucaptmaloche wrote:Now, instead of convincing us that you cannot demonstrate the benefits of such an installation, and if you are really convinced (it is your strictest right), then do this montage and share your results with us.
again, you will have nothing! =)
but I proved that there were new elements, that's all I bring.
from there to get started, I admit that your support as a moderator does not make me very want ...
captmaloche wrote:PS: on the link you gave us, the guy sells his products well, contrary to what you say
well where? at least link!
sorry, but all the links he gives in his "buy" section point to links giving them to resellers other than himself, so he redirects to SEVERAL sellers;
I'm sorry but it looks different from the ones we usually see who only sell their product.
and that's also why I put this link, name of a friend!
oh well anyway.