Edmund Storms said; >>the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to
I know a vacuum tube much better than solid states as I was created far before the transistor and do understand there is little parity between the cell and a tube. >>How have you solved this problem? Look at the scope traces at the bottom of the CRE page on this site and let me know if you still think you overview is valid. Please make note of the battery charging along with the gas production. Please let me know if you still feel your overview remains valid? Thank you for the feed back... -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Richard, The diagram you give is similar to how a vacuum tube would be configured. Unfortunately, no relationship exists between the behavior of an electrolytic cell and a vacuum triode. For example, unlike the grid in a triode, the grid in the electrolytic cell does not act as a high impedance controlling element. Instead, it acts alternately as a cathode and anode with respect to the other electrodes, depending on the direction of current flow. Because of C1, the current flow is limited by the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to applied voltage. As a result, you have created two electrolytic cells in series that have a fixed charge that can flow. Depending on what kind of ions that are in the cell, some of this charge will decompose water and some will initiate other chemical reactions, most of which are reversible when current changes direction. It seems to me, the major problem involves measuring just how much energy is being delivered to the entire cell because the current and voltage will be out of phase and divided between several inputs. How have you solved this problem? Ed Stiffler Scientific wrote: > If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third > electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. > > The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg > > Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it > applies to current and not energy. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? > > > Hi Horace, > > The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is > because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of > water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the > speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This > is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the > whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a > unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light > reaction time. > > A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in > series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one > cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, > nothing special is created. > > Ed > > Horace Heffner wrote: > > >>On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: >> >> >>> A >>>conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control >>>electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control >>>electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an >>>increase of >>>electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. >> >> >>I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to >>consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water >>electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through >>proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in >>electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable >>electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this >>is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the >>electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in >>there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary >>electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its >>own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the >>third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC >>resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the >>frequency the more so. >> >>I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy >>the "conduction by diffusion" argument, though. I experimented with a >>10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light >>speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different >>from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo >>that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and >>a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 >>experiments: >> >>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf >> >>I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this >>arena. Here is a neat group working on "Soft Condensed Matter" at least: >> >>http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html >> >>It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is >>considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ >>ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to >>water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion > > diffusion. > >> >>>Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely >>>accurate in >>>the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I >>>publish >>>it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense >>>nature. >>> >>>But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs >>>and a >>>few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. >>> >>>Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) >>> >>>Eg - energy gain >>>Vs - source or supply voltage >>>Is - supply current (amps) >>>Na -Avogadro's number >>>ec - Electron charge >>>f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle >> >> >> >>There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part >>is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. >>When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. >> >>Horace Heffner >>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ >> >> >> >> > > >
