--- Robin wrote: > This is the key faulty assumption. It is not 1 V. It is 1.48 V (and that is per hydrogen atom, not per molecule). Hence the energy input is at least 2 x 1.48 x 96.5 kJ = 285 kJ, i.e. just what you get out of burning it. Sorry, no free lunch.
Yes, although you can get a few bubbles on the cathode at lower voltage, it is not significant for commercial use. Even at 1.48 volts per plate, the rate of H2 evolution (current draw) is too slow for practical use- thus the most efficient commercial units operate at closer to 2 volts and are no more than 75% efficient. Given that there is a fairly large market for H2 "on demand" now, if simple DC electrolysis could really be done at any lower voltage, or with improved yield by using any simple method such as high voltage, then it already "should have been" done by these claimants in order to meet this high demand for H2 on demand, for welding etc. ... except for the caveat which Robin mentions, of the occasional - anecdotal situation. Indeed, there are many glimmers of techniques which appear to do much better than Faradaic but not "on demand" nor in a strict scientific setting; and which most often do not use low voltage DC at all .... AFAIK there is no convincing evidence that Stanley Meyers ever accomplished any anomaly at all. Those who actually witnessed his dune buggy conversion (and there are several on Vortex who did witness it in person) agree that yes it would run for about 20 minutes (but no more) on self-generated water splitting. This period of apparent self-power is (not uncoincidentally) about the maximum amount of time it takes to burn all the residual hydrocarbons out of an old carburetor, and/or the crankcase oil film off the cylinder walls of the notoriously leaky VW boxer engine. If there are real anomalies out there, and IMHO there are some bona fide anomalies which are at least "not yet disproved", then it is from those who may have found a way, as Robin mentions to use the redundant ground states of hydrogen, especially a plasma, or else have found a way to increase the probability of QM tunneling, or other methods which go beyond surface chemistry. There was a gathering this past week in Maryland of hydro-booster enthusiasts, but none of the forums which I have been monitoring for the past decade have made any announcements which indicate that any real anomaly was achieved or demonstrated there. Hydro-boosting with a small amount of brown's gas, hydroxy or whatever silly name you want to pin on it - is FACT, not fiction, but that is a long, long way from self-power. If you want to start doing water-fuel experiments based on the work of a paranoid nut-case inventor, then you will have much better success building on Paul Pantone's GEET system, as the French have done, than on anything Meyer ever did. Jones
