Note that I say "actual submerged plate surface area" you need to
subtract the area of the plate that is covered by the plastic spacers
and do not include the plate surface that is above the liquid level.
> But at 1 Amp/2 sq.in. that
> would be a conduction of 14 amps @ 240 volts or almost 3400 watts, almost
> triple the quoted wattage. So my question is if I build 120 cells in
series
> at plate area 28 sq.in. @ 240 volts will I actually get an amp conduction
> of 5 amps instead of 14, so that said model will operate at 1200 watts?
Regardless of your plate surface area, your amperage is controlled by
the series capacitors.
yours,
George :)
>
I am building my electrolyzer in a square design instead of cylindrical as
Wiseman suggests. It will not be a sealed model but rather submerged in a
larger volume of electrolyte. I am using 3/8 HDPE as vessel walls with 36
sq. in. plate area. The first model will be for standard 120 volts
household conditions. G. Wiseman uses capacitive current limiting however I
will be using an entirely different method using both inductors and
capacitors in resonance @ 60 hz. I refer to this as a binary resonant
system because it is two phases of resonance working in opposition to one
another to provide a bridge between their unobvious potentials. Since I
have not yet punched the no. out lets give this a try. I will be using 30
coils of 14 gauge wire (500 ft spools) @1.45 ohms apiece. Each phase in
opposition then uses 15 coils for a total of 15(1.45)=21.75 ohms. Each
series resonant phase then can draw 120volts/21.75 ohms=5.5 Amps. Next the
capacity needed to resonate must be determined.
Res. Freq.= 60 hz=1/2(3.14)sq.rt.(LC) ; L=11.5 mH(15) =172.5 mH or
1.72(10)E(-1) H
LC=[1/6.28(60)]E(2) =7.04 (10)E(-6) therefore C=
7.04(10)E(-6)/1.72(10)E(-1)=4.09(10)E(-5) Farads or
~41 uF
Next the voltage rise against itself must be found so that the cap has a
safe voltage rating. This is done by finding the Q of the system which
gives the voltage rise. Q = X(L) or inductive reactance/ actual resistance.
This could be done by plugging the 15 coils in series to the wall and
noting the actual amperage consumption and approximating this impedance
resistance to be the actual inductive reactance which shouldnt be more than
1% different. Or we could do the math, since L is given;
X(L)=2(3.14)(freq.)(L)= 6.28(60hz)(.172H)=64.8 ohms or ~120/65= 1.85 Amps
consumption in non resonant condition. Q=65/21.75= ~3 This means 3 times
the voltage of 120 volts or 360 volts will be across both the inductor and
capacitor in opposition. Thus using the binary resonant system 360(2) volts
will be across the midpoints giving 720 volts at no conduction. (What I
have described here is an unobvious potential in the form of what might be
termed a resonant choke circuit. The actual voltage delivered across the
midpoints will be dependent on the actual ohmic resistance of the load
which will have to be determined after construction of electrolysis
machine. I could use a prediction of this if someone could figure 60 cells
in series @ 3/8 in spacing of 36 square inch plates.)
Finally one could calculate the amperage across the midpoint if the
electrolysizor approximated a dead short condition of little resistance.
The astounding thing about this system which has caused me to rant and rave
about this being a real discovery is that when the midpoints of 2 series
resonant phases in opposition,( by this I mean simply that they are 180
degrees out of phase with each other by constructing two series resonant
phases in parallel but connected backwards with respect to each other)
;when the midpoints are connected as a dead short the whole system becomes
parallel resonant with the amperage across the midpoints being twice that
of either side alone. Thus 1.85A(2)=3.7 A to be availalable for
rectification to electrolysizor. In the parallel resonant condition the
inductive reactance is tripled(due to Q) from its nonresonant condition
thus appearing as a resistance of 65(3)= 195 ohms so the actual amperage
in the system is 3 times the input due to what is termed the resonant rise
of amperage. So for 3.7 amps conduction a draw of 1/3 or 1.23A from the
wall is expected. Now to make Browns gas a DC pulse is used so I am
allowing a small air gap to exist in the connection across the midpoints to
create an oscillation between series and parallel resonance. This circuit
then takes the form of the arc gap being a switch when in open position
gives series resonance with a draw of 11A , and as the available 720 volts
causes an arc to form across the gap this gives a closed switch
configuration reverting the system to parallel resonant @ 1.23A draw. I
have no idea what frequency this will create because I have never created
this system with high amperage coils, but I have done it with low amperage
high induction coils of 56 Henry in which 166,000 hz was created by this
means. The amazing thing about that experiment was that for the electric
field to reach the end of the coil before polarity reversal it would have
to propagate at 9 times the speed of light. It is hoped that the 3.7 amps
across the arc gap at household voltage is sufficiently low enough to cause
the arc to extinguish so as to enable a high frequency oscillation of
resonances to occur. Of course high speed recovery diodes will be used if
this idea turns out to be feasible. This promises to be a system similar to
Meyer in that these pulses hopefully can use higher voltage,lower amperage
to accomplish Browns gas generation at a lower energy input than the
present models on the market which only allow pulsing of 500 hz max.(I
always stand to be corrected) After completion of prototype and making of
claims I will be producing electrolysizor only models for resale for
experimentation by others, but do to the cost of plastic welding equipment
and labor involved there will be significant mark up from actual material
costs. Sincere in the work H. Norris mnorris@akron.infi.net