### Author Topic: Conductivity improvement by heating of water  (Read 3335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Login to see usernames

• Administrator
• Hero member
• Posts: 4533
##### Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« on: July 18, 2009, 14:59:40 pm »
Today i re-did a test with cold and hot water.
The difference with previous tests is that i recorded all data in my famous excelsheet.
I want to share the data of this test because i like you all very much

The test is done with some tubes of my 10 tube wfc.
All info on that cell is to be found here somewhere in my project section.
I rewired the tubes in a manner that it was easy for me to run this test.
I used my variable powersupply, which has a amp-limiting function.
Max amp setting: 2.93amp
Voltage automatically adapts to higher or lower volts settings, depending on the load.

Here are the stunning results:
Plain tapwater
22 degrees C or 72 degrees F
24V by 2.93A produces 0.25ltre each 248 seconds
equals 12.14% efficient compared to Faraday

Plain tabwater
90 degrees C or 194 degree F
14.3V by 2.93A produces 0.25ltre each 249 seconds
equals 20.29% efficient compared to Faraday

That makes my calculation as follows:
20.29/0.1214=167%

So, hot water is around 67% more efficient on the same wfc then room temp water.

I did this 4 times. The numbers are pretty much the same.
All tests where done with plain tabwater, without use of chemicals.
Gas output ran thru a bubler to collect watervapour.
Gas measurement was done with the upsite down bottle filled with water with markings in a bucket of water. The gas pushes the water out the bottle into the bucket.

Steve

#### Login to see usernames

• Sr. member
• Posts: 387
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2009, 15:14:22 pm »
Could you try it once in direct sunlight?

#### Login to see usernames

• Administrator
• Hero member
• Posts: 4533
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2009, 15:20:24 pm »
Could you try it once in direct sunlight?

Well, its raining big time today, Alan...
Maybe another day.

#### Login to see usernames

• Sr. member
• Posts: 387
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2009, 16:03:23 pm »
Yes I know

#### Login to see usernames

• 50+
• Posts: 96
• "Help people enlighten to truth"
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2009, 14:33:28 pm »
This is further proof of OU being reached at high temperatures. Way to go with the pressure boiler.

#### Login to see usernames

• Sr. member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2009, 17:26:58 pm »
that's why conventional electrolysis seeks to hold the voltage at a minimum.
see, the amount of gas produced with conventional electrolysis is only determined by the current, not the voltage. you had the same current both times and the same amount of gas created.

the voltage was lower because of the higher conductivity, that's why large electrolysis devices use electrolyte to get a voltage of ~1.4V (if i remember correctly) to get to a point where it's >70% efficient. of course higher temperature will enable better conductivity at lower voltage and therefore a higher efficiency. but you must note that you need energy to heat the water too.

#### Login to see usernames

• 50+
• Posts: 84
##### Re: Conductivity improvement by heating of water
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2009, 01:35:04 am »
...but you must note that you need energy to heat the water too.

Engines are 25% efficient at max efficiency.
35% of the heat energy blows out bhe exhaust.
30% of the heat energy blows out the radiator.

ie:
For a 100HP engine; about 100 HP of heat  energy blows out the exhaust, while another 100HP ends up in the coolant and is cooled by the radiator.
Thats 200HP of waste heat for every 100HP of shaft power!  :'(

There is no problem finding waste heat; the problem is safely increasing the pressure, to keep the electrolyte from boiling.
Do-able but expensive and heavy.