Off set inlets holes used in a unipolar design

[Darrell]

Has anyone tried using offset inlet holes in a unipolar configuration before?
I have always wondered if it would make any improvement to effcencies of the unipolar reactor.

My thought is if there is a beginning and end to each cell, then there may be some gains that could be had by doing this.

Anyones thoughts on this?

Darrell

[myoldyourgold]

Has anyone tried using offset inlet holes in a unipolar configuration before?
I have always wondered if it would make any improvement to effcencies of the unipolar reactor.

My thought is if there is a beginning and end to each cell, then there may be some gains that could be had by doing this.

Anyones thoughts on this?

Darrell, all of my input ports are offset, Weld-on insulated, including the spot opposite, even in my splitter reactor with dual ports. Besides the effect on current leakage, there is more and it has to do with ion movement and their fields. Lots of testing still remains. The location of the ports is important because they are directing flow in a way that helps all of this. The difference is small but measurable. Because it is small and within what I call my margin of error with my crude equipment showing only a small improvement, it might not have enough difference that is measurable in a normal unipolar reactor. Just the same there is a difference to the good in mine. The most accurate measurement is temperature over a given time with the same ambient and everything else being the same with a lab grade temperature probe. There is more to this than we know and is requiring much more testing.

[Darrell]

Hey Carter, have you tested small hole big hole not offset but insulated with weld -on?

"D"

[myoldyourgold]

Yes sir, I have. The problem with small holes is that the reservoir has to move up to high or be very large to maintain the level in the reactor to just below the output port with the reactor running. This is not practical in normal installations in vehicles. Size of the input port is related to how high the reservoir is, the size of the output port and the volume of gas you are going to be producing. It has to be big enough to keep the level to just below the output port when running at the normal output. Next is how efficient the reactor is. The more efficient the reactor is the less flow out of the reactor is necessary. Ideally none. The answer is to use every amp in breaking apart the water not making heat. If it gets to efficient you will find it runs to cold. There is definitely an ideal spot in regards to size of the ports and is so far impossible to put into a simple formal because of the number of variables. This of course makes for a lot of testing and a lot of hard work. LOL Now that is about as helpful as mammary glands on a bull. Sorry about that but still hope it helps.

[Darrell]

Has anyone tried off set hole with cells being seperate in a unipolar design using 2 tanks, one for positive and the second for negetive?

[BioFarmer93]

Darrell,
I'd be just as happy if someone proved me wrong about it, but I can't see any reason why it would be necessary to offset holes in a properly built unipolar reactor. Where would the current leak to? As I understand it, "leakage" is current taking the path of least resistance. Bipolar reactors offer a lot of resistance because only 2 out of 7 or 8 plates are powered and the the plates of greatest opposite potentials are typically 5 or 6 plates away, so you have to make high resistance circuitous paths and insulate hole interiors and perimeters. In a unipolar reactor, opposite polarity plate potentials are uniform in each group because every plate of each polarity in a group is electrically hard connected to its same polarity brethren- essentially making that group (from an electrical standpoint) just two large plates. There can be no current leakage between just two plates, right? Remember, for unipolar the groups split voltage, and area determines amp draw capacity.

[myoldyourgold]

Darrell,
I'd be just as happy if someone proved me wrong about it, but I can't see any reason why it would be necessary to offset holes in a properly built unipolar reactor. Where would the current leak to? As I understand it, "leakage" is current taking the path of least resistance. Bipolar reactors offer a lot of resistance because only 2 out of 7 or 8 plates are powered and the the plates of greatest opposite potentials are typically 5 or 6 plates away, so you have to make high resistance circuitous paths and insulate hole interiors and perimeters. In a unipolar reactor, opposite polarity plate potentials are uniform in each group because every plate of each polarity in a group is electrically hard connected to its same polarity brethren- essentially making that group (from an electrical standpoint) just two large plates. There can be no current leakage between just two plates, right? Remember, for unipolar the groups split voltage, and area determines amp draw capacity.

Gus, well I am not sure about that or what I am going to say for sure. I can only say that heat goes down and the reactor is more efficient when unipolar plates are insulated and staggared. Why, this is my theory.

Electrons move to the edges and this I consider a known fact. Based on that fact you can then see why insulating the edges can help. If what you say is absolute then why not go to a open bath unipolar reactor and get some of the benefits of an open bath? Why would they only be bad guys on the outside edges and not the edges of the ports? This is the problem Farrah was having with leakage which she thought did not happen in any type of reactor. The electrolyte in most cases has less resistance than the plates. Now I know the electrons are not what is moving in the electrolyte but it is the push and pull of the electrons on the edges that move the ions. I think I can meet you have way by saying that in a unipolar reactor the leakage is a LOT less but there are still some bad guys that follow the electrolyte path and once they start it gets stronger and stronger and heat builds up. Off setting and insulating cuts it down another notch. I doubt is will eliminate it completely and only no holes in the plates will accomplish that. We just have to be smarter and find ways to use the bad guy to our advantage. There seems to always be some positive voltage in the reservoir no matter what the last plate is. At least that is my finding so far and needs to be investigated more as you know. Should have some answers to that in a couple weeks though. There is lots I do not understand and am ready to change my view at any time it is proven one way or another.

[BioFarmer93]

Carter,
Since I have trouble just working up the motivation to document output (but it WILL be done this time!) I will leave it in your capable hands as far as the rigorous scientific testing goes. I would be extremely interested in hearing anything you come up with, theory or proof, of why your reservoirs are showing positive, and where the negative probe is placed to get that reading. The question though, from my previous post still stands- in a single group, in a unipolar reactor, where is the leakage from/to? This is something that I continue to be unable to visualize based on what I know so far about this stuff.

[myoldyourgold]

The question though, from my previous post still stands- in a single group, in a unipolar reactor, where is the leakage from/to? This is something that I continue to be unable to visualize based on what I know so far about this stuff.

I see your reasoning Gus and the only thing I can think of is that some arrant ions skip some plate which does not make any sense. The closest one would have the most attraction. Now if you do not insulate the spot opposite the offset you will see where there is a hot spot. Now with out a plate in front of the port where do those same ions go? I will do some more testing and thinking about it because it is possible the increased efficiency is because of other factors. Why the electrolyte remains positive coming off a negative plate is still bothering me but only because I do not understand it.

[Darrell]

Gus the reason I ask about the off set holes is because I believe there is a beginning and a end to every cell in a unipolar set up. With Ions flowing in one direction. Wiring in series is directional as well. I am thinking anything more than 3 plates per cell group would give direction to each stack requiring offset holes and glue.

This is good dialog though and don't intend to upset anyone from my outlook and observations. Just think there is more.;)

"D"

[BioFarmer93]

Darrell,
No upset on this end- as a matter of fact your statement about "a begining and an end" really got me to thinking and visualizing the possible differences in potential from one end to the other of an entire reactor, rather than a single group. I'm wondering if definition creep isn't starting to interfere with concepts again in this thread...
A two cell group of three plates would necessarily have ions flowing either from the middle plate to the two outside plates, or from the two outside plates to the middle plate, depending on which had what polarity. Only a two plate group that consisted of just one single cell, could have ions flowing in a single direction- right?
So, when you consider that ions only move through the electrolyte and not the hard connections, and that groups almost always consist of more than a single cell, you can see why I say that within a group, you have ions moving in both directions (physically).

Carter,
Technically, by my own definition, the increased production at aligned uninsulated hole edges in a unipolar reactor would be leakage- I have to accept that. The leakage that occupy's my thoughts though, would be any that would occur beyond one plate and its nearest opposite polarity plate, such as what occurs in a bipolar reactor.
It seems to me then, that in a unipolar reactor, the only places that actually would benefit from Weldon-16 would be the holes sharp edges…

[myoldyourgold]

Technically, by my own definition, the increased production at aligned uninsulated hole edges in a unipolar reactor would be leakage- I have to accept that. The leakage that occupy's my thoughts though, would be any that would occur beyond one plate and its nearest opposite polarity plate, such as what occurs in a bipolar reactor.
It seems to me then, that in a unipolar reactor, the only places that actually would benefit from Weldon-16 would be the holes sharp edges…

I agree in aligned input ports situation. In an offset situation there is more heat generated at the spot opposite the offset. In fact after long term use you can actually see a slight deterioration of the plate after cleaning it up.

I tested a design where each pair (unipolar) has one input port and one gas exit port with only one port in each plate (6 cells). I even switched the connections around so the polarity of the plates were different in different tests but the flow was the same. I then tested plates with two ports in each plate, everything else being the same. I then off set the input ports and did the test again. I also did a few other combinations. This test got me going on how the electrolyte flows through the reactor and the position of the ports etc. etc. I have not completed all the tests yet and will post some of the results as soon as I have studied all the tests and after comparing them against each other. The quick results which need further examination between the single port per plate and the straight through showed the the single port was more efficient in my interpretation. How much based on my equipment is not important but there was a measurable difference with the one port per plate. Electrolyte was shared by all cells (one reservoir) at 2.2 volts per cell, 10 amps and 4 hour run time. The differences beside flow pattern were 5 degree increase in temperature in the 2 ports per plate straight through and a slight increase in amps and the amount of gas production. Now there is more to this than I can state at the moment because I need to duplicate some of the tests and verify ambient temperature to make sure there is no mistake. Read what you want into this but until it is completed I am still suspicious that there might be some current leakage.

[BioFarmer93]

-eagerly awaiting final results here!

[Darrell]

[QUOTE=BioFarmer93;46496]Darrell,
So, when you consider that ions only move through the electrolyte and not the hard connections, and that groups almost always consist of more than a single cell, you can see why I say that within a group, you have ions moving in both directions (physically).

Both directions yes physically, one direction to the source though with 3 plates 2 cells.

Larrys Beastie was at 7.5 MMW's at just over 8.3amps and 12 volts or 1.7 volts per cell.

Maybe we are just running are cells to hard creating our own leakage or turbulence in ion flow.:confused:

I think I am going to put back together the attached unipolar 6 stack 24 plate reactor and play around some more.

Maybe I will get some new ideas brewing.:D

"D"

[Darrell]

Hey Gus, did you ever take any MMW tests on you old build?

[BioFarmer93]

No, I sure didn't.. I was so aggravated at all the leaks I had that I didn't even do a lpm test. Both of those things will be done this time around though!

[Weapon_R]

[QUOTE=BioFarmer93;46496]Darrell,
So, when you consider that ions only move through the electrolyte and not the hard connections, and that groups almost always consist of more than a single cell, you can see why I say that within a group, you have ions moving in both directions (physically).

Both directions yes physically, one direction to the source though with 3 plates 2 cells.

Larrys Beastie was at 7.5 MMW's at just over 8.3amps and 12 volts or 1.7 volts per cell.

Maybe we are just running are cells to hard creating our own leakage or turbulence in ion flow.:confused:

I think I am going to put back together the attached unipolar 6 stack 24 plate reactor and play around some more.

Maybe I will get some new ideas brewing.:D

"D"

Darrell in layman terms what would be the Lpm of this cell. This mmw thing confuses me.

[Darrell]

Weapon, Larrys Beastie will put out 1 lpm for every 11amps. His videos are on You Tube called The magnetic Beastie. There you can see the whole build and test he ran at over 10 lpm.

[Weapon_R]

Weapon, Larrys Beastie will put out 1 lpm for every 11amps. His videos are on You Tube called The magnetic Beastie. There you can see the whole build and test he ran at over 10 lpm.

Thanks Darrell this info is much appreciated, now off to youtube. :D

[Darrell]

Bio and Carter, I didn't sleep a wink lastnight and it's all your fault.:D

Just thinking of the posibilities with a new build and new ideas that could be incorperated.

Today I am going to clean up the old plates and see where it takes me.

"D"

[BioFarmer93]

Well, I'll gladly take my fair share of the blame/credit for that, because turn about is fair play as they say... You guys keep me up until the wee hours on MOST nights with my brain buzzing about new ideas & concepts, solutions to problems and ways to increase efficiency. Since I joined this forum, I think that you could count on the fingers of one hand all of the nights that I've had a solid six hours of sleep!
Darrell, I meant to say something last night about it but I got sidetracked- That photo you attached of your reactor.. That is one more sweet looking build there. Is that Corian that you're using for end plates? I know folks say that circular plates don't make efficient use of SS sheet blah blah etc... But I just really like the "consumer appliance" look that you managed to incorporate into it- nice job!

[Darrell]

The round plates are also hard to make efficient trying to find where the inlets should be placed and they are a waste of SS, but they do look very cool. My next plates will be square or rectangle though.

The End plates are black HDPE. I get allot of my plastic for cheap from a plastic milling shop close to where I live. They let me look thru there recycle bins. I pay only 10 buck for a arm load of plastic each time.

Talk about being lucky, One time I went there and they just gave me 2-12x12- 1 1/4" acetal which was a huge score because that stuff is really expensive. Retail, that stuff goes for $125.00 per square foot according to US plastics.

"D"

[BioFarmer93]

Talk about being lucky, One time I went there and they just gave me 2-12x12- 1 1/4" acetal which was a huge score because that stuff is really expensive. Retail, that stuff goes for $125.00 per square foot according to US plastics.

Delrin?! Yeah, I'd say you were lucky alright! Lucky enough for me to be jealous...:mad:;)