Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Nano-pulse electrolysis

I have made a thorough, in-debt analysis of this new method, both technical and the circumstances
surrounding it.
My conclusions are as follows:
The nano-pulse electrolysis method was discovered (invented) by a team of Japanese scientists
and published in the 'Journal of Applied Electrochemistry' in 2006:
A novel method of hydrogen generation by water electrolysis using
an ultra-short-pulse power supply
During the following years, there were some published attempts to apply this method but with
inconclusive results, until the Indian article in 2012:
Economical hydrogen production by electrolysis using nano pulsed DC
which was published in the 'International Journal of Energy and Environment (IJEE), Volume 3,
Issue 1, 2012, pp.129-136'.
In the above test, the nano-pulse method used only 3.2% of power required for DC electrolysis.
In other words, the overall power Duty Cycle was 3.2%! (3.2% ON time, 96.8% OFF time)
That is a 31 times power reduction which is well worth investigating!!
Note, however, that when compared to optimum DC electrolysis, the power saving is less.
The 31 times refers ONLY to the tests done and reported in that Indian article as it was/is
NOT a comparison to DC electrolysis with OPTIMUM electrolyte concentration!
Here is why:
In those tests by the Indian guys, two identical cells were used.
That means the electrolyte concentration in them were also the same.
To put it differently;
Both had 4 grams of NaOH in 1 litre of water, thus the same pH and electrical conductivity.
But pure DC electrolysis requires a LOT more catalyst and thus have a LOT higher
conductivity (less resistance).
[Usually, 20 - 25% catalyst (by weight) is added to the water.
That means 200 - 250 grams of catalyst (NaOH or KOH) to 1 litre of water.]
Compare that to the 4 grams used in BOTH test cells!
In other words, about 50 times MORE catalyst is needed for pure DC electrolysis to get any
significant gas output!
Taken all the above into consideration, I have re-calculated the efficiency of the nano-pulse method,

comparing it to "Faraday" and the result is approximately 8 times "Faraday"!

The 'proof' for the above is simple:
For 1 litre/minute of HydrOxy to be generated in that experimental cell for the DC electrolysis,
517 W of power must be supplied.
Compare that with 129 W for 100% efficient, 'Faraday' DC electrolysis!
Personally, I have no reason to dispute or dis-believe the reported results of the experiments.
I consider the discovery of this new method by the Japanese team to be a stroke of genius!!
It is 8 times 'Faraday' in any language and should be taken seriously!
Note, however, that the method is PATENTED (US 7,084,528 B2 Aug. 1, 2006 High-voltage
pulse generating circuit) and I believe that is why NO useful details were/are revealed which
could/would lead to replications!
I suspect it is.
So WHY was it published?
The usual strategy of giving hope, a feel-good bone!!
Am I being too paranoid?
I don't think so.
I just know HOW this GAME is played!
Just have a CLOSE look at some of the details in that article.
Take, for example, Fig 3.
Instead of a decent photo, all you get is a deliberately blurred illustration where you can't even
identify the equipment used for the experiments!
Figure 7 oscilloscope image is a JOKE!
NO information on the SIThy used, nor is there ANY information on the transformer, like core
type/material, inductance and/or number of turns for the primary, primary/secondary turns ratio, etc.
Neither is the turn-OFF current level for the controlling MOSFET mentioned anywhere!
Now go down to the end of the article and look at the personal details of the two authors.
Dharmaraj C. H. is working for: Tamilnadu Electricity Board!
His email address is supplied so just for the hell of it, I emailed him, TWICE!
That was a few weeks ago but I am not holding my breath for a reply!
There could, of coarse, be another explanation:
Articles are published regularly in various 'Scientific' Journals, written for 'academics'.
(Just like in PATENT language, there is a sentence found in practically every patent:

the details are known to those skilled in the art (or words to that effect)!
In other words, those articles were NOT written for 'Joe Blow down the road' with close to ZERO
knowledge of electronics!
I rest my case!
Now to the technical side.
During my research I also found a fairly detailed explanation of the SITh (Static Induction
Thyristor) in a document named: Repetitive Pulsed High Voltage Generation Using Inductive
Energy Storage with Static-induction Thyristor as Opening Switch (2007)
The SIThy is an unusual, current controlled semiconductor device which is normally ON while the
IES (Inductive Energy Storage) in my opinion is just a 'fancy' name for an inductor/transformer
where the energy is stored in its magnetic field for a short time!
Understanding the working principle of the nano-pulse power supply for electrolysis, we should be
able to substitute the hard-to-get SIThy with another type of electronic switch, a MOSFET!
After all, a MOSFET is fairly easy to control.
It may require some extra circuitry but in my opinion, the reported result is worth the trouble!!
Even the brief circuit descriptions indicate that the controlling MOSFET is turned OFF at a
certain current level.
This confirms that the inductor must first be charged with a certain amount of energy.
My experiments proved that the energy contained in a 200ns pulse alone is far from enough!
It is also clear that after the pulse from the power supply is terminated, there is still a tail of
current flowing in the electrolysis cell which can only come from the energy stored in the
Now that I fully understand (I think!) the operating principle, my reasoning is as follows:
In the original circuit, a SIThy (which is a normally-ON device) is used as an opening switch.
It is this switch-OFF action which generates a short, high amplitude, high current pulse in the
(Perhaps it could be substituted by a MOSFET.)
If the reader has a close look at the original IES circuit (as published in both articles), it will be
obvious that it is only a 'bare-bone' or 'block' diagram of the 'switching' elements of the IES and it
can NOT be used as is without a control circuit!
NOTE that those articles DO NOT show ANY control circuit whatsoever!
Thus, it is important to realise that my circuit design is NOT a 'replacement' for the published IES
unit but is a CONTROL circuit for it!

Therefore, it is ESSENTIAL for the operation of the proposed nano-pulse power electrolysis!
More on this later.....
Les Banki
(Electronics Design Engineer)
Water Fuel & LBE Technologies