No. The photovoltaic opto coupler VOM1271 is generating a positive gate sourve voltage. It's a slightly extravagant way to build a NMOSFET linear regulator.Q1 in your current limit circuit is always switched off I think.
No. The photovoltaic opto coupler VOM1271 is generating a positive gate sourve voltage. It's a slightly extravagant way to build a NMOSFET linear regulator.
Combining the circuit with PWM might be difficult due to the relative slow VOM1271 operation. It might be easier to switch to a different gate drive method.
More generally, I doubt that PWM can increase water electrolysis efficiency. Any references?
Powering an electrolysis cell by a linear current regulator will involve huge losses in any case. A switched mode regulator with storage inductor can achieve a low loss conversion between input voltage and cell voltage.
Hi,
I'd replace the LT1636 circuit with a more simple deicated "current sense amplifier". It usually requires just a shunt and a power supply decoupling capacitor..
You try linear regulation (which just wastes power) ... but later you talk about efficiency.
This does not match in my eyes.
Why not using a buck converter with curent limit? It will be way more efficient.
The VOM1271 circuit is rather slow ... either you need a more slow regulation loop, or you should expect instability = oscillation.
Klaus
The abstract already states (as expectable)the reference for PWM electrolysis:
Shaaban, Aly H. (1993). "Water Electrolysis and Pulsed Direct Current". Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 140 (10): 2863. doi:10.1149/1.2220923.
For the range of tested parameters, the results demonstrated that the nonpulsed dc operation required the least electrical power.
But (as far I can see) this is exactly what your "current limiter" in the first circuit does. It reduces voltage (linear) until the current is in the desired range.actually I don't want to change the Voltage
Hi,
But (as far I can see) this is exactly what your "current limiter" in the first circuit does. It reduces voltage (linear) until the current is in the desired range.
This is called "linear" regulation and is the opposite to "duty cycle" regulations.
If you combine both circuits of post#2, then you combine two opposite strategies. This will cause troubles.
I don´t rtecommend this. So, please decide which one you want to choose.
****
Now, as FvM states "DC operation is the most efficient"...
This again leads to my recommednation of post#4: Buck converter with current control.
Klaus
The abstract already states (as expectable)
Hi,
I can confirm:
With PWM you may vary duty cycle --> this varies average voltage --> this varies average current.
So you, with PWM you may adjust/regulate current. Average current. This is pulsed current, not straight DC current.
And again, again, as FvM states: "DC" is the most effective. Not Pulsed current --> not PWM.
Thus - if you want high efficiency - you should not use PWM.
If you want high efficiency, then (again) use a buck converter with current control.
* "Current contol" means you may adjust/regulate for the desired current
* while the ouput is (high efficient) DC voltage. The ouput is not PWM´d.
(For sure within the buck converter there will be PWM, but your load will never see and never know this. ... and even you may forget about his "inside PWM". See the buck converter as a "DC in - DC out" device.)
Klaus
Which literature particularly? The paper you have linked contradicts.despite the fact that literature has claimed PWM will produce more gas than DC
Which literature particularly? The paper you have linked contradicts.
anyway, I searched for buck and boost converters, interesting that some of them work in the range I need, like 150kHz!!! so why bother to design one, but the question here arises, can I use boost instead of buck too???
higher voltage, higher gas production, but may higher current consumption!
I am going to test them, wish me luck though.
yes sure, I meant to produce more gas, but not in the cost of car battery failure for sure. already I have bought a buck with 8 Amps continuous current capability and voltage and current control, I am going to test it.If you know, that from fix DC 12V the current consumption is already too high why would you apply higher voltage?
it is because these sort of DC-DC converters are intended to use in DC applications and are not suitable for what I want, therefore, some capacitors and maybe inductors are set in the output path to control the pulse and ripples, first I will try the buck and if it was not satisfied enough then I have to modify it, maybe by removing caps and or inductors it will send pulses as I want!BUCK and BOOST generate DC voltage with relatively small AC ripple, it is not pulsed voltage, so basically doesn't matter clock frequency.
The standard potential of a water electrolysis cell is 1.23V, applying a higher voltage doesn't increase the gas yield per ampere second but causes losses. Practical electrolysis processes operate at 70 - 80% energetic efficiency, the fuel value of the produced HHO gas is lower than the applied electrical energy.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
I'd say, you have partly understood my points. Apparently not yet the point about energetic efficiency.So you are partially right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?