PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-20, 22:39:42
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE  (Read 22059 times)
Group: Guest
DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE

Farrah Day, October 2010

Not surprisingly there is more than one way of dissociating the water molecule. However, dissociation of the water molecule does not necessarily lead to the evolution of hydrogen and oxygen gases.

Only when the water molecule fractures cleanly into atomic hydrogen and atomic oxygen will gases be immediately evolved. However, under most circumstances the water molecule cleaves into ions of H+ and OH-. When the water molecule dissociates into two ionic species, for gases to be produced, these ionic species need a charge exchange medium whereby they can drop off and collect charges in order to become atoms.

I’ve seen on numerous occasions that some self-appointed, so-called experts in the field now demean Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis as out-dated and irrelevant. How ridiculous such accusations are. All this does is emphasise their total lack of understanding of Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis, and indeed their general level of ignorance on the subject.

Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis are not difficult to understand, and anyone applying themselves to it will quickly understand why these laws are as valid now as they were when Faraday first described them.  People who casually dismiss these laws are clearly uneducated and/or ignorant of the facts, and as such are not people who should be trusted or taken seriously.

The term over-Faraday is often employed to situations whereby it would seem that more gases are being produced for a given power than allowed for by Faraday’s laws. Because of the term over-Faraday, many people also seem to think that this itself invalidates Faraday’s laws, making them obsolete. It of course does not.

Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis take into account every ion/electron reaction at the electrodes, which is why the electroplating industry can accurately determine exactly how much current will have to pass through an electrolytic solution for any given amount of deposited product.  

Faraday was using dc current, plain and simple, and easy from a measurement point of view.  Start pulsing dc, and measurement gets a little more difficult because not only does this ask a lot more of the measuring equipment and/or involve some additional calculation, but other elements of dissociation can come into play.

With a pure dc current drawn through an electrolytic solution, then the product (in the case of water, hydrogen and oxygen) is proportional to that current. The more current - the more product. Calculations are relatively easy and straight forward.

I’ve also seen it written that any voltage above the required voltage necessary to induce electrolysis does nothing but create heat. This of course is nonsense. Over voltage may reduce overall efficiency of the electrolyser due to the V x I = W of ohms law, but by the very same law V/R = I. In other words increasing the voltage will of course increase the current and so result in more product.

The theoretical minimum voltage to initiate Faraday electrolysis of water is 1.23 volts, but even this figure is temperature specific (around 18 deg. C). Raise or lower the temperature of the electrolytic solution and this optimum voltage figure changes accordingly. In reality there is also an over voltage potential at the electrodes that has to be overcome as well as the resistance of the electrolytic solution itself, and so typically 2 – 2.5 volts minimum is required. As inert electrodes go, platinum electrodes are the most efficient, but not only are they very expensive, they are also hard to come by. This is why stainless steel is generally the electrode metal of choice for electrolyser builders - be they businesses or just water fuel enthusiasts experimenting in a shed.

Faraday’s Laws are beautifully simple and extremely elegant, but they do not apply to all situations, which is where problems and confusion often stem. Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis are in evidence when ionic species are the current carriers within a solution and when there are charge exchange mediums present (ie, electrodes in contact with the electrolytic solution). In cases where water is caused to dissociate and evolve as hydrogen and oxygen through other means, such as plasma arcs, ultrasonic cavitation and electromagnetic radiation, then Faraday’s Laws cannot reliably be applied.

However, so tried and trusted are Faraday’s Laws, that they are always used as a baseline from which to judge other forms of dissociation of the water molecule.

Complications arise when people try to ascertain how much power it will take to produce a given volume of gas, because voltage then comes into play, but of course does not itself feature in Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis.

Under ideal conditions of voltage and temperature and assuming 100% efficiency, implementing Faraday’s Law will require 3.658kW/hr to dissociate 1 litre of water into it’s component gases.

At STP, this will produce 1,358 litres of hydrogen and 679 litres of oxygen.

Emphasis here on STP, which hints at yet another complication. Hot gas expands and so has greater volume at equivalent pressure than when cold. So this is yet another factor that can provide very misleading results if not taken into consideration.  As a reliable guideline, the difference in volume of a gas (any gas) at 0 deg, C and 100 deg. C is 36%. That is 1 litre of gas at 0 deg. C, will become 1.36 litres of gas at 100 deg. C, at equal pressures.

Yet further complications arise when the current is made to pulse and/or more than one method of dissociation is occurring within an electrolytic cell – the latter of which may be occurring completely unbeknown to the electrolyser builder/operator.

It should now be very clear to all that there are many factors to be taken into consideration when trying to determine electrolyser efficiencies, and indeed many possible areas for mistakes, miscalculations and misreading of results.

Sadly, most amateur Water Fuel enthusiasts completely neglect to consider any of the above-mentioned factors which makes way for wildly optimistic results and often even wilder claims.

To be continued…



   
Group: Guest
.99, would it be possible to start a new thread of the same title 'Dissociation of the Water Molecule' under the Water as Fuel heading.  

I have been doing much work in this field and would like to share and indeed record my findings as well as allowing feedback. The idea would be that I duplicate my posts so that it is open to discussion on the main board, but at the same time I can keep my work bench uncluttered and concise, so enabling members easier reading as I add information. Also I realise that only members can see work bench posts.

   
Group: Guest
Farrah Day,

Bob Potchen here....I should be able to better respond or post later this PM.  Looking forward to our discussions...


Bob Potchen
   
Group: Guest
December 2010

The limitations of standard Faraday Electrolysis should be quite obvious to anyone and everyone that has taken the trouble to read and understand Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis. After all, they couldn’t be much simpler.  The amount of gases evolved under standard Faraday Electrolysis, is - and will always be - governed by the current through the cell/electrolyser.  Even if we keep the voltage to the realistic optimum of around 2 volts per cell to initiate and maintain electrolysis, then we are still always limited by the current that can be drawn through the cell at this voltage. With the power dissipated equal to, P = V x I, or P = 2V x I, even at just two volts the high current required produces lots of wasted energy in the form of heat. Under these conditions, the current needed to produce enough gas to run an ICE becomes enormous, and indeed impossible to provide continuously via an on-demand vehicle system.  

To electrolyse 1 litre of water (under ideal conditions of around 1.3 volts and 100% efficiency) requires 3.658kW of power per hour. Which, at 1.3 volts, equates to 2814 amps!  This would provide 2038 litres of oxyhydrogen.

Now if you check out this link you will see where the problems lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qzrI20VPCw

This emphasises the very real limitations of so-called brute force, Faraday Electrolysis.

So, is there another way?

Well, it has been proven that for the same amount of power, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis produces more combustible gases than Faraday Electrolysis. I say, ‘combustible gases’, because the high temperatures created by plasma discharges do not just involve the creation of radical species H+ and OH-, but also OH2 and O, reacting to form not only hydrogen and oxygen, but also highly combustible hydrogen peroxide H2O2.

If you are aware of the work done by Dave Lawton, who was himself active on forums a few years back, you will know that he claimed to be achieving 3 – 4 times more gas evolution from his Meyer-like electrolyser than Faraday’s Electrolysis Laws state was possible. Of course Faraday’s Laws of Electrolysis were not at fault and still completely valid, so there had to be something else happening too.  Back then there was much theorising, much controversy, and of course much wild speculation. But now, a few years on, things look a little different and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit nicely to show us glimpses of the big picture.

One thing that was a feature of Dave Lawton’s electrolyser design was that the tubular electrodes were ‘conditioned’.  Conditioning is a term that is banded about quite a lot. For a long time it was considered a mysterious process, creating much speculation and debate, and indeed seen by some as a bit of a dark art. The problem was, that no one really knew what it was all about - how or why it apparently increased efficiency of the electrolyser - or indeed if it served any real purpose at all.

Further complications arise from the fact there seems to be two types of conditioning of the electrodes, or rather two interpretations.  The first is that running an electrolyser at a low current for a few hours, allows iron in the surface of the electrodes to ‘leach’ out.  That is, any microscopic areas of iron on the surface of the stainless steel electrodes, under working conditions will react with the oxygen being created to form rust.  Now obviously if we are losing oxygen to the iron to form an oxide, then we evolve less oxygen as a gas, so certainly this will be seen as a reduction in gas output.  When this iron reacts to form rust it usually leaves the surface of the SS electrodes to become a precipitate in the solution, and the chromium in the SS quickly acts to form a protective oxide coating. Once all the microscopic iron has been reacted, the chromium oxide coating on the SS surface does its job and prevents further reaction.  So this form of condition makes sense and indeed is good practice.

However, Dave Lawton’s electrode conditioning goes a step further.  By using hard water (that is water high in minerals) or indeed doping water with minerals, he built up a visible mineral coating, which consisted mainly of calcium carbonate, or scale.  Water that is filtered through limestone is very mineral rich and ideal for producing this coating.  But what does it do?

Well at the time, as I mentioned above, it was a mystery.  But not so now.

Dave Lawton claimed that his cells appeared to glow slightly in the dark, producing some kind of luminescence.  At the time, though interesting, not too much was made of this and little investigation or indeed real consideration was given to this phenomenon.

The interesting thing about this mineral coating was that, although it did not conduct electricity, having a non-measurable resistance on a digital multimeter and so effectively a great insulator, it was actually very porous.

What I know now, that no one realised at the time was that the luminescence was due to microscopic PLASMA DISCHARGES within the microscopic cavities of this porous mineral coating. And any apparent over-Faraday results were likely due to this phenomenon.

Now, CAVITATION produces similar results to plasma discharges in water due to the high temperatures and pressures created on a microscopic level but, unlike plasma discharges which are created by high currents, cavitation is induced mechanically by physical vibration.

So here’s the thing. Why not introduce all these elements into an electrolyser in order to – if possible – increase overall efficiency.

So here’s my idea: The Hybrid Electrolyser

An electrolyser that uses elements of Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and Cavitation.

I’m currently designing and fabricating, but the current freezing cold spell is hampering me somewhat. However, I’ve attached a couple of my initial designs in order that you can see where I’m going with this.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Farrah,
Great post and great idea, keep it up girl.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
Hi i too have designed some electrolyzers in the past.
My main goal was not to produce gas, but heat.
Essentially i was capturing and igniting the gas under water so it would heat up.

I like to know more about this visible mineral coating you speak of and how to grow it.
Do you have any more info on the hard water or doped water?

 :)
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote
However, Dave Lawton’s electrode conditioning goes a step further.  By using hard water (that is water high in minerals) or indeed doping water with minerals, he built up a visible mineral coating, which consisted mainly of calcium carbonate, or scale.  Water that is filtered through limestone is very mineral rich and ideal for producing this coating.  But what does it do?

Was any sort of analysis ever done to determine the actual
composition of the "conditioned coating?"



Quote
Dave Lawton claimed that his cells appeared to glow slightly in the dark, producing some kind of luminescence.  At the time, though interesting, not too much was made of this and little investigation or indeed real consideration was given to this phenomenon.

The interesting thing about this mineral coating was that, although it did not conduct electricity, having a non-measurable resistance on a digital multimeter and so effectively a great insulator, it was actually very porous.

The glow reported is similar to that produced in the old
liquid (electrolytic) rectifiers.

Hopefully, you're on to something here!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Thanks Room, things are starting to get interesting.

MC, here in my part of England our tap water is from the mountains of Wales and has a high natural mineral content. It is quite easy to build up the mineral coating on the electrodes by using a lowish 1 -3 amps steady dc current.  However, I found that I could increase this effect by doping my tap water with calcium carbonate.

I've attached a photo of a cell I did this to a while back. You will notice that only the -ve electrodes develop this bright white mineral formation, the +ve electrodes remain clean.  The SS threaded bar cathode and ss nuts at the centre of my multicell became particularly thickly coated compared to the other -ve electrodes, I guess due to the reduced surface area.

Oh, I do like the festive smilies!  :-*
   
Group: Guest
Quote
Was any sort of analysis ever done to determine the actual
composition of the "conditioned coating?"

No, we were all just tinkerers with no sophisticated equipment or funds to have such tests made, but it is and was clearly minerals from the water. And I kinda proved this by enhancing the process by doping with a known mineral, as mentioned and shown in the previous post.  The mineral coating is a terrific electrical insulator, but if anything production of gas went up, which at the time seemed very confusing to everyone involved.  But if you've read my recent post you will understand why this was so.

 :) ;) :D ;) :)
   
Group: Guest

The glow reported is similar to that produced in the old
liquid (electrolytic) rectifiers.


I'm not sure what you are reffering to..
Do you mean like Mercury rectifyers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWfg6SHxpJk
   
Group: Guest
I have given it some more thought but i can't understand how the formed calcium carbonate layer on the -ve electrode can account for more gas production (on the +ve electrode?)
Sure i can see some mysterious microscopic plasma discharges in the layer that produce this strange light, but still this needs further investigation.

I'm going to see if i can get any improved results by replacing the positive electrode with a hydrogen discharge that directly touches the water.
In the cell showed below.
At first both electrodes touch the water.
Then i start the reaction and hydrogen starts to form.
There will be a point where the generated hydrogen will push the water down so far that the positive electrode doesn't touch the water anymore and at this stage i will turn up the voltage to create a hydrogen plasma directly between the positive electrode and the water...

 :)

Edit: Sorry for the switched electrode colors my bad.

 
   
Group: Guest
MC, do you really intend to form a plasma arc in the hydrogen... and you don't think that this might go rather badly?

If you do achieve a plasma arc to the water, then you will produce oxygen too... hydrogen, oxygen, big spark!! :o
   
Group: Guest
FD,

Hybrid sulfur cycle: From Wikipedia

The hybrid sulfur cycle (HyS) is a two-step water-splitting process intended to be used for hydrogen production. Based on sulfur oxidation and reduction, it is classified as a hybrid thermochemical cycle because it uses an electrochemical (instead of a thermochemical) reaction for one of the two steps. The remaining thermochemical step is shared with the sulfur-iodine cycle.

The two reactions in the HyS cycle are as follows:[2]

   1. H2SO4(aq) → H2O(g) + SO2(g) + ½ O2(g) (thermochemical, T > 800°C)
   2. SO2(aq) + 2 H2O(l) → H2SO4(aq) + H2(g) (electrochemical, T = 80-120°C)

    Net reaction: H2O(l) → H2(g) + ½ O2(g)

Sulfur dioxide acts to depolarize the anode of the electrolyzer. This results in a significant decrease in the reversible cell potential (and, therefore, the electric power requirement) for reaction (2). The standard cell potential for reaction is -0.158 V at 298.15 K, compared to -1.229 V for the electrolysis of water (with oxygen evolution as the anodic reaction).

The electrochemical step requires 1/8 of the energy of electrolysis which would work well for on demand generation.
Any heat generated can be used for step 2...  Maybe for pressurized boiling lowering the heat required for step 1. 
Releasing pressure should lower the temp to that required for step 2.

More food for thought..
   
Group: Guest
I think you will have trouble initiating the arc anyway unless you intend to use a very high voltage.  But it's just that if you did up the voltage to achieve this then it would obviously be passing through the hydrogen gas, which wouldn't be a problem except for the reaction on the surface of the water is likely to evolve a little oxygen and indeed possibly liberate any oxygen that is simply dissolved in the water. 

So, I assume you can now see my concern.  Just be careful.  I wouldn't want you to be spending Christmas in Intensive Care.  :'(
   
Group: Guest
Hybrid Electrolyser (H-Cell)
Farrah Day.  December 17,   2010

I’m not yet at the testing stage though I have sourced most of the materials and have commenced fabrication. I fear the testing stage will have to wait a while as an unheated greenhouse in below freezing temperatures is really no fun to work in.

Anyway, I’ve attached a depiction of my latest cell design, which is intended to dissociate water into its component elements by multiple means. That is, my H-Cell is intended to incorporate aspects of standard Faraday Electrolysis, Plasma Discharge Electrolysis and indeed Cavitation.

I have done away with the electromagnet of the first design and instead have employed a strong neodymium magnet and a coil.  The neo is glued into place in the hollow centre SS tube (anode), while the coil is wrapped around the outer SS tube (cathode).  I’m gambling on the interacting magnetic fields of the neo and the coil (when fed high current pulses) will create the required mechanical movement between the two electrodes to induce cavitation.

I will also be conditioning the tubes over a period of time beforehand, using a steady DC in order to leach out as much iron near the surface of the SS tubes as possible. I will then dope the water with calcium carbonate to get the desired mineral build up required for the creation of Plasma Discharges once the cell is up and running on pulsed DC.

If, as I suspect, various electrolyser incarnations of the past have exhibited more than one form of water dissociation - perhaps more by luck than design - then I now need to look closer at cell construction.

It has occurred to me that if I want two tubes of a cell to oscillate, then how these tubes are fixed, both within the electrolyser as a whole and in respect to each other will be important.  When using tube electrodes in the past, I have used the inert rubber bungs from laboratory test tubes, cutting pieces off to wedge between inner and outer electrodes.  The sole purpose of which was to simply space the electrodes and hold them firmly in place to prevent them coming into contact with each other.  However, this method would not seem to be conducive to creating a mechanical oscillation between the two electrodes, and may well have been restricting me to standard Faraday Electrolysis.  So, now I’m carefully gluing the cells in place at the base, so that this is the only clamping point. This way the cell can oscillate far more easily, and it makes sense that the higher up the cells, the greater any mechanical movement will become – and hence longer cells may be more effective than shorter cells. I’m still considering employing a thin rubber ‘O’ ring near the top of the inner tube just to prevent the inner and outer tubes contacting should oscillations become too pronounced and weaken the glue at the bottom. But this is a very minor concern and a trivial point that may not even come into play.

Many people confuse resonance with simple oscillations.  The fact that the two tubes may oscillate does not mean that they are at resonance, though resonance will be what I’m ultimately looking to achieve.  As many of you know, when something resonates at its natural frequency, then it requires far less energy to maintain the oscillations than it does at any other frequency, and indeed at resonance the amplitude of the oscillations will greatly increase unless input energy is drastically reduced.  Oscillating the cells in resonance to the point of destruction has occurred to me as being a possibility, so I’ll be monitoring things very carefully in order to avoid this unpleasant scenario… but I’m probably getting a little ahead of myself.  

So ideally, pulsing the DC at an appropriate frequency will see the tubes oscillate to induce cavitation for minimal energy input.  I’m also wondering would I want both the inner and outer tubes to oscillate in time with each other - would tuning both the inner and outer tubes be advantageous… or not?  I’m rather inclined to think ‘not’. If they were both tuned to the same frequency, and if they moved in phase with each other and at the same amplitude, then the overall sum of their relative movement and indeed that of the electrolyte between the tubes would be zero.  To my mind, the last thing I want is the tubes oscillating in phase and cancelling each other out.

Of course, all the time, standard Faraday Electrolysis will be evident, and again ‘hopefully’, there may also be some evidence of Plasma Discharges taking place if the insulating mineral deposit allows for the creation of high voltages within and around microcavities. I’m tempted to say, ‘three reactions for the price of one’, but no doubt there will be costs. It remains to be seen then just how effective and  - if effective - just how efficient all this turns out to be… or even if it works at all!

Even if the electrodes are induced to oscillate, yet cavitation is not evident, it may still prove to be more efficient due to the evolving gas bubbles being ‘shook’ off the electrodes.

I’m trying to detail everything as clearly as I possibly can in order that anyone wanting to replicate – or indeed simply following my work -  is armed with all the necessary details and information.

   
Group: Guest

I have done away with the electromagnet of the first design and instead have employed a strong neodymium magnet and a coil.  The neo is glued into place in the hollow centre SS tube (anode), while the coil is wrapped around the outer SS tube (cathode).  I’m gambling on the interacting magnetic fields of the neo and the coil (when fed high current pulses) will create the required mechanical movement between the two electrodes to induce cavitation.





Farrah

The central operating principle of your system above
will not create the behaviour you seek to achieve.

With all due respect, I say this from my own experience.

Mookie

   
Group: Guest
Good to see you are still looking in Mookie.  :)

From my point of view, as I see it, the central operating principle is exactly the same, I've simply rearranged components.  Remember, unlike yourself, I have never seen the magnetic side of this as being anything other than a means to get the electrodes oscillating to induce cavitation.  

I think from the very start our interpretations of what is occurring have been very different, so no doubt we will still be looking at things from completely different perspectives. It does no harm to have differing opinions and for us to both be approaching the issue from different ends.  I know you have your own ideas, but some of the things you spoke about, like Electron Avalanche, to my mind simply do not hold any water, so I'd be a fool not to follow through with my theories of operation at least until I've conducted some thorough testing.

Feel free to elaborate on what you are doing and what you have gleaned since your last forum visits. The big one is: Have you ever confirmed that you were actually getting hydroxy rather than just a lot of water vapour bubbles?  

Where do you stand on cavitation?  Are you still convinced the water is being dissociated by magnetic fields?
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Farrah,
The neo and coil set up you are showing will try and move the neo in and out length wise with the tubes.  To accomplish what you want to, it may be necessary to use a smaller neo (maybe flat) with the polarity across the tubes at 90 degrees and use a solenoid coil positioned the same direction outside to vibrate the tubes sideways. It might work better for what you are proposing.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
Hi Room, yes I know.

I have considered this, and do have a backup plan, but this is by far the easiest to implement.

However, as the neo won't be able to to move up and down, and as the centre tube will never be precisely centred within the outer tube, I'm rather hoping there will be enough 'play' (for want of a better word) to enable tiny oscillations to set up laterally 

Will be keeping you posted!  ;)
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Could it be that you are about to put Magnetostriction to
work in your design?  And that of Mookie's too?

One  (Download the .pdf at page bottom.)

Two

Three


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Could it be that you are about to put Magnetostriction to
work in your design?  And that of Mookie's too?

One  (Download the .pdf at page bottom.)

Two

Three

Magnetostriction?  Well that's a new one on me - I'll surely be taking a look at your links.  :)
   
Group: Guest
Quote
Could it be that you are about to put Magnetostriction to
work in your design?

Hi Dumped.

Can't believe I've never come across the term before, but on checking out your links it looks like that is exactly what I'll be attempting to do. Funny actually as in my initial post I indeed thought of likening it to the mains hum of a transformer!  :)
   
Group: Guest
.

Farrah

I am so very pleased that you are experimenting in this area.

Water, as we know it, consists of hydrogen and oxygen. The properties of oxygen,
(oxygen by nature, being highly electronegative and paramagnetic)
have a commonality in that they are each affected when enveloped within an electromagnetic field.
That co-relationship was there long before I made the connection.

The most remarkable observation that I have made is that these bubbles are able to be manipulated,
suspended and reversed from their natural upward path of escape from the electrolysis cell. Evident and obvious.
That dynamic is beyond my ability to explain. Were it not for this, I would say that this is a mechanical process.
As much as I twist my mind around it, I am the first to say that I can not explain this, nor why the acceleration occurs
and at the moment, is what precludes me from moving forward. My accelerator was a great personal success,
but intuitively I know that it can be taken somewhere further. At the moment the picture of where escapes me,
but I am comfortable with where I am for now, and have staked out several paths yet to follow in the future.

As for cavitation, my thoughts are inconclusive and I am heavily favoured to hold to electron avalanche until such time
as I can demonstrate for myself that it is not the case. In any event, these are both subject matters which I have
no desire to explore further, as I believe them to be an effect rather than a cause.

The fact that there are many interpretations is testament to that no one fully understands what occurs in the electrolysis process.
The same can be said for magnetism. You have a certain approach to these matters, as do I, as well do others.
The common thread necessary is that these be disciplined approaches and not reckless. I am in good company.
It does not require a great leap for me to apply Rosemary's " Tennis ball theory of the Universe"
to what occurs in this particular exercise. I have long held a similar view.

Farrah, I have personally exhausted the possibility of a DC magnet having the ability to accelerate the electrolysis process.
It was my original intent to be able to do so, and I have come to my own conclusions as to why that is not possible.
Hopefully that will encourage you to find a way to do just that. I share your enthusiasm.

The output is hydroxy. I have had it tested. It's oxygen/hydrogen content remains unchanged as the output increases.

I am still far from home but will return in the New Year.

Seasons Greetings.

Mookie

.
   
Group: Guest
Thanks for that post Mookie.

I'll be posting my results and findings as and when they occur, along with photos of the cells as I put them together.

At the end of the day, the more we can learn from our various experiments, the bigger pool of information we can form, and the better we are armed to support or disprove various hypotheses.

Merry Christmas  :)
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4016
Farrah,

Have you seen this?

World's First 'Practical' Artificial Leaf Can Cheaply Turn Water Into Energy

http://inventorspot.com/articles/worlds_first_artificial_leaf_doesnt_look_leaf_it_acts_one
« Last Edit: 2011-03-28, 09:12:57 by ramset »
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-20, 22:39:42