PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-07, 11:49:28
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE  (Read 132288 times)
Group: Guest


Why would you think this? Besides, we can already 'make electrolysis happen below 1.2 V', by the introduction of certain catalysts, but while a voltage is required to draw a current there will always be a power requirement.


It's simple logic that if you have a capacitor of 1 volt and depletes it in electrolysis.  The hydrogen amount according to Faraday would gives more energy than the capacitor.

Catalysts... interesting.

   
Group: Guest
Simple logic, eh... better get myself some of that!
   
Group: Guest
I see.  Well, I prepared some explanation hoping it will be simple.

In water electrolysis, they calculated the max efficiency (100%) is about 1.23V to 1.48V.  That means your input power is I(1.23) where I is the current.  If you can lower V below 1.23, then your input is lower while getting the same amount of hydrogen (since hydrogen only depends on current I).  So one can say 1.23 is unity point.  Above that, waste energy, below that, OU.

You can also calculated how many moles of hydrogen you could get from 1 volt cap by substitute CV=Q into Faraday equation.  Then calculate how much energy from the moles and compare it to the cap.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1431
DISSOCIATION OF THE WATER MOLECULE

Farrah Day, October 2010

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.


People like Bob boyce, Dave Lawton (and John Worrell Keely) produce over Faraday results but
their process is not electrolysis but a form of water cracking involving resonance. reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.

The frequency of 42.8khz (and lower octaves) is oft mentioned along with ultrasonic transducers.
   
Group: Guest
People like Bob boyce, Dave Lawton (and John Worrell Keely) produce over Faraday results but
their process is not electrolysis but a form of water cracking involving resonance. reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.

The frequency of 42.8khz (and lower octaves) is oft mentioned along with ultrasonic transducers.

What you will actually find is that there can be a combination of things occurring, but in most cases Faraday electrolysis is still the predominant reaction.  

Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites, but do you actually believe all of what you've posted? Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject so are you just trusting that everything you read is factual and absolutely accurate? Blind faith?

Also, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.  

I see.  Well, I prepared some explanation hoping it will be simple.

In water electrolysis, they calculated the max efficiency (100%) is about 1.23V to 1.48V.  That means your input power is I(1.23) where I is the current.  If you can lower V below 1.23, then your input is lower while getting the same amount of hydrogen (since hydrogen only depends on current I).  So one can say 1.23 is unity point.  Above that, waste energy, below that, OU.

You can also calculated how many moles of hydrogen you could get from 1 volt cap by substitute CV=Q into Faraday equation.  Then calculate how much energy from the moles and compare it to the cap.

No, no, no! One can't say that 1.23 volts is the unity point and anything below this voltage is overunity - you have this very wrong!  It's simply an increase in efficiency over an electrolyser that is operating at or above 1.23 volts.

Look how much more efficient modern car engines are over their predecessors - they have become more efficient but that has not suddenly made them OU devices.
« Last Edit: 2013-03-03, 13:50:59 by Farrah Day »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Farrah said:

Quote
Also, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.


You are so very right on. Urban legends all. BB=Big BS


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3051
Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites, but do you actually believe all of what you've posted? Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject so are you just trusting that everything you read is factual and absolutely accurate? Blind faith?

Also, be very careful, much of this is no more than hearsay that over the years has spread so wildly as to be seen by many as fact.  Though he has disappeared from the forums over recent years, Bob Boyce is probably the most prolific of his kind in this field. However, he was elevated to guru status by the misguided and blind followers not because he has ever proved his technology or indeed his worth, but rather because he has been around and bullshitting for so long that his name has become synonymous with this stuff.  

Well stated.  We can indeed be very susceptible
to "bum skinny" before we acquire the needed
wisdom and experience to enable us to sort
the good from the bum.

Some thoughts on Extended Intelligence:


Quote from: Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
8. Extended intelligence easily spots hoaxes, arbitraries, authoritarianism and memes and eliminates them from his or her thinking.

This one is a whole lecture I give! Suffice it to throw in a few quick definitions here:

Hoax is the term I use for those accepted “truths”, which are in fact false. You know, like the-Earth-is-flat things. There are plenty of hoaxes around. Religion seems built on them. The medical profession is loaded with them, as supposed science (fever must be suppressed, for example, whereas the truth is that a fever is the best natural healing you can get).

Arbitraries are facts, which get passed around, with no real structure or support. They just exist. Once you start to examine them, they fall apart as nonsense.

Authoritarianism is another kind of dead knowledge. Professor Blodwit of Bunga Bunga University said it, so it must be true. Kids are forced to learn this garbage to get their grades and certificates. But the true genius has no interest in such phoney knowledge.

Memes, you probably know, are “thought viruses”, a good metaphor for what is happening: one mind infects another with a thought, which then gets passed along to yet another and so on. “Destroy America” is one that’s gaining momentum; “The Bible is the word of God” is another that’s been around a long time and has got a LOT of good people killed.



---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1431

Obviously you've picked up snippets of info from various web sites,
but do you actually believe all of what you've posted?

Clearly you have little real or first-hand knowledge on the subject

"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???

I saw Dave Lawton's set up at the 2008 UK Free energy Conference and he spoke
extensively on it.

The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them. In fact, on switch on, there is a period of about 3 seconds
and then the entire electrolyte goes milky white and the gasses come off.
   
Group: Guest
"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???


The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them.
Spot on Paul-R
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3051
While numerous experimenters have been able
to successfully produce Hydrogen and Oxygen
with some variation of the Meyer Water Fuel
Cell, I haven't yet seen any competent technical
evidence which would indicate that any have
ever exceeded "Faraday results."

Does anyone know of any such verification?

Quite a number have also attempted to replicate
the claims of Bob Boyce with some variant of his
101 Plate unit (or a smaller, less complex version)
but so far as I'm aware none have exceeded
"Faraday results."

Does anyone know otherwise?


---------------------------
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: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2461


Buy me a beer
There are two different happenings here, one is normal electrolysis where the gases do come from the electrodes and is the Faraday principle. The second where gases do come from between the electrodes, this is dielectric  break down which will happen when the dielectric is over charged giving a high amp discharge through the electrolyte, so breaking the bond.

 To do the second example a system such as Meyer/Lawton has to be employed and one of the electrodes has to have a dielectric barrier of a porous nature, hence the use of tubes with the top and bottom of the tubes insulate from the rest of the electrolyte in the cell container with what is in between the two tubes. This will give lower resistance between the tubes than the rest of the cell, this makes sure that all the current discharges where it is wanted and not lost in the rest of the cell where it does nothing (weaker current path). This second way can be of greater efficiency than standard electrolysis. this was Meyer's whole idea (high voltage low amp pump charge,50hz giving a low voltage high amp discharge).

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Guest
"Obviously...." and "Clearly...."    ???

I saw Dave Lawton's set up at the 2008 UK Free energy Conference and he spoke
extensively on it.

The interesting feature is that the gases do NOT come from the electrodes. They come
from the space between them. In fact, on switch on, there is a period of about 3 seconds
and then the entire electrolyte goes milky white and the gasses come off.

So, you saw an electrolyser in action, wow!  

There is also a video of the legendary Stanley Meyer with an electrolyser on a workbench that he claimed was super-efficient, running at high voltage, and mA current. To the inexperienced observer the gas output might look immense, but anyone who has experience with these devices knows it can be deceptive. Meyer was drawing around 500mA (half an Amp), which in an efficient multi-electrode electrolyser will look like a lot of gas is being produced, but even this is deceptive as those millions of tiny bubbles don't very quickly amount to much in terms of actual gas volume.

If you had experience of electrolysers yourself, then you would know that there is always a delay after switch-on before the electrolyte goes milky with bubbles.

How do you know the gases are not coming off the electrodes... somebody tell you that?  Because I'll challenge anyone to see this happening between electrodes spaced at just 2mm apart. And in the case of Meyer and Dave Lawton, who both use concentric tube electrodes this observation would be next to impossible.

You saw a demonstration that impressed you, fair enough. The real issue as I see it is that you were not in a position to make any valid scientific judgement on what you were seeing - either then or now.  How much gas was evolving, what current was being drawn? The devil is always in the detail!  

My problem is that you keep posting these things as given facts when nothing could be farther from the truth. And it is not as if you provide anything new in the way of scientific details to support or back up these claims. Do you see my point?

I've been around these forums for a long time, so I know - or know of - most of the people that have dabbled in this field. In the past I have conversed with both Boyce and Lawton, and while I have never heard anyone talk so much utter clap-trap as Boyce, who is no more than the ultimate charlatan, I did have respect for Dave Lawton who went out of his way to undertake detailed experiments. Rather than make outrageous claims, Lawton simply posted his results. I believed then that Dave Lawton was one of the good guys - I hope he still is.
   
Group: Guest
There are two different happenings here, one is normal electrolysis where the gases do come from the electrodes and is the Faraday principle. The second where gases do come from between the electrodes, this is dielectric  break down which will happen when the dielectric is over charged giving a high amp discharge through the electrolyte, so breaking the bond.

 To do the second example a system such as Meyer/Lawton has to be employed and one of the electrodes has to have a dielectric barrier of a porous nature, hence the use of tubes with the top and bottom of the tubes insulate from the rest of the electrolyte in the cell container with what is in between the two tubes. This will give lower resistance between the tubes than the rest of the cell, this makes sure that all the current discharges where it is wanted and not lost in the rest of the cell where it does nothing (weaker current path). This second way can be of greater efficiency than standard electrolysis. this was Meyer's whole idea (high voltage low amp pump charge,50hz giving a low voltage high amp discharge).

Mike 8)

Oh dear, here we go. Mike you really should have stayed at EF where the naïve and gullible will buy into this and hang on your every word without question. I can't believe you are playing the old dielectric break-down of the water molecule card - that went out of fashion an age ago, and is as incorrect and meaningless now as it was Meyer coined the phrase.

You are quickly becoming the next Bob Boyce - all talk, no substance. A poorly written paper on electrolysis, a hastily knocked-up website
http://www.centraflow.yolasite.com/ that basically just links to other peoples Youtube videos with nothing new or of any importance to show, (though I note it does have the obligatory DONATE button). You claim that you have developed an electrolysis process that is 85% more efficient than a 100% efficient electrolyser, or words to that effect.  But of course this is not detailed on your website - not even a photo of your own work... rather strange... why? ???

Oh, look, here are your actual words from EF:

Quote
Well Dr. Stifflers work and mine in places do cross paths. His electron recovery I do the same in SMD electrolysis, which is electrolysis but very efficient, about 85% over Faraday, which brings it into an ecconomical way to produce hydrogen.

 The other way is using electron beam tech: and NO it is not electrolysis, if you read my paper on electrolytic cells you will see why.

 With SMD I will be giving circuits and cell configuration in the near future for those who want to replicate, also detail on different gases other than just hydrogen and oxygen.

 SMD electrolysis will produce the equivalent amount of gas as an efficient direct electrolysis but at "half the energy cost", so more cells = more gas and not SMD produces more gas, I just thought I would get that straight before someone asks, "JUST SCALE IT UP".

 Mike
In the real world I'm not even sure that your last sentence makes any sense.

But anyway, we both know that this is only in your head and no evidence to support this claim will ever be forthcoming... don't we?  Because look, you also said this over at EF:

Quote
For me I will never post anymore my hard work, I will find a way to put it into the public domain, built correctly and at a cheap price, protected from the one's who just want to rip people off, and yes I would have something in there for me, after all I was the inventor, at least pay my costs and a wage.

 Mike

While I'm not against anyone being rewarded for their hard work, I'd love to know exactly where all of this so-called hard work you claim to have posted in the past is, because I've never seen anything that is not just conjecture and the scribblings of someone obviously keen to make the limelight. Like Boyce and so many others before you, you continually make these great claims, but fail utterly to provide anything by way of scientific support let alone even the slightest hint of real evidence to give any credence whatsoever to any of your claims. You must think that we're all idiots!  

Now, as in the past, you claim that you know so much, claim that you have achieved great things, and while you can get away with this BS over on EF, I think you will find that blind faith and ignorance is not so prevalent here and that a little more than your word is required.

So, MJN, are you really just all talk as I truly believe you are? Are you going to drop out and prove me right... Or are you going to make me eat my words?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1431

How do you know the gases are not coming off the electrodes...
I looked and I saw. It isn't easy but it can be done.

I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.
   
Group: Guest

I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.

Fair enough, lol. 'Clearly' you are unskilled in the art, but nevertheless 'I think' you are being extremely gullible... and you either have a hyperactive imagination or your telling porkies.
 
So bearing DL's WFC is a close replica of Meyer's, take a look at this video and then tell me how anyone - however carefully they looked - could possibly see bubbles coming from between the electrodes.  ???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azeZgWuHARM

   
Group: Guest
...reminiscent
of the opera singer breaking a champagne glass by singing a note which is the resonant
frequency of the glass in question.
...

I have not electrodes in my champagne glass and nevertheless I have bubbles.
In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?

   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2461


Buy me a beer
Quote: I think you are extremely insecure, Farrah day.

I'll go along with that, seems you do not like me around here either?  am I causing problems for your pitch??  I don't think it's  from my last post, so what IS it with you, got your knickers in a twist again?

 The funny thing is that the one with problems in every forum on the internet is you!!! very strange. There is nothing that I have to prove to you, not that I would anyway, you would be the last person in this world that I would explain anything direct to.

I am here because I was invited to be here, and as far as my web site, "I admit I do not have much time for it lately" the donate button is just that, 50% of the videos ARE MINE, but there again you don't even know what is going on there, do you? and that upsets you, doesn't it? Oh yes there was a donate button for my son on EF, did you donate, well No, and it was not for me, he had a very serious accident, 17yrs old and was in a coma for one and a half months and that was after reviving him twice, he was dead on arrival at the hospital but they brought him back. After just over one year in hospital at a cost to start with of 10,000 euros month until the insurance company paid up, things were bad on all fronts. Did you care? no, I am sure you thought it was all a lie to make money, perhaps you should say that to him, he still has problems speaking and walking, but he will know what you are talking about for sure.

Your personal attacks are not a problem for me because the people that have been working with me and replicated what I have shown to them and them only, know only too well what is right and what is not. Some things I do not show as they are what I earn  money with to keep body and soul together, the basics I show, but the rest will have to be experimented by the replicators,  sometimes items go beyond the home tinkler to do because of it's complexity, but the basics are there. Oh by the way they ALL work. There are some watching you now that know what I am saying, your fame precedes you and why you have few friends and have been baned from most places on the internet.

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Any women who is safely breaking down water molecules, while posting, is simply not giving the experiment the attention it needs!   :-*


On a serious note, gas prices are marching upwards again and this research is now more critical then ever.


Here's a fundamental question:

Assume I have a parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric has an infinite breakdown voltage.  In the center of the plate I have a small void in the dielectric and place two water molecules.  I then increase the E-field to the breakdown limit and the water molecules break and recombine as two H2 and one O2 molecule.   No net charges have been exchanged between the plates, so where did the energy come from?  Afterall, two tiny molecules in the center won't distort the overall field, just locally in their immediate surrounding.

If this works, why not inject a stream of water through the high E-field zone and convert it to combustible gases?

Dielectric materials store energy, make no mistake about it.

EM
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3051
Thanks for the link to the video.  It is good
to see it again after several years.  It's
cleverly done and was no doubt an effective
promotional tool.

The advantage of concentric tube electrodes
is that they'll produce a strong convection
flow which pulls the gas bubbles from the
electrode surfaces before they become large.
This creates the illusion that the bubbles are
forming in the space between the electrodes.

The same effect can be produced with suspended
flat electrodes which are sealed at their vertical
edges.  A strong convection will be produced
which produces a flow of small bubbles which
appear to be forming in the space between
the electrodes providing the plates are close
enough together.  With widely spaced plates
the effect diminishes.


---------------------------
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
I have not electrodes in my champagne glass and nevertheless I have bubbles.
In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?


Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
Salt water and radio wave's are all thats needed.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3051
Quote from: Centraflow re: Farrah Day
There are some watching you now that know what I am saying, your fame precedes you and why you have few friends and have been baned from most places on the internet.

Any who are Warriors For Truth and who seek
to expose the hoax will be banned from most
Forums.  This reveals more about the motives
of the Forums than the character of the Warrior.

Those who are in the Business of Deceiving for
Profit do not like being revealed for what they
truly are...


---------------------------
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: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2461


Buy me a beer
Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
Salt water and radio wave's are all thats needed.

So correct, but not only salt, other dissolved compounds or elements will do the same for a catylist.

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2461


Buy me a beer
Any who are Warriors For Truth and who seek
to expose the hoax will be banned from most
Forums.  This reveals more about the motives
of the Forums than the character of the Warrior.

Those who are in the Business of Deceiving for
Profit do not like being revealed for what they
truly are...

And where are you coming from with that statement? To make a statement like that you need to have some evidence to the effect, just like doing an experiment!! don't see much from you here, though I admit I have not read every thread and post on this forum

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2461


Buy me a beer
Any women who is safely breaking down water molecules, while posting, is simply not giving the experiment the attention it needs!   :-*


On a serious note, gas prices are marching upwards again and this research is now more critical then ever.


Here's a fundamental question:

Assume I have a parallel plate capacitor and the dielectric has an infinite breakdown voltage.  In the center of the plate I have a small void in the dielectric and place two water molecules.  I then increase the E-field to the breakdown limit and the water molecules break and recombine as two H2 and one O2 molecule.   No net charges have been exchanged between the plates, so where did the energy come from?  Afterall, two tiny molecules in the center won't distort the overall field, just locally in their immediate surrounding.

If this works, why not inject a stream of water through the high E-field zone and convert it to combustible gases?

Dielectric materials store energy, make no mistake about it.

EM

Not sure what you mean by "infinite" in this sense.

If you have two plates, an anode and a cathode, and" one or two" dielectrics of greater strength than the water molecule which is in between. As you increase the electric field the dielectrics will form phantom fields, phantom electrodes, at the dielectric surface "away" from the plate or plates. At that point there will be a break down of the water molecule as the positive and negative charge builds and short circuits in the water molecule. In this case the discharge is probably filamentary through those two water molecules.

Now for what you are talking about, a type reverse jacobs ladder effect, but also the two electrodes make up a capacitor and the discharge takes place at the narrowest point.

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Guest
Why do you need electrode's to make HHO ?
...

Nobody says it should be needed, certainly not me!
You are making objections to unformulated statements  C.C

The question to Paul-R was "In your hypothesis that we have bubbles between electrodes, why bubbles between electrodes would be the sign of cracking molecules?" and this question is relative to methods with electrodes, discussed above.


   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-07, 11:49:28