Basic Electrolysis

[Armagdn03]

An interesting experiment, I am not equipped to try.....


Here is an Idea I have been mulling over for a few days, and would really like to try, however I only have so much time on my plate...Perhaps someone will take it a bit further.

For lack of a better name, I will call this the Hydroelectric Magnetron.

This is a very simple idea and mechanism, but first one needs to understand the operation of the magnetron, in its simplest form.



Here you can see the magnetic field direction in blue. Perpendicular to this is the electric field shown in red. The electric field gradient lies from a center point outwards, much like our own earth, an electron or an atom (radial potential gradient).

Because of the right hand rule...when we have movement of electrons through the perpendicular magnetic field, we create rotation. This is as far into magnetron theory as we will go.

I envision the hydroelectric magnetron as follows.

Imagine a water vortex, rotation in this case is induced simply by gravity, much like a bathtub, toilet or those neat little soda pop bottle experiments.

A magnetic field (via permanent magnets) is placed perpendicular to this rotation, exactly in the same orientation as the magnetron.

Now imagine the soda pop bottle, wrapped in foil on the outside. This constitutes one plate of a capacitor. Now the second plate of the capacitor will be a metallic cone fiting the void created by the vortex. Basically what we have is a capacitor with a rotating water dielectric. There is a soda bottle wall in between the capacitive plates as well so as not to allow conduction.

I would also mention that I would disolve an ionic compound such as table salt in the water to get a good distribution of positive and negative ions.


It is known that current can constitute the movement of electrons relative to a static background, or....in the case of conduction through a fluid such as described here, current can constitute the movement of charged ions.

Now....

The radial electric capacitor will cause an alignment of ions water molecules within the vortex in the radial direction. The perpendicular magnetic field would want to cause rotation, however because there is no current flow, it will not.

However gravity (or a small motor) will cause rotation for us (vortex)


Question is.....what will happen???? We are causing an artificially induced rotation, of organized ions, creating a current. This current will interact with the perpendicular magnetic field. The movement of this interaction will be rotational as well.......


WHAT WILL HAPPEN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[HairBear]

I think your purposed experiment can be answered with other types of experiments done previously. Your illustration looks to me like the effects of "Magnetohydrodynamics" in tubular water cells such as in the video link below...

YouTube - Electrohydrodynamics Experiment

[Armagdn03]

There is a rather large difference between that video and what I propose. What that video shows is a current (HV) flowing through the water. and observing the effects of this radial flow.

What I propose is, NO current, rather an ordering of the polar molecules and ions due to an electric field.

Once this is established, the placement of a magnetic field perpendicular (as shown in my last post) and then forced rotation.

YouTube - magnet hho

this is very similar to what I want to try. However I want to do this in a different way. Which came first the chicken or the egg? Does current cause rotation? can rotation cause current? if so, will the water disassociate itself???

Here might be a rudimentary experiment one could try if they had the equipment..


Take a wimhurst generator and charge a leiden jar. The generator will give us the very very high voltage needed. The water capacitor the necessary charge alignment. Place a B field perpendicular as shown above. Then perhaps give it a spin.

Just thinking out loud.....

[Harvey]

The moving vortex of Ions represent an electrical current. As they move in the field, the positive and negative ions will experience a force directing them in the third dimension where B and Vortex represent the other two dimensions. The polarity of the ion will determine whether it has a positive or negative vector in that third dimension. In your description, the third dimension will always be radial from the axis of the vortex.

Let's say the vortex direction is such that positive ions get pushed along the soda bottle wall where they group. Negative charges in the air outside will attract and the foil will become negatively charged. Similarly, if there is a good air gap between the cone and the water, it will become positively charged.

The amount of charge can probably be calculated mathematically as having a relationship to the Work Energy Theorem so that the amount of energy you put into creating and maintaining the vortex will be commensurate to the energy stored in the charge by some factor. Therefore you will probably find that stirring the water without the magnet in place will take less energy. The difference between the two should be the stored charge energy.

Maybe.

[exxcomm0n]

Hello all,

I'm a lurker member here, but wanted to chime in since I've seen a few of the issues discussed in this thread in (very) minor experimentation results and I'd like to share them.
I would also like to ask that if this interjection is not seen as off topic, that other more enlightened and classically educated members contributing to this thread could explain the behavior of the "Magnetics in Electrolysis" section below.

Implosion

I'm w/ Aaron here as I've had flashbacks from torch experiments prove the implosion effect.
When the gas involved in the ex/implosion is stoichiometric-ally supplied so that ONLY the gases produced by electrolysis are involved in ignition, it can result in implosion.
Picture a battery charger powering a baking soda solution immersed stainless electrical wall plate cell in a Walmart kitchen container connected by hose to a 20 oz. plastic soda container bubbler connected with more hose to a Harbor Freight butane torch stuffed w/ bronze wool. All joints sealed w/ Marine GOOP.
A very low tech system, but pretty well sealed.
It would flashback every so often when I couldn't generate gas fast enough and the pre-pressurization ran out.

When it did, the explosion of the gas in the bubbler (I kept high water levels to keep explosion/damage minimum) would force some of the water there through the hose back to the cell. It next effect would crinkle the plastic soda bottle from vacuum and the water in it would fill the entire bottle, instead of having the 1/4-5 area I would leave for HHO collection in the un-crinkled state. It wouldn't rupture the bottle and the bottle would return to normal given time to suck atmosphere through the tiny aperture of the torch for equalization.

This makes me lean towards implosion as the flame front traveled from the torch tip through the hose to the bubbler exploding the quantity of gas in the bubbler and then forcing the water through the immersed tube back towards the cell. It wasn't enough water to warrant the extreme vacuum in the soda bottle and hose flattening (I forgot to mention that).
The flashback did stop at the bubbler though.

But add some atmosphere into the mix and the implosion effect is much lessened. Add 50% or more atmosphere and the implosion effect is not able to be noticed while the explosion potential remains at, or near, the same magnitude.
Whether due to new gases formed from the addition of atmosphere, the expansion of the atmosphere gases from the explosion heat, the recombination of H and O forming liquid water in the form of water vapor in its most expanded state before steam, or a combination of these factors, HHO can be used to power an ICE without implosion hampering the engine mechanics to a noticeable degree if ignition is advanced sufficiently.
I'd be more worried about hydrogen embrittlement of the combustion chamber metals with long term use than implosion.

Magnetics in Electrolysis

While playing w/ electrolysis (it really was playing I guess) I did the most easily conceived experiments, like changing the electrode polarities.
In doing this I learned that while I thought I was building an electrolysizer, I was also building a really lossy battery.
I would have decent production, and then switch the polarities and electrolysis seemed to halt. If you left polarity that way it would slowly recover production to a good fraction of the output it was producing before, but never quite the production it had at first. It behaved like batteries I had shorted or tried charging in the reverse manner.

I then came up with the crazy idea that if I wrapped the cell up like a tesla coil maybe it would increase output.
I wrapped the outside of the immersion cell with 25-30 turns of regular solid core housing wire and made a 2-5 variable turn cone primary out of flexible copper plumbing tubing and used the ends of either coil to supply current to the plates from the electrode posts on the outside.

There might have been a 5% increase in production, but I didn't do enough tests to conclusively state that.
The thing that was surprising was that I could switch polarities at will and acheive the same production either way almost immediately.

The only thing I could think of contributing to this effect was the B field of the current traveling through the coil of wire was keeping the water from "aligning" in a specific way that explained the production retardation without the coil.
I can espouse no coherent theory about why this happened other than the magnetic by-product of electricity moving through the wire that leads me to believe that magnetics could allow for greater DC output, or that it could allow low voltage AC production.
I didn't have the means to investigate this further, and am probably FAR away from an explanation that is well grounded in science, but this how I saw it.

If any member has an explanation of why that behavior occurred with the coil I will be very interested.

Thank you for your indulgence. I look forward to more insights from members into the processes of electrolysis.

[Harvey]

@Exxcomm0n,

Implosion:
H2 and O2 gas are fluid and will fill a volume to provide the best electrical balance, some of the molecules may even combine back to water depending on the ability to release energy. Remember, in this state they represent stored energy. If that volume is sealed and you 'burn' the H2 (force it to oxidize) The result will produce a water molecule and an Oxygen atom which will find another and become O2 again. The electrical distribution shrinks in the process as the space between molecules is taken up - in other words there is no force to hold the molecules apart, the energy has been converted to another form (usually heat or IR photons). Therefore, you have an implosion - it is expected.

Magnetism aiding electrolysis:
There is no reason to think that it would not help. Water molecules are electromagnetic dipoles and will align in electric and magnetic fields accordingly. This means that specific geometry can be applied to move the molecules and turn them so they are in a better position to react with the electrodes.

Also, about 75% of water is composed of orthohydrogen and the other 25% is parahydrogen. These have different magnetic properties and with the proper post fracture treatment the orthohydrogen could be electromagnetically separated out to be burned separately. Why? Because orthohydrogen is exothermic and if it is used in a proper thermolysis reactor it would produce an OU result. The parahydrogen could be burned separately in a preheater. A steady stream of water pumped into the reactor would result in sufficient energy to keep the reactor alive simply by burning the orthohydrogen with energy to spare.

[HairBear]

What are the real differences between voltage and magnetism? It seems to me at the moment that magnetism is a much weaker force to attract and repel charged or polarized particles compared to voltage. For example, it is much easier for me to produce ozone with high voltage where as I get almost nothing with magnetism or at least I do not have the power or devices to make a powerful enough magnet. To me, it would seem the most economical path is to use voltage potentials over magnetism. High voltages are very easily produced with little current, but with magnetism, I need much more current to increase the strength of the magnet.

[exxcomm0n]

I'd like to thank the response I received of my earlier question, and while I might not completely understand or agree with the response, it was nice to have one.

What are the real differences between voltage and magnetism? It seems to me at the moment that magnetism is a much weaker force to attract and repel charged or polarized particles compared to voltage.

I personally think that magnetism and electricity are never exclusive of one another. The more powerful one is, the greater the created effect of the other is due to it.

While voltage can exist without magnetism, it can do no work without it.
Static electricity (high volts, no amps) doesn't go anywhere, hence the static label. But introduce amperage (work) and it travels quite readily and while doing so creates the "B and/or H magnetic field" if confined to a conductive medium (which makes me wonder what kind of magnetic properties an arc might have).

You can have a permanent magnet that has no apparent electric properties unless you have a conductor that can capture the event of a changing magnetic field (work). Once you do, you are generating electricity.

In electrolysis, does the electron moving through the water with electrolyte exhibit magnetic properties? From my prior post I seem to have come to the conclusion that it does in some way as I've seen something inhibit the electron transfer between submerged plates in electrolyte.

Using the observations in that post, it would seem (to my limited knowledge) that the electricity flowing between the plates in a linear fashion would "align the domains" of the water, much in the same way an electric coil can turn soft iron magnetic even after it's exposure to the electromagnetic field produced by the electrically powered coil is over.

The plates in my experiment were upright and the current traveling between them was side to side. That arrangement produced the polarity affinity. Wrapping the exterior of the cell in a coil fashion bottom to top seemed to create a magnetic field either much more powerful than the current traveling between the plates, or aligning them up/down vs. side to side.

I guess the best analogy I can think of is, think of a playing card with an arrow pointing to one end with the other end taped to the flat surface.
If the card is laying on a flat surface due to wind traveling in one direction, and you want to change the direction the arrow is pointing by 180 degrees, you have to lift one end while the other stays taped to the surface and flip it over involving a lot of mechanical work.
This is like my experiment on the way that if I wanted visible production after switching polarities, I'd have to "shock" the water with a MUCH higher amperage [75 amps vs. the normal 10 amps the charger was normally set at when producing with the polarities in the former configuration] to start visible production (I forgot to mention that part in the former post). Then I could drop the amperage to "normal", but it still wouldn't produce as much as it had before.
In short, a lot of "work".

But if the card is standing straight up on the taped edge due the wind forming a vortex with the card @ the center, the amount of mechanical work needed to make the arrow point in either direction is much less, and while it may never lay completely flat due the vortex it can be easily influenced to lean one way or the other.
This is like my experiment with the coiled wire in that I had production no matter which side supplied which polarity. The electricity formed the vortex that kept the domain alignment in a state where little work could influence it either way.

A poor analogy, but the best I can produce @ the moment.

Maybe this is why DC produces so much better production than AC ever could. DC is a steady unidirectional wind while AC is a wind that keeps doubling back upon itself and canceling itself before it can accumulate a significant inertial force to influence anything else.

[Farrah Day]

Here's a bit of interesting reading for all you implosion worshippers.

This is an excerpt of a communication between William Rhodes and Jerry Decker, dated April 2002:

Browns's gas burns in a vacuum, is subject to implosion - as a single reaction - when sparked or heated, has a variable flame temperature of about 138 C to over 6,000 C at which tungsten sublimates and allows transmutation."

** Excuse me! There is no scientific reason why any combustible gas mixture chosen would not burn in a vacuum. This is an oxymoron. The degree of vacuum is not mentioned. Not much of a vacuum can exist with combustion occurring in it. The pumping system merely sucks gases out the burner orifice. "Implosion?" Implosion always occurs in both Brown and Rhodes. All hot gases "implode" on a continuous basis, with continuous combustion. To be proper, it should be called "volume shrinkage". When combustion ceases, regardless of the gas species used the byproducts of combustion and internal atmosphere SHRINKS toward ambient pressure. This is just plain high-school physics, in open air or partial vacuum. So far the author has a failing grade in physics. This implosion myth has been circulating many years. It comes from the scientifically ignorant. **

This nicely supports what I have been trying to convey for a good while now. What knowledge anyone decides to take from this though... is up to them.

Farrah

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

Why insult people that believe in implosion by calling them "worshippers"?

http://www.energeticforum.com/93802-post148.html

But it is a fact there is an implosion. Whether or not it is a simple shrinking of
volume or a "true implosion" is not important - a shrinking of volume is a
shrinking of volume and this is an implosion.

You post that distinction as if it is something new. The distinction
between a shrinkage of volume and a "real" implosion is already known.
I'm sure you can post without being condescending to others that believe
or see things differently than you.

I've asked you about 3-4 times and you ignored the ?'s 100%. When are
you going to post pics, vids and details of your own experiments? You
talk about a lot of things but haven't shown that you have ever actually
built anything that works. Even if you build something that doesn't work,
that is still a good thing that you're not just some pen jockey.

[Farrah Day]

Why insult people that believe in implosion by calling them "worshippers"?

Just struggled for want of a better word at the time, is all. lol You people need to lighten up a little - trust me, you'll know when I'm insulting someone.

I've asked you about 3-4 times and you ignored the ?'s 100%. When are
you going to post pics, vids and details of your own experiments? You
talk about a lot of things but haven't shown that you have ever actually
built anything that works. Even if you build something that doesn't work,
that is still a good thing that you're not just some pen jockey.

It's funny you keep bringing this up, because when I asked for some clarification to what exactly people had on their minds on the Ionization thread, you basically told me to sod off and figure it out for myself!

Yet I am seemingly expected to comply with your wishes... a bit one-sided don't you think?

You show me yours... I'll show you mine, comes to mind.

Farrah

[Harvey]

Here's a bit of interesting reading for all you implosion worshippers.

This is an excerpt of a communication between William Rhodes and Jerry Decker, dated April 2002:

Browns's gas burns in a vacuum, is subject to implosion - as a single reaction - when sparked or heated, has a variable flame temperature of about 138 C to over 6,000 C at which tungsten sublimates and allows transmutation."

** Excuse me! There is no scientific reason why any combustible gas mixture chosen would not burn in a vacuum. This is an oxymoron. The degree of vacuum is not mentioned. Not much of a vacuum can exist with combustion occurring in it. The pumping system merely sucks gases out the burner orifice. "Implosion?" Implosion always occurs in both Brown and Rhodes. All hot gases "implode" on a continuous basis, with continuous combustion. To be proper, it should be called "volume shrinkage". When combustion ceases, regardless of the gas species used the byproducts of combustion and internal atmosphere SHRINKS toward ambient pressure. This is just plain high-school physics, in open air or partial vacuum. So far the author has a failing grade in physics. This implosion myth has been circulating many years. It comes from the scientifically ignorant. **

This nicely supports what I have been trying to convey for a good while now. What knowledge anyone decides to take from this though... is up to them.

Farrah

I'm confused, what have you been trying to convey?

I'm trying to relate those quotes from ??? about hot gases to those under compression in a gasoline internal combustion engine. As far as I know this does not result in implosion, but rather results in explosion and even has residual pressure after the power stroke necessitating both energy to expel the burned gas as well as special piping on the exhaust manifolds to ensure proper scavenging of left over gasses that would other wise push back into the cylinder because of the increased pressure.

While a great deal of water is present in the exhaust of a gasoline engine, it exits hot and vaporized and is usually not condensed until long after it leaves the tailpipes, unless by chance it is cold and the tailpipes chill it enough so you get some drips there at the outlet. But condensation is not implosion. Also, things like gasoline and diesel need pressure for combustion so the statement that all gases burn in a vacuum is quite questionable - it probably has a lot to do with molecular distribution of gas and proximity oxidation.

There seems to be some very good empirical evidence to support the implosion of the HHO combustion cycle:

YouTube - Imploding Piston

YouTube - HHO Explosion and Implosion

YouTube - Implosion of HHO

YouTube - Imploding HHO bottle


I for one am confused by your post - but then again, I don't worship implosions

[Aaron]

experiments past or present?

You show me yours... I'll show you mine, comes to mind.

I have dozens of videos and hundreds of pictures and schematics
of my experiments all over the internet and many are in this forum. Some are
on the water cells but most are not.

Even if you don't have anything up to date, do you at least have any other
experiments from the past posted anywhere that you have designed and
built yourself - even if they're not of the currently discussed ideas?

[Farrah Day]

Harvey

There are quite a few people on these forums that think that the ignition of Rhode's Gas simply causes an implosion (no explosion at all).

In fact the common myth was that such a gas would drive the enigine by sucking up the piston with this implosion, rather than pushing down the piston as in an explosion.

All sorts of rumours then came about whereby the timing would have to be set 180 degrees from normal to facilitate this perceived implosion issue.

Indeed, from what I see here, many people still seem to see implosion as a real issue in an ICE, completely disregarding any explosive element to the reaction.

All I've been trying to convey is that implosion is not an issue within an ICE, and that the gas still explodes.

Regards, Farrah

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

There are quite a few people on thee forums that think that the ignition of Rhode's Gas simply causes an implosion (no explosion at all).

So, there are "quite a few people" on the forums that think it is simply an
implosion right off the bat? Can you please provide
copies of posts as evidence to what you're claiming. You try to make it
seem like everyone that mentions anything
about a contraction/implosion/shrinkage, etc... simply sees that as being
the only thing that is happening. It is plan and simple misrepresentation
of what people are talking about.

It is only a very small percentage of people discussing implosion sucking
up pistons, etc...

Where are these numerous posts by "quite a few people" that claim there
is an implosion without an explosion first or that there is simply an
implosion without any expansion whatsoever regardless of the sequence
of events?

And while you're at it, maybe you can post some experiments that
you have done. You have outright refused about 5 times now to post
any evidence whatsoever that you have ever laid your hands on so much
as a screwdriver to screw a wire to a bolt or at least something.

If you are simply an armchair theorist that never builds anything and has
no idea how things work in the real world, you might as well tell everyone.
But if you do have some hands on experience, then show it. It makes a
lot of difference and will give you some credibility to what you're talking
about.

If you don't post any evidence of your own hands on experiments after
this post, I'll take that as your admittance that you simply do not build
anything at all, probably never have and are simply committed to a reality
based on what you can draw on a piece of paper. Not that there is
anything wrong with that but your convenient vacation right when I asked
you SEVERAL times, your subtle comment about the "project" you're
working on and the "show me yours and I'll show you mine" - is completely
suspicious and really leans towards the more probable reality that you
have no experimental experience and don't want to admit it. Perhaps I'm
wrong here, but you have never provided evidence to the contrary. Not
only have you not, you refuse to.

Maybe I'm the only one in this forum that actually wants to see if
you have any evidence that you do experiments or not and if I am the
only one, then maybe I'm way off base even asking you. But I think it
is a fair question.

I already said - you could post something from an old experiment just to
show that you have some experience building something. I have done that
countless times. Even if it is not related to the water cells and even if
they are older experiments on some other energy technology, please post
it.