Basic Electrolysis

[Farrah Day]

Blimey HB, you don't want to be making too much ozone and you certainly don't want to be breathing it in.

It's quite toxic and will burn your lungs given the chance!

Farrah

[HairBear]

LOL! Thank you for the advice, although, O3 is not on my menu. I wanted to point out how the O3 is produced. There is a reversed reaction that will produce positive ions by just changing the polarity. What is the proper term for a positively ionized Oxygen atom? I can't seem to find a definite answer.

[Farrah Day]

HB, I'm not aware that ions of elements are given particular names. I assume it would simply be called a positive oxygen ion.

I do know that because of the higher oxygen content O3 and the loosely bond oxygen arrangement, O3 will oxidise much easier than O2. Effectively it will support combustion at a greater rate and temperature than O2.

It's not as stable as O2, but it's not particularly hard to create. In the atmosphere of course O2 can absorb a UV photon which increases an electrons energy level, destabilising the molecule, which then dissociates. As atomic hydrogen is not very stable at all it quickly combines with a nearby O2 molecule to form O3. I believe that the O3 can then be dissociated into O2 an O by the absorbtion of another UV photon, and hence is the reason why the ozone layer protects the Earth from so much dangerous UV

Likewise, the presence of a high electric field can cause an electron in the O2 molecule to move to a higher energy level so too destabilising the molecule. I would assume O3 generaters use this method.

However, (and I may well be wrong here) I'm not sure ions are involved in the reactions. I have always thought that there is no charge exchange involved, just the fact that an electron has been pushed into a higher energy state.

Regards, Farrah.

[sebosfato]

Hi Farra day

You made the right question, so here goes the right answer:

When you add an electrolyte to the water what happens is that you ionized the water, Yes you already have separated the oxygen from the hydrogen. But they still together inside the water. Combined.

When you pass a current it will behave like a plasma, so 1 ion goes to one side and the other the other side, the min voltage needed 1,24 volts is the minimum physical force you need to do to keep the charges apart enough to be able to free the oxygen or hydrogen from to and allowing the electrolyte to oxidize or reduce (ionize) another water molecule again.

Whenever you add an electrolyte to the water it will lose its dielectric proprieties as it will be a dielectric with too much losses... remember this!

There are other ways to ionize the water other than adding electrolyte...

Tip when you have a voltage difference in two plates placed inside distilled water, close to the positive side it will be more acid and the one close to the negative side will be more basic. Thats what really is the polarization.

[sebosfato]

Hi Farra day

I think that i already answered your question, however i would add

Electrolysis using a membrane could become more efficient because for the atoms should be more difficult to recombine.

the capacitance of the water should be = to area in cm2*81/4/3,141592/0,001/(9*10^11)

9*10^11= 900000000000
/ = to divided
* = to multiplied
^= exp
() should be calculated before

Can anyone confirm this formula?
or if it is = area in cm2*81/4*3,141592/0,001/(9*10^11)
If this second is the right would be much better

Regards

[sucahyo]

However, (and I may well be wrong here) I'm not sure ions are involved in the reactions. I have always thought that there is no charge exchange involved, just the fact that an electron has been pushed into a higher energy state.

Atom that missing electron is called ion.


On topic, Faraday:

Faraday's Experiments on the Connection between Electricity and Chemical Affinity* The power of decomposing substances was the practical benefit obtained by the discovery; but it had another great interest for chemists, because it proved that electricity can overcome that power called 'chemical affinity,' which holds two or more elements together in one compound substance. You will remember that Bergmann, and indeed Newton before him, pointed out that there is some force which causes certain bodies to choose each other out when they meet, and to unite firmly so as to become a new substance which has its own peculiar characters. Chlorine and sodium, for example, when heated, unite to form common salt, which is not the least like either chlorine or sodium when they are separate ; and in the same way hydrogen and oxygen unite to form water. In these new states they are held together by a power which for want of a better name we call chemical attraction,' or chemical affinity.'

He showed in the first place that a substance cannot be decomposed by electricity unless it is a good conductor, so that the current passes readily along it. Thus, ice being a bad conductor, the slightest film of ice interposed between the water and the electric wires will prevent the current from setting free the oxygen and hydrogen ; and ether and alcohol cannot be decomposed at all by electricity, because they will not conduct the current. He also showed that the electric current itself does not depend upon any effect which the two metals have directly...

[sucahyo]

Electrolysis using a membrane could become more efficient because for the atoms should be more difficult to recombine.

The purposes of membrant is to separate H2 and O2, not neccessarily more efficient.

[witsend]

Hi Farrah,

I've been following this thread since its inception - but am not qualified to comment. I do have some questions however.

Where did our water first come from? It appears to be a molecular bonding with all the attributes of superglue. And having married in that condition of perfect co-valence bonding I've been told that the crystal is 'so pure' that a bucket of water, a swimming pool, an ocean - could be regarded as a 'single molecule'. Any random ions, plant forms, life forms - all introducing nothing more spectacular than localised variations to that instrincally bonded - married - condition of those molecules.

If the quantity is fixed - then could it be that the bonding is first also dependant on an applied 'pressure' or an applied heat that may have been evident at some earlier stage of our earth's geographical formation - some point where the mass held bound in the hot centre of our planet's sphere - precisely equalled the required conditions to promote that bonding. And having reached that point it then generated exactly as much water as we now have on our planet? And that's now it? No more water available?

A few questions then come to mind. Firstly, I would imagine that we need to reverse those conditions of either pressure and heat or both - to some sort of experimental apparatus that can withstand that amount of pressure or heat - or both. Secondly if we did this, then would we access unheard of quantities of electrical energy at the expense of our water supply? Is there enough water to sustain this need? Unless, of course, the hydrogen then simply recombined with the oxygen that we're left with that same initial quantity? That would make good sense.

But the systematic release of ions that have first been added to that water? I'm entirely satisfied that this would induce current flow. The question however is how much energy is needed to manufacture those ions in the first instance? And then - any release of that energy into current flow? Does that equal the amount of energy first applied to generate those ions? I have no idea of the answers here.

I see an awful lot written about 'water cleavage' but the most of it seems theoretical. Wiki indicates that there's a theoretical potential of introducing the required heat - to manage that decoupling at a 50% efficiency - but that's only inside our nuclear reactors. God forbid that clean energy is then first at the cost of unclean energy. My question is simply - how easy is it to separate hydrogen from oxygen given only two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen - your standard water molecule?

Personally - I would love to believe in this chemistry to answer to our energy needs. And given the interest I'm sure that something could be done. Using UV lighting should make it very attractive. There's plenty of gets past our ozone shields. But I've also read that there's not enough UV to use this as a catalyst. Or not enough to economically use this?

As you see I have ALL questions and NO answers.

[Farrah Day]

I've been following this thread since its inception - but am not qualified to comment. I do have some questions however.

Where did our water first come from? It appears to be a molecular bonding with all the attributes of superglue. And having married in that condition of perfect co-valence bonding I've been told that the crystal is 'so pure' that a bucket of water, a swimming pool, an ocean - could be regarded as a 'single molecule'. Any random ions, plant forms, life forms - all introducing nothing more spectacular than localised variations to that instrincally bonded - married - condition of those molecules.

With reference to water, it seems to have many strange properties that even scientist within this field of research are struggling to understand. I too am nowhere near qualified enough in this field to provide answers with any great conviction, because as the heading of this thread suggests, if we consider the complexities of water, basic electrolysis offers very little in terms of the electrochemistry involved.

To the best of my understanding water molecules also 'clump', effectively into larger molecules such as H5O2 and H7O4 amongst others. And the Hydrogen atom moves about from Oxygen atom to Oxygen atom within these clumps (or large molecules). Water it seems is constantly active.

Do more than scratch the surface and the science of water and electrolysis quickly becomes quite complex.

If the quantity is fixed - then could it be that the bonding is first also dependant on an applied 'pressure' or an applied heat that may have been evident at some earlier stage of our earth's geographical formation - some point where the mass held bound in the hot centre of our planet's sphere - precisely equalled the required conditions to promote that bonding. And having reached that point it then generated exactly as much water as we now have on our planet? And that's now it? No more water available?

I truly have no idea on this, I have always assumed the planet's water cycle maintains a balance through nature... but perhaps not.

A few questions then come to mind. Firstly, I would imagine that we need to reverse those conditions of either pressure and heat or both - to some sort of experimental apparatus that can withstand that amount of pressure or heat - or both. Secondly if we did this, then would we access unheard of quantities of electrical energy at the expense of our water supply? Is there enough water to sustain this need? Unless, of course, the hydrogen then simply recombined with the oxygen that we're left with that same initial quantity? That would make good sense.

But the systematic release of ions that have first been added to that water? I'm entirely satisfied that this would induce current flow. The question however is how much energy is needed to manufacture those ions in the first instance? And then - any release of that energy into current flow? Does that equal the amount of energy first applied to generate those ions? I have no idea of the answers here.

There is a very interesting experiment called the Lord Kelvins Water Dropper Experiment, whereby dripping water effectively creates a bucket of negatively charged ionised water and another of positively charged ionised water. Set up correctly, before very long a spark will jump across in order to neutralise the potential difference. So ionising water is not particularly difficult, and very high voltage potentials can be created.

My goal has always been to try to develop a way to very efficiently separate water into it's constituent gases, and use the resultant gases to run an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine). The by-product of which is mostly water. But this is everyone's goal too. It is easy to run a car on Hydrogen, what is hard is making enough on-demand to do so.

There are many accounts of people doing just this, some alive some dead, but to-date no hard evidence that anyone has - or is - achieving this. Though, I might add many will dispute the issue vehemently.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells by contrast use the electrochemical properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen in a different way, by passing Hydrogen through a special cell which combines it with Oxygen. The result being water and electricity. In this case the electricity derived can be used to drive an electric motor. Effectively the reverse process to electrolysis. (But of course you have to have acquired the hydrogen from somewhere in the first place)

I see an awful lot written about 'water cleavage' but the most of it seems theoretical. Wiki indicates that there's a theoretical potential of introducing the required heat - to manage that decoupling at a 50% efficiency - but that's only inside our nuclear reactors. God forbid that clean energy is then first at the cost of unclean energy. My question is simply - how easy is it to separate hydrogen from oxygen given only two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen - your standard water molecule?

Electrolysis. Not hard, but not very efficient, and depending on electrolyser design, anything from 30% - 70%. Theoretically it can be a lot higher, but this usually implies ideal conditions... and there are a lot of conditions that need to be met.

Many people claim that you can cleave (or fracture) water into 2H2 and O2 simply by placing it between a high enough electric field. This is the basis of Meyer's WFC. Many people believe this like their lives depended on it, but no one has yet to achieve this and have it independently, unequivocally and categorically verified.

Personally - I would love to believe in this chemistry to answer to our energy needs. And given the interest I'm sure that something could be done. Using UV lighting should make it very attractive. There's plenty of gets past our ozone shields. But I've also read that there's not enough UV to use this as a catalyst. Or not enough to economically use this?

As you see I have ALL questions and NO answers.

This chemistry and electrochemistry fascinates me, and I tend to dig far deeper into processes than many, which is why no one seems to understand where I'm coming from half the time!

It seems to me that most people are very unscientific in their approaches, clearly with little or no scientific background, getting by on the vaguest of scientific notions. These people seem to have no real interest in the science and certainly no concept of what is happening on a molecular level, and yet talk like they're experts in the field. This does frustrate and annoy me.

I think that if we undersood more about what was happening at atomic and molecular level, then we might begin to understand a lot more about the processes and interations as a whole

It's a shame this isn't your field Rosemary, because I for one would value your insight.

Regards, Farrah.

[Farrah Day]

Thanks Vickers

Cool thread. I like u farrah.

Trust me, you are definitely in the minority.

Though it's not so much that I am patient as such, I just prefer to get to the bottom of things and work forward in a logical manner.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people expect to build working models without having any idea of what is occuring at molecular/atomic level. Without knowing or understanding the processes and reactions that are taking place, how can anyone possibly expect to efficiently influence these processes and reactions. Half the people have no idea what they are trying to achieve in any intermediate stage.

Mind you, most people experimenting with electrolysers do not even understand Faraday's simple laws on the subject. That does not stop them achieving over-Faraday results left, right and centre!

Certainly in many theories, assumptions have to be made, and science does tend to progress this way.

Assumptions then either bear out in proof of concept models or they do not, theories fold and we're back to the drawing board. Fair enough.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions if they seem to fit the process, but people cannot leave it at that and simply assume they are unquestionably correct in everything, as many here seem to be doing. The key thing is to prove or disprove theories which will either give any assumptions therein credibility or not.

Clearly there are members of the forum with enough interest to participate, but without enough education or knowledge to intelligently converse in the science - but that doesn't stop them 'teaching' others!

I'm not against people learning on these forums, indeed it's all about sharing information, knowledge, exchanging insights and ideas - that's all part of being a member. It's the conceited few that make out they know it all and post utter garbage that infuriates me so.

One of my favourite quotes highlights this point nicely:

It's what you learn after you think you know it all that really counts!

But I'm waffling again...

Regards, Farrah

[HairBear]

With all due respect to the process in question, The method of high voltage applications, in my opinion, has not been fully addressed. It is most evident to anyone working with such high potentials that a new set of problems arise that may shed more light on the process. The biggest problem I can see right away is the arcing between the plates. How do you suppose I can keep a high potential between two plates without the current flowing? How do they do it in air ionizers? Somehow the air ionizer circuits can hold high voltage without arcing and produce an "ionic wind" along with the smell of Ozone. Can anyone explain how the reactions of air ionizers make Ozone?

[Farrah Day]

Hi HB

First I think you'll find that Ozone generators and ionisers are two different things, though ionisers might by their very nature produce a very small amount of O3.

Ionisers use sharp needles to concentrate the potential and do not provide an earth source or return like our WFC.

Yep, the crux of the Meyer matter has always been how can you possibly put 5KV or more across tap water without it conducting. Well you can't can you... it quite happily conducts from around just 1.25 volts!

And we can forget the often quoted dielectric constant (80ish) of water as coming to anyones defence or indeed being of any help whatsoever. This is just not so... tap water is a better conductor than it is an insulator. In fact to call it a capacitor of any description is stretching the imagination. It's simply a non-linear resistor.

Peter Lindemman is the fella to ask:

YouTube - Peter Lindemann about Stanley Meyers patent

Farrah

Incidentally HB, did PeterPierre ever live up to his hype on the other forum? I can no longer access it.

[HairBear]

Yes, all coronal discharge ionizers and Ozone generators(Ozone is an ion) have a ground plate or some call it a collector plate. And with these very simple devices we can see the method of keeping the plates from arcing. I was hoping you might look a little deeper and see that.

All circuits put aside, the prior question still applies. What is the process of Ozone production from O2 and high voltage potentials?

Oh peterpierre! I have a very difficult time understanding his gibberish and I suspect he may drink a little too much. He has eluded to some strange ideas that make me want to distance myself from him. His last post really creeped me out and I haven't been notified of a post since. That site has gone to poopoo anyway. It's all mass produced propaganda now. Believe me, your not missing anything.

[HairBear]

Let me google that for you

[Farrah Day]

Yes, all coronal discharge ionizers and Ozone generators(Ozone is an ion) have a ground plate or some call it a collector plate. And with these very simple devices we can see the method of keeping the plates from arcing. I was hoping you might look a little deeper and see that.

All circuits put aside, the prior question still applies. What is the process of Ozone production from O2 and high voltage potentials?

HB, to be honest I'm not that knowledgable on Ozone generators. I know how Ozone can be produced but without researching it further I do not know the actual electronics behind such units.

But it's all about exciting electrons to higher energy levels whereby the O2 molecule becomes unstable and loses cohesion. This can be achieved by UV or high voltage. Both methods excite electrons, the O2 becomes unstable as a molecule and dissociates, but it is extremely unstable as an atom, so quickly recombines with another stable O2 molecule. While not being as stable as O2, the O3 arrangement is more stable than atomic hydrogen.

HB, where do you get the idea that Ozone is an ion? It's simply O3 - three oxygen atoms combined into a molecule. O2 is not an ion, adding a third oxygen atom does not create an ion unless they are short of, or have a surplus of electrons... they don't.

Regards, Farrah.