Basic Electrolysis

[Farrah Day]

Dosen't this thread highlight just how differently we all see the process of basic electrolysis - and how little some of us really understand it.

Harvey

Thus a motive force exists to cause those 'neutral' molecules to move toward the electrode due to field differential across its dipole body. Thus they will contact the electrode and initiate ionization which leads to dissociation.

I see things very differently to you, but that is not to say I'm right. You have water molecules reacting at the electrode, I have ions.

It may be thought that 100% pure H2O in a vacuum sealed Electrolysis Device would never begin the process.

My argument about the Meyer WFC was always from around about page 2 of his technical brief whereby he gave water a relative permitivity of, I think 74 (the fact that he he gave the figure in Ohms didn't do anything for my confidence in him). But in any case as you rightly say atmospheric gases quickly dissolve in water making it far less than pure H2O - after all fish survive quite nicely on the dissolved oxygen.

But we do know that water self-ionises through intermolecular movement, and this is happening continually, so even water in a vacuum would contain ions - and so should electrolysis to a certain extent.


Suchayo

I think you might be confusing things here:

BTW, I think electrolysis is water dissociation, not water ionization:

I'm not sure why you would say this, because if you knew even the basic electrolysis process from high school, you would know that the two processes go hand in hand. Unless of course you know something that no one else does.

If ionisation is not occurring during electrolysis, how is the water molecule dissociating exactly? What is the reaction happening at the electrodes?

To be of any value, your statement needs to be clarified and you need to elaborate on the reactions taking place. Simply pasting portions of Wikipedia is of no help, and if anything tends to rather emphasise your lack of understanding of the subject as a whole.

One thing is clear, we all know electrolysis works, but we all have differing interpretations of just how it works!

Regards, Farrah.

[stevie1001]

Bockris

Hi Farrah,

Think you will like this document.
Not sure if you already know this.

regards
stevie

[Farrah Day]

Thanks Stevie

But yes, I am already aware of that Bockris paper.

Regards, Farrah.

[sucahyo]

If ionisation is not occurring during electrolysis, how is the water molecule dissociating exactly? What is the reaction happening at the electrodes?

This is the kind of water molecule structure that I use now (the other one is too voodoo like in this forum, would make me look even stupidder ):




Test on Content Materials

There are three types of bonds:
Ionic - a loosely bound electron from one atom "transfers" a deeper orbital of another
Covalent - two electrons are "shared" between the two atoms
Metallic - crystalline structures
The orbit shells' maximum fillings (completion number) are as follows:
First shell - two electrons
Second shell - eight electrons
Third shell - eighteen electrons
The really stable compounds have a completed number of electrons in the valence shell. In other words, in looking at HCL, the valence shell gets a completed number of 8 electrons in the compound. Chlorine has 7 electrons, and hydrogen shares one - for 8 to be stable.

In water, oxygen has 6 valence electrons. The two hydrogen atoms each provide one electron to complete the valence shell of 8. The valence shell is the orbit shell most loosely bound, or the one furthest from the nucleus.

There is 10 electron in water. 8 belong to oxygen, 1 for each hydrogen. 2 of the oxygen electron is stable orbitting the inner orbital, there are 6 unstable electron at outer orbital. To be stable oxygen atom need 8 in outer shell (or 2 in hydrogen cases). When dissociated there will be:
- 1 oxygen atom with 8 electron
- 2 hydrogen atom having 1 electron each.

The first image show a line showing each share electron.

As they stabilize, oxygen atom that bond with oxygen atom will form oxygen molecule with 16 electron. Each will see 10 electron, 8 in the outer shell, 6 is its own, and 2 belong to other oxygen. Since there is two shared electron, it is counted as two bound.

Hydrogen that bond with hydrogen will see two, one is its own, one belong to other hydrogen. Only one shared electron, one bond.

[witsend]

Hi sucahyo,

That oxygen has 8 valence electrons? Is it looking for balance with 10 provided by the two hydrogens? Or do two electrons then leave it to go into an alternative orbit? Somewhere? Leaving a total of 8 valence electrons two shared with the hydrogen?

And what about hard water? That has a third hydrogen atom? Surely that would be massively unstable?

Thanks for the illustration by the way. It's great. I'm trying to work out what happens with alkaline solutions where one of those molecules has an experienced imbalance as a result of less electrons to the proton count. It's not from want to trying but I can't find this. Can you help out here? What I have read is that alkaline molecular constructs have a metallic base?

Apologies if I'm stressing your patience here. Just struggling with these basic concepts. I get it that the valence condition is usable when it's 'unstable'. We know that there are such things as alkaline batteries that generate current flow. But what teases my logic is the thought that electrons can be stripped from any ion that already has a lack of electrons - to induce that current flow of electrons required by mainstream. That would make it doubly ionised - doubly cationic? Surely not that easy to achieve?

Also, are these bonding conditions 'known'. Or are they assessed?

[sucahyo]

That oxygen has 8 valence electrons? Is it looking for balance with 10 provided by the two hydrogens? Or do two electrons then leave it to go into an alternative orbit? Somewhere? Leaving a total of 8 valence electrons two shared with the hydrogen?

Sorry, my post a bit weird since I just learn it.

Oxygen has 2 electron at the first orbital. 6 electron at the second orbital, this make 6 valence electrons. To be stable it need to be 8.

Hydrogen has 1 electron at the first orbital, this make 1 valence electron. To be stable it need to be 2.

By sharing electron two hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom create stable molecule.

No electron is going somewhere else. During combining two inner most electron of oxygen do not change, only the 6 outer will arrange with two electron from hydrogen.

And what about hard water? That has a third hydrogen atom? Surely that would be massively unstable?

I don't know, isn't it deuterium is one of its component?

Deuterium. During observations on the electrolysis of water a very few examples of two Hydrogen atoms united in a temporary alliance were seen. These two atoms were of varieties 1 and 2 and placed themselves at right angles to each other as in Fig. 18. This group of two Hydrogen atoms would have double the weight of ordinary Hydrogen, as is required for Deuterium.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

If we start at the beginning, mainstream science gives electrons orbital shells around the nucleus according to the Neils Bhor model.

Each shell allows only a specific maximum electron count.

These shell count maximums are: 2 electrons for the inner most shell and 8 for the second shell. The third and fourth shells depend upon the element in question and can be anything from 8 – 18 electrons for the third shell, and 8 – 32 electrons for the fourth shell.

And within each shell, there are sub-shells (basically depicting the energy state of the electrons - but no need to go there).

This might help:

Electron & Shell Configuration: Quick Chemistry Facts

Oxygen has atomic number 8 and has a valency of two (not six), giving the electron shell configuration of 2,6.

It is called valancy two because ideally oxygen would like two extra electrons to complete its outer shell. Elements with full shells are by their very nature much more stable and so less reactive. Check out the Noble (or inert) gases on the link above.

Hydrogen has valency one, and would like to acquire another electron to complete its inner shell.

So, this is why two hydrogen atoms bind with an oxygen atom to form water. It is much more stable configuration as the oxygen atom is effectively completing its outer electron shell by ‘borrowing’ an electron from each of the two hydrogen atoms, whilst each hydrogen atom borrows an electron from the oxygen atom. Sharing electrons to form a more stable compound - hence covalent bonding.

Your hard water – Hydronium H3O+, is an ion not an atom, and yes is quite unstable. Given the chance it will readily bond with a OH- to give 2 x H2O. The fact is that with an applied potential difference in an electrolyser, we pull these ions apart preventing them from easy re-association. Without the potential difference across the electrodes, the hydronuim would not take long to bond with a OH-. Indeed, withou a pd, this is happening all the time within the water due to self-ionisation.

Suchayo is thinking of 'Heavy Water', which is water enriched with the isotope deuterium (D2O). This is basically water that contains hydrogen that also has a neutron, so it is twice the weight of normal hydrogen – hence the term Heavy Water.

An alkaline electrolyte in water will be overall neutral, just as an acid electrolyte would be. Both ionise in water but the cations and anions will balance. But I sense you're looking for something here that I'm not seeing.

Anyway, hope this helps

Farrah

[witsend]

Thanks for that Farrah. You've definitely scored brownie points here. Very commendably patient and much, much appreciated. I know you're bottom feeding at this elementary level of input.

I'll get back to you on where I'm trying to go with this.

I might add - it's a pleasure to have you on the forum. So seldom one sees knowledge advanced without 'ego'. Maybe it's a 'girl' thing. LOL. Or rather I should say it's a rare thing - regardless of gender. I'll get banned for being gender biased. God forbid.

[Farrah Day]

lol. I daresay I'll get banned long before you Rosemary. I seem to be doing a grand job of grating on Aarons nerves on the Ionization and Water Fuel thread. I just can't help poking my nose in!

Regards, Farrah.

[HairBear]

Yeah, the moderation here is even opposed to my Bertrand Russell signature I had earlier which seemed to offend them. Deletion and modification of others posts is the norm here too. I may even be banned for my opinion on this post, I guess we will see...

[witsend]

Farrah and HairBear - Hi

Not sure that 'difference' of opinion matters that much. It would make for an excessively boring read if everyone simply agreed with everyone else. I think the object here is to 'share' ideas - not opinions about the people who have those ideas. And I don't think either of you breach this object. That's my take anyway.

To speak up in defense of this mission of this forum - there's an uncompromising spirit of goodwill - a sort of onwards and upwards reach - in defiance of all the '****' that we get from our media - news - and the rest. I see it as a kind of 'haven' where we can all eccentrically or otherwise, do our best to keep all kinds of 'hope' alive. Not many such safe harbours. Trust me. I've been out there. And I think that's well worth preserving. The downside is that there's a needed paring of the contributors and their contributions. Can be quite brutal. I've seen this. But it's a vulnerable reach and I think it probably needs all the protection it can get. And I also think that it's fair handed. It's a welcome change from being banned for being guilty of nothing more than advancing questions. I know this. I'm a victim of that attitude. And I think you have too Farrah.

Anyway - that's my take. And that's one of the reasons I find these threads so addictive.

[HairBear]

I would like to thank vrand for linking some information I think may shed more light on the subject at hand.

K9 Passage of electricity through gases

If you let an electric field act on the fog (say, insert two parallel plates, connected to the poles of a battery into the space), you will see that the droplets migrate in equal numbers to the positive and negative poles. We recall here the electrolytic processes in which also very small charged particles - ions - carry the current. The processes in electrically conducting gases are indeed similar, however with one important difference. In the electrolyte, the ions already exist, in gases they must first be generated. The formation of ions in gases is called ionization, the gas in its state of conductivity is ionized, the equipment for the formation of ions is an ionizer. (Ionization by means of ultra-violet light, X-rays, radioactive rays, glowing metals, burning gas, electronic collision.)

K10 Passage of electricity through gases

the specific charge of the hydrogen ion yields new insight of fundamental importance. An amount of electricity of 95,730 Coulomb (equal to 9573 electro-magnetic units in the CGS-system) must pass through an electrolyte, in order to separate 1 g hydrogen. This quantity of electricity must be completely attached to hydrogen atoms, that is, to hydrogen ions, since otherwise the quantities, separated by the current, could not be proportional to the atomic weights, as Faraday's law requires. Hence the ratio between the total quantity of electricity E, passing through the electrolyte, and the the total separated amount of substance (1 g H2) is just as large as the ratio of the charge of a single H-ion eH to the mass mH of this ion, that is, E/1 = eH/mH = 9573 electromagnetic units. Thus, for the hydrogen atom, the ratio e/m is 1839 times smaller as (cf. above) the corresponding ratio for the cathode ray particle. However, the charge of an H-ion is as large as that of a single cathode ray particle. Hence the difference can only be due to the mass. The cathode ray particle, the mass of which therefore must be 1839 times smaller than that of the hydrogen atom - this also contradicts the view that atoms are the smallest components of matter - cannot consist of the atom of a known element; it must be a hitherto unknown, almost mass free object, indeed, an object of a universal kind, for these particles are always of the same kind whatever is the gas in the discharge tube or the material of the electrodes. It is not the mass, but the electric charge which determines the character of these particles; they are atoms of negative electricity. Following a suggestion by George Johnston Stoney 1826-1911 1891, they are called electrons. An independent, positive electricity atom has hitherto only been found under special experimental conditions. As a rule, positive electricity is tied to mass. The smallest is H+ - the proton.

Thanks again vrand! Very valuable information for my research. This is his Thread...

Corona Discharge

Farrah! Are you still here? You didn't get yourself banned did you?

[Farrah Day]

Hangin' in here by the skin of my teeth... I've got to learn to master my frustration and control my tongue!

Farrah

[Aaron]

@Hair Bear

Yeah, the moderation here is even opposed to my Bertrand Russell signature I had earlier which seemed to offend them. Deletion and modification of others posts is the norm here too. I may even be banned for my opinion on this post, I guess we will see...

That is a great post on the ionization by collision. That k9 site I have
posted it here myself multiple times in this forum.

But I don't know who "them" is. I didn't notice the signature personally
but saying that deletion and modification of posts is normal here is simply
not true. If something is moderated, it is because it violates the rules, period.

On a personal level, any thread I happen to start, off topic posts can be
deleted. ANYONE that starts a thread and feels that the posts are
completely off topic can request moderation. So, no, it is not the "norm"
to have this happen.

Look at the number of threads/posts/members, etc... it is very rare to
have anything moderated, deleted, etc... and this is the reality of
Energetic Forum. The purpose of this forum is to share information. Many
threads and posts I personally don't agree with, yet they remain here.
That is because I believe everyone should speak their mind respectfully
but when someone comes into a thread with attitude and is disrespectful
and disruptive, obviously some posts may get deleted.

But to imply that anything is changed or modified in order to censor some
idea, that is simply untrue. I personally deleted some insulting posts in
the ionization thread but those are posts that had no content related to
the topic and were only posted to either antagonize or insult myself
or someone else in the thread. Other than that, all the posts in that
thread that were not only a post to insult remain for the record. Go there
and you can read them for yourself. I disagree with the opinions in them
but they remain.

My only concern is that I would wish for plain and simple authenticity
when referring to Energetic Forum and how posts are managed and it
is not managed in any such way that you are mentioning Hair Bear.

This is my only comment on this. This is an electrolysis thread and I'm
only posting on this topic because you mentioned this, which I disagree
with and the posts that remain in all the threads are a testimony to the
fact that what I am saying is the reality.

Look at the Stanley Meyer Explained thread. At this point, I disagree with
a great deal of what is posted in that thread. However, that thread
remains intact and complete as it was before it was locked so everyone can
read BOTH sides of the opinions. That is the reality of it.

[Farrah Day]

Ok Aaron.

For the good of the forum I propose a truce. Can we start anew?

I've had numerous emails from people who seem to think that between us we might actually make a good team if only we could learn to get along. You clearly have a passion for what you are doing, along with an inquiring mind. I love science and thrive on learning.

So, I formally apologise to you for my attitude. I'm sorry.

I will endeavour to be civil from this point forward.

You will have noticed that I do struggle to contain my frustration, which then often boils over into sarcasm and rudeness.

I also tend to be rather blunt in my posts which never endears me to anyone. I've never been good at subtlety and as you've seen, my diplomatic skills are less than favourable, which can quickly lead to personality clashes.

However, I'm tired of wasting all this time and energy on pointless arguing. Though I doubt we will ever see eye-to-eye in everything, let's at least try to look at all the angles and be scientific in our approaches.

I'm prepared to let bygones be bygones if you are.

Regards, Farrah.