Basic Electrolysis

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

You got it. Were were posted at the same time and
as I was posting, that possibility was running through my mind.

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

I dont' know how that happened. I was
in the haber bosch thread and wound up
here. Saw the posts, responded,
well 314am here, maybe a sign I need to
finally sleep.

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

So keep this post
http://www.energeticforum.com/93413-post111.html
in mind when you go to the haber thread.

[Farrah Day]

Yeah, look Aaron we've been at each others throats too much for too long and it's inhibiting any kind of progess.

So let's put aside our differences and try to make some headway. I'll stop being short and rude, which should at least alleviate a little tension.

However, we clearly have some differences of opinion that are not just simply going to go away, so it would be nice if we could overcome a few of these hurdles in a civilised manner.

As I see it, the very first major hurdle we need to overcome is the explosion/ implosion of H2 in O2.

And to be honest I'm not sure how we can come to any kind of agreement on this as you seem adamant that implosion is a problem, whereas I am adamant it is not.

All I can say is that H2 can be used in an ICE with the ignition timing advanced, and it works just fine. I know I keep harping back to WWII, but I know this because my grandfather synthesised hydrogen from aluminium in acid, to run his small business truck during the fuel shortage. He had a large canvas balloon that had being impregnated with some kind of plasticiser to make it air tight, which he attached onto the roof of his truck. He simply filled it with hydrogen. Nothing else, no additives or anything - just resetting the ignition timing. I know he couldn't get far with this set up, but it made it possible for him to make local coal deliveries.

The implosion theory holds out well enough, until that is, you consider the residual thermal energy remaining after the explosion phase which prevents the water molecule contracting into liquid state.

I have stated this numerous times now, and I'm obviously not going to convince you of this, likewise nor will you convince me of the implosion problem, so perhaps we should politely agree to disagree.

We really need the unbiased input from an authority on the subject to settle the issue once and for all.

The main problem with our major scientific disagreements is that, unless we sort them out, one or both of us are basing everything we put forward thereafter on unsure footing. And of course we are influencing other forum members too.

We need to find some common ground otherwise we will have to stay clear of each other and post opposing science and theories on completely different threads.

Which perhaps is not such a bad idea. Members can then see both sides of the coin, and decide for themselves which science or theories have the most merit - while me and you are not constantly trying to tear a strip off each other!

Farrah

Incidentally, my reference to Wikipedia on the other thread, was light-heartedly aimed at Sucayho, who continually quotes from that source.

[Aaron]

@Farrah Day

As I see it, the very first major hurdle we need to overcome is the explosion/ implosion of H2 in O2.

And to be honest I'm not sure how we can come to any kind of agreement on this as you seem adamant that implosion is a problem, whereas I am adamant it is not.

I think there are maybe some assumptions made on what my problem with
implosion is. It is the reassembly of h2o. The water creation is the problem
because it damages an engine. This really is a fact that this water does
cause problems. The implosion of shrinking in volume is not much of a concern
to me because it can be worked around.

The other problem is the speed that the hho combusts, which is much too
fast and gives not much mechanical power compared to true thermal
combustion, which does not happen with hho alone.

One fatal flaw in H2opower's claim that the nitrogen simply gets in the way
of a water molecule forming is that you can run a small engine on hho,
it is breathing ample ambient air as well with 78% nitrogen and that
78% nitrogen does not get in the way of that hho recombining into hoh
and is evidenced by the fact of the extremely rapid explosion. 1600 feet
per second or something like that. Why does that nitrogen not get in the
way of hho recombining in open air or in these small motors?

When ionizing nitrogen, that prevents the recombination of hho into hoh
and slows down the burn to release true thermal energy and give a real
explosion without the detrimental water forming. So it isn't necessarily
the implosion that is the problem - it is the water that is formed from the
recombination, which happens to happen with an implosion.

You keep mentioning h2 / o2 but that is not what hho or "Brown's Gas"
is. It is h2/o and acts completely different from the gases electrolyzed
and separated and brought back together to burn.

You can have three 1 liter bottles of hho and do you know that they
can have large differences in the power they can release? There are
three general stages of power that can be gotten from hho. There are
stages 1 & 2 (2 is stronger) and the third is known as Hypergas coined by
George Wiseman and the power of the third one (same volume) is
practically exponentially stronger. I have experienced this hypergas in
a couple tests where a very small bubble of gas exploded with the force
of an M-80 firecracker that nearly made my friend deaf and shocked me
so bad I nearly fell to the ground from about 10-15 feet away.

[Armagdn03]

Perhaps a different point of view....

Atoms are attracted to each other via a condition named electronegativity.
Atoms of differing charge attract when they have opposing charges, which is entirely dependent on the charge of the individual atoms, and the field in which they are immersed. For example, a +2 charge and a +4 charge will oppose one another because of their differing charges and not unite. However this implies the ground state or zero plane lies at 0.

Say we move the ground charge to +3.

Now the particles in question have a respective charge of -1 and +1. (+2 is one below +3 hence -1, and +4 is one above +3 hence charge of +1). Now the charges which once repelled now wish to unite in closure.

Notice that all we have done to alter the respective attraction vs. repulsion is change the environment in which they particles sit. (apply an electric field across the element we wish to unite, or disassociate)

Notice also that as we move perpendicular to the earths surface, we alter our electric plane of zero. Hence we find different stable combination's of elements. At the surface, water in liquid form is common. As we move up different potential zones, different stable combination's become apparent. (but only in that electric condition they are immersed in) such as ozone etc.

I think you can see how this plays into electrolysis. At different potential zones, the individual molecules may become more attracted to the electrodes than the attraction to one another, or said another way, they may enter a zone in which they are no longer attracted and rather repulsed by one another.


This is also a great segway into understanding gravity....I started a thread on this topic a while ago, though it died, but I still think it applies.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...s-gravity.html

[witsend]

Farrah and Aaron - SO NICE TO SEE THIS PROGRESS. The subject is fascinating.



And Armagedn03 - AT LAST. A post on this thread that I entirely understand and that I entirely agree with. I think we look at these things in the same way. I need to read up more of your work here.

[Farrah Day]

Hi A03, thanks for you input.

Aaron

You keep mentioning h2 / o2 but that is not what hho or "Brown's Gas"
is. It is h2/o and acts completely different from the gases electrolyzed
and separated and brought back together to burn.

You are correct in this. We seemed to have talked cross-purposes so much of the time I was simply attempting to establish some common-ground with respect to the combustion of H2. My references to vehicles fuelled by hydrogen (and WWII), was simply an attempt to illustrate that implosion was not an issue.

I guess we may still have to disagree on liquid water being present after the ignition of hydrogen, as I hold firm that the resulting water molecule will absorb a lot of thermal energy and so remain in gaseous state, going out of the exhaust with the other gases. But at least we are talking in a civilised manner, eh.

But let’s forget that for the time being.

I hate the term HHO, and Brown’s Gas. The former I find a bit of a misnomer and somewhat misleading, the later is simply credited to Yull Brown - but is credit where it’s not due as far as I’m concerned.

Oxyhydrogen or my personal preference, Hydroxy, I find are far better terms as they harbour no potential deception, but that’s simply my opinion.

Agreed the resulting gases from an electrolyser are not simply H2 and O2, but it would seem also contain the atomic species.

Aaron, have you heard of William Rhodes?

I'm not sure whether or not you know of him, but he was the first person to discover the properties of gases resulting from common duct electrolysis of water - not Yull Brown. There was a time when William openly contested Yull Brown, about his claims taking exception to the term 'Brown's Gas' and Brown’s claims of discovering a ‘new’ gas.

William Rhodes papers (and even a common duct electrolyser patent) preceded Browns claims by some 11 years.

I used to be in regular email contact with William Rhodes. William is a very pleasant bloke and quite a character. He was very approachable, very forthcoming and very responsive. He was more than happy to discuss his discoveries with me, having no problem at all with me picking his brains on the subject. That was some 5 years ago though – I’ve not been in recent contact with him.

Have you seen Williams papers on the properties of hydroxy? If not I’ll dig out my emails and post it here.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s fascinating stuff.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

Agreed, A03 good post.

There are likely many areas of potential difference within a cell and these potential differences will all be relative to the ground state. I see where you're coming from.

Alter the ground state and we potentially alter reactions.

Farrah

[witsend]

I hate the term HHO, and Brown’s Gas. The former I find a bit of a misnomer and somewhat misleading, the later is simply credited to Yull Brown - but is credit where it’s not due as far as I’m concerned.

Farrah - please clear up a confusion of mine. I thought HHO simply referred to water molecules? So what is the difference between this an Oxyhdrogen?

I used to be in regular email contact with William Rhodes. William is a very pleasant bloke and quite a character. He was very approachable, very forthcoming and very responsive. He was more than happy to discuss his discoveries with me, having no problem at all with me picking his brains on the subject. That was some 5 years ago though – I’ve not been in recent contact with him.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s fascinating stuff.

Farrah

It would be really interesting to see these - if it's not too much trouble. I think we all would like this. Thanks Farrah.

[ashtweth]

It generally accepted as Rhodes being the first before Brown'

@Rose, This is a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gases, typically in a 2:1 molar ratio, the same proportion as water.This gas is some times abbreviated as the trade marked term "HHO" or "Hydroxy Gas".

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosie

I'll dig the papers out.

As Aaron will confirm, the commonly used term Hydroxy (Oxyhydrogen, HHO or Brown's gas - take you pick) refers to the resulting oxygen and hydrogen gases from an electrolyser, when they are allowed to mix on creation. Commonly termed as common-duct electrolysis.

There is surprisingly very little scientific data on the make-up of the gas resulting from this occurence. I'm not sure if anyone knows why or how the atomic species of the gases appears to be so prevalent, or indeed remains apparently so stable. Some people also claim that water gas (presumably water, H2O, stable in gaseous state) is also present.

When Faraday and others did their electrolysis experiments, they separated the two gases on production - just like we did at school - so they had a individual quantities of relatively pure oxygen and pure hydrogen.

Something strange seems to occur when these gases are common ducted, in that the majority of the gases appear not to form molecules, but remain atomic.

So there is H2 and H, and O2 and O. Though I know of no references that determine whether or not both oxygen and hydrogen are primarily atomic - or indeed in what ratios, it is clear that the atomic species must be present.

The presence of the atomic species, I believe, is what accounts for many people claiming over-Faraday results from electrolysers, as atomic gas takes up the same space as molecular gas. So, under the same temperature and pressure, two atoms of hydrogen gas take up twice as much space as a H2 molecule of gas, even though the overall mass is the same. (Check out Avogadro's hypothesis)

Hence to all intents and purposes it will look as though you are getting over-Faraday results, when you are not. Everything is still abiding by Faraday's Laws of electrolysis, but the additional volume created by the atomic species is not being accounted for.

Aaron is correct too in saying that the burn rate of Hydroxy is very fast. I think William clocked it at Mach 7! So realistically the burn rate of hydroxy does indeed need to be considerably quenched.

When we ingnite normal molecular H2 in the presence of O2, it is a 3-stage reaction.

First, energy is added in the form of a spark, which dissociates the H2 and O2 into the atomic species 2H and 2O. This is an endothermic reaction because energy is absorbed.

Second, the atomic species almost instantly reform as H20. This is an exothermic reaction - the explosion stage - whereby a lot of thermal energy is dissipated into the environment by the very fast burn.

Third, (if the environment is cool enough), the water vapour becomes liquid, taking up a fraction of the space of it's gaseous state - hence the implosion. And this is where myself and Aaron are not in full agreement as I believe that the thermal energy of the explosion provides more than enough residual heat to maintain the resulting water molecule in gaseous state. This I feel is all the more likely due to water's great ability to absorb latent heat.

With the common duct gas from an electrolyser, less energy is required at stage one, because much of the gas is already atomic, hence there is an apparent overall net gain in the energy in the exothermic reaction of stage three.

Much of this makes good sense, though there is still a lot of unknowns.

For example, if we do separate the gases at production, do these separate hydrogen and oxygen gases contain atomic species too or are they primarily molecular? Do we only get the atomic species when the two gases are mixed on production, if so why is this?

Logic says that Faraday and others would have determined that the hydrogen and oxygen evolved in those early experiments was largely molecular. And indeed the 2:1 ratio would seem to confirm that either both gases were all molecular or both gases contained equal proportions of atomic species. But I think they would have noticed any discrepancy in their findings resulting from any atomic species.

Interestingly, I remember reading that William estimated the proportion of gases resulting from common duct electrolysis to be as much as 95% atomic to 5% molecular - which initially seems crazy!

What could be preventing normally highly reactive atomic species from bonding into molecules? What can possibly be happening?

Furthermore, I recall that William contained the gases and when later retesting (if I remember correctly, after a period of six months had elapsed), he could detect no significant molecular formation had resulted.

Truly fascinating stuff!

I'll locate the email and post the paper.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosie

Just realised my original email communications with William Rhodes are on my old computer hard drive, so not conveniently accessible.

However, I've located his paper online here:

Common Duct Electrolytic Oxy-Hydrogen -- Paper by William A. Rhodes

Most of the important stuff is all there. In fact, when compared to the information I have from our personal communications, all that is missing are some specific detailed responses to questions I posed, and to which he kindly elaborated.

I found him to be very agreeable and immediately warmed to him. I dearly hope the guy is still with us.

Farrah

[Aaron]

water formation

I guess we may still have to disagree on liquid water being present after the ignition of hydrogen, as I hold firm that the resulting water molecule will absorb a lot of thermal energy and so remain in gaseous state, going out of the exhaust with the other gases. But at least we are talking in a civilised manner, eh.

Aaron, have you heard of William Rhodes?

When the engine and exhaust pipes, etc... are cold, there definitely is
condensed water. I would agree that at running temps, there is less
"liquid" water because most would be in vapor but even the vapor is
partially absorbed by the oil.

On gasoline engines, there is only a fraction of h2o made compared to
pure hydrogen/oxygen fuel. Yet, there is enough to rust out exhaust
pipes (mostly the muffler's) with less water than is produced from
pure hydrogen/oxgyen fuel. With this small amount of water production,
it does get absorbed by the oil, which over time reduces the effectiveness
of the lubrication. There is only one benefit of moisture in the engine
and that is it creates a moisture barrier on the metal that acts as
insulation that keeps heat locked into the combustion chamber burning
more fuel and keeping the engine temperature down. That concepts is
actually exploited in radiant containment technology by one particular
fuel additive. It drops nox emissions thru the floor on diesels, etc...

The nh3 process has about the same amount of h2o forming as a
gasoline engine does, which is one of the benefits. So it isn't much of
an issue.

Yes, I'm familiar with Rhodes gas as being before Brown's gas but so
many more people are familiar with "Brown's gas". Rhodes isn't the first
for the commonly ducted gases but he may be the first to patent it.
I haven't read any of his papers, only his patent(s). The nazi's are
the most likely originators of using commonly ducted gases.

[Aaron]

what hho is

Agreed the resulting gases from an electrolyser are not simply H2 and O2, but it would seem also contain the atomic species.

I thought I saw you mention something about a lack of data showing what
"HHO" is. It officially doesn't exist, it can neutralize radiation, etc... and
a bunch of other things that upset the applecart.

But, there are a few reports that do show what it is and I have copies
of one or two of them somewhere. You can probably find them online.