Basic Electrolysis

[Aaron]

plasma

First, energy is added in the form of a spark,

When using a serious burst of plasma instead of a simple spark ignition,
things change.

[witsend]

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

Hi Farrah. So impressed with this post I've simply repeated it. FINALLY I can better understand the issue. I only read this last night and was too tired to post here. Many, many thanks Farrah. It's excessively kind of you to have explained all this - it takes some time to post anything - and with this level of clarity - it must have taken some toll on your patience. But it's GOLD. Many thanks indeed.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Aaron

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.

I might have mentioned a general lack of data on this subject, because, let's be honest there isn't exactly a truck-load of it available - and what there is is not necessarily guaranteed to be 100% reliable data. But it certainly was not me that talked about 'radiation neutralising' or any such thing!

Sometimes I deliberately state something I know is not quite right to simply provoke a response and get a discussion going. A little naughty perhaps, but otherwise we often seem to be talking to ourselves and so have no idea what speed everyone is up to.

I have looked, but have never found any sources that detail the properties of hydroxy that predate Rhodes. And what I do like about Rhodes is that he detailed how the experiments were carried out as well as the findings. If you find any additional relevant papers I'd really like to see them.

Regardless, if you have not read William's paper, do so. It really is informative and enlightening.

With regards to water and exhausts rusting, etc, we have stainless steel exhausts on our Land Rovers that carry a lifetime guarantee, so I guess this would be the way to go.

As I see it, irrespective of the true make up of hydroxy, the fact is that we still can't make enough of it from our electrolysers to do the job, so this issue needs to be addressed first. Unless of course, someone (Tut, maybe) finds a way of creating additional energy somewhere in the process.

I actually intend to use a water mist in conjunction with the hydroxy to quench the burn rate and reduce the flame temperature. I do like water. I want to exhaust all possible avenues from the original WFC before I look into any kind of gas processing.

Dug out the emails with William. One post detailed something that is at the heart of our water issue, so may be of particular interest to you. I see no reason why he would mind me publicly posting this:

The document wanted could not be found, so having spare time
today, am doing much from memory.

WWII P-51 fighter planes had 12 cylinder Allison engines, and
someone discovered and installed water injection. After warming
the engine up and taking off, the pilot turned the needle valve,
resulting in immediate 45 degree climb. Without injection the
maximum angle was 25 degrees.

In 1946, we bought a new Jeep. The engine was mechanically noisy
until wet weather arrived, which is rare in Arizona. This caused
the engine noise to vanish altogether. Harking back to the P-51,
I installed a 10 gallon tank of distilled water, with a needle
valve admitting a small jet of water directly through the
carburetor onto the hot intake manifold. Too much water caused
the engine to sputter. The valve control was set for maximum
effect. It was used for 10 years until we got a new car. The
main thing was remembering to turn the valve off before stopping
the engine. If it is left on, water could accumulate in a
cylinder. Then the spark plugs had to be removed, and the
starter operated to eject the water. That happened early on and
was solved with a solenoid that operated with the key for
starting.

Interesting, eh?

I know our Land Rovers run considerably better and appear to develop more power on cold, damp mornings. Or when it's raining.

When using a serious burst of plasma instead of a simple spark ignition,
things change

No doubt, but what exactly? Doesn't the creation of plasma in itself require a great deal of energy. Am I right in thinking a spark is generally low current high voltage, whereas by contrast a plasma arc would be very high current?

All good stuff.

Blimey, this is so much better than fighting... don't you think?

Regards, Farrah.

[Farrah Day]

You've all probably seen this before. I've just copied it from the Eagle research website to highlight a few rather questionable points:

Brown's Gas is a mixture of mon-atomic and di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 hydrogen to oxygen ratio. So there are four molecules which are mixed in varying ratios; H hydrogen, O oxygen, H2 di-hydrogen and O2 di-oxygen. But all in all, in the mixture there are two hydrogen atoms for every one oxygen atom.

When the mixture has very little mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen there is the typical violent di-atomic hydrogen explosion. This is because the breaking of the bonds in the di-atomic gasses requires energy and the energy comes from the atomic energy of the reaction itself. There is so much heat, so fast, that there is a violent expansion, or explosion. Once the explosion has happened, it is followed immediately by an implosion; because the split atoms are mon-atomic and can now combine to form water.

When the Brown's Gas mixture is mostly mon-atomic, then the atoms simply implode to form water. No atomic bonds need to be broken so no self-propigation energy is needed. The potential atomic energy is released in a random fashon if not directed (as in a flame). Experimenters have noticed sharp static discharges.

Typically people demonstrate the implosion characteristic of Brown's Gas in a sealed steel container. But they have not properly measured the implosion. As I said, even a di-atomic gas makes a vacuum, after an explosion.

Watching video's of so-called implosions I have discovered not one,yet, that actually was a pure implosion. If you watch the hoses that are bent to the water chamber you will see them flex if you view the tape in slow motion. A hose under pressure (explosion) will tend to straighten and a hose under a vacuum (implosion) will tend to kink.

All Brown's Gas machines that I've tested, my own included, produce an EXPLOSIVE mixture. Now the mixtures can be 'relatively' explosive. In other words, the higher quality gas, more mon-atomic, will explode less violently. So far, of all the machines I have tested, my machines produce the highest quality of Brown's Gas.

Needless to say, I'm not in full agreement with the content of this information... c'mon, would you expect otherwise from me!?

When the mixture has very little mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen there is the typical violent di-atomic hydrogen explosion. This is because the breaking of the bonds in the di-atomic gasses requires energy and the energy comes from the atomic energy of the reaction itself. There is so much heat, so fast, that there is a violent expansion, or explosion. Once the explosion has happened, it is followed immediately by an implosion; because the split atoms are mon-atomic and can now combine to form water.

This I don't believe is correct. The writer is suggesting that it is the dissociation of the H2 and O2 into the atomic species that creates the explosion, while at the same time contradicts himself by saying that the breaking of the bonds of the diatomic gases requires energy. You can't have it both ways - it's either endothermic or exothermic!

What he is missing is that it is not the breaking of the molecular bonds that is exothermic and hence creates the explosion, it is in fact the formation of the water molecule that follows that releases the explosive thermal energy.

He also seems to be implying that hydroxy resulting from an electrolyser has less energy than a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 produced otherwise. This for me, simply does not ring true, and indeed in itself would tend to argue against the presence of atomic species.

I'm more than a little mystified by the Eagle Research piece as a whole. Clearly reactions are being misunderstood and hence misrepresented, and by what many people would no doubt see as a trusted and reliable source of information.

That said, though he talks about the 'implosion' after the explosion, the one saving grace in this article for me, is the fact that, upon testing he has never achieved the predicted implosion... I wonder why?

Farrah

[HairBear]

Serious question Farrah. Is it truly your goal to run an internal combustion engine from water and ambient air? What is your motive to ponder such a task?

Do you drive a car on a regular basis? Do you fix it or do you take it to the shop? How well do you know your own vehicle?

I see very little relation between simple electrolysis and running an internal combustion engine from water and ambient air. Yes, it is possible to run an ICE from the gasses produced from water electrolysis, although, proven over and over to be just as inefficient as usual.

If you think about it long enough, if conditions are right as Farrah had described earlier about the jeep running better on rainy days, the amount of water needed to push a piston down can be taken out of the ambient air.

[Farrah Day]

Hi HB

We have four vehicles at our disposal. Two are 40 year-old Land Rovers, which are in regular use, and indeed are our daily transport. The other two are equally old vehicles: a 1966 Volvo Amazon, and a kit car with running gear and engine from a 1968 1.6l Ford.

We have ourselves converted both Land Rovers to dual fuel, so we're quite a practical, hand's-on family (all the components bought cheaply via Ebay).
That is, both vehicles can run either on petrol or LPG. And with petrol getting on for £6 a gallon over here now (yes, six pounds... that is not a typo), LPG at around £2.80 per gallon is the much nicer option - especially considering the rather miserly 15mpg the vehicles achieve!

Being comprised of bolt-on fibreglass sections, the kit car would be the vehicle of choice for any conversion and all experimental attempts at alternative fuels.

The great thing about our vehicles (apart from their historic status), is that they do not rely on computers and complicated electronics to run. Everything is bog basic, easy to repair and maintain (which yes, we do ourselves)... and of course there are no catalytic converters and accompanying exhaust emission sensors to fool or bypass. It just means that everything is much less complicated.

New engines are far more tuned and made to much finer tolerances than our old blocks, and so can be less compliant to experimenting with.

I once filled one of our Land Rovers up with half a tank of diesel, before I realised my mistake. This would possibly create havoc with a modern engine and maybe require expensive repairs if driven (if it fired up at all that is), and would certainly require a complete flushing out of the fuel system.

I simply took the chance and topped it up with petrol. To the amazement of even the garage mechanics, who by now had congregated arond me, it ran just fine. A bit smoky, but very smooth and it never missed a beat. No trouble starting, running or even with tickover. Ran it that way for two weeks before I completely topped her up again with petrol. It never created a single problem.

So that is why I think these older engines will be better for playing around with.

Have you ever looked to see how many fuses modern cars have? Our Land Rovers only have 4 fuses for the entire electrical system - and one of those is a spare!

Of course I'm fully aware that the real issue is being able to create enough gas in the first place, which is where I've always been focussing my attention - I see any other issues as non-issues unless this is first requirement achieved.

To this end, I'm currently working on a proof of concept model, for a different kind of electrolyser.

Rather a lot depends on whether or not I'm interpreting electrolysis correctly in the first place, as my electrolyser design is based on what I perceive as occurring. And though my electrolyser is based on principles most people will be familiar (or at least aware of), it is an electrolyser with a difference.

Of course, I've had to make some assumptions, which will either bear out... or not. I could well simply crash and burn

Farrah

[Cherryman]

For my project i'm testing little explosions and by using one-way valves i confirm that the explosion is followed by implosion (or at least the sucking in of additional air)


First i tried "brown gas" , unfortunatly my cell is very slow. To speed up testing i'm now using hairspray to work out the set-up design better. Untill I have improved my HHO cell.

If anyone is intrested i will try to see if i can make a little vid of the ex- and implosion.


PS Intresting topic!

[witsend]

For my project i'm testing little explosions and by using one-way valves i confirm that the explosion is followed by implosion (or at least the sucking in of additional air)


First i tried "brown gas" , unfortunatly my cell is very slow. To speed up testing i'm now using hairspray to work out the set-up design better. Untill I have improved my HHO cell.

If anyone is intrested i will try to see if i can make a little vid of the ex- and implosion.


PS Intresting topic!

I'm sure we'd all like to see a video of this Cherryman.

[Farrah Day]

Yep, keep us informed Cherryman.

I'd be interested to see your set up.

I take it then, that the use of a one-way valves means that the thermal energy of the explosion is contained, but they allow air to suck in from the outside after the explosion... is that correct?

Farrah

[Cherryman]

Well i made a quick vid. With a fast improvised setup Maybe you can see it.

The thick hose is the combustion chamber.
There i detonate the gas. (You can here me clicking the igniter a few times before it explodes)

Then there is the T-joint it consist of a valve on every side. One allowing the over pressure out (nothing attached too in his vid)
The other allowing air in. There i connected a hose.

I stuck it in a little bucket of water. You can see the water shoot up, and going a little back again, but the water level in the hose after the explosion is just above the bucket edge. (When you look closely you might see it)

YouTube - Air inflow after explosion

[Michael John Nunnerley]

The atom size changes

Hi Farrah

Further to what I have said to you personally, would not the idea of atom expansion and contraction fit into the scenario to what is going on in experiments of expansion and contraction on detonation? because if we want to believe the norm of conservation of mass, and I don't when it is not at atmosferic pressure and temperature, things just do not seem to be right, if you get what I mean! There are anomilies, what is mass, what is volume, we are TOLD, old science, that mass is by weight and volume is by size, BULL **** IF YOU THINK IT WILL BE THE SAME energetic value for the same phisical component that being hydrogen, H1, in this case, when it is reacting under ignition. Take the example of the balloon half filled, weigh it, 1gram, fill it with more hydrogen to twice its size, the weight is the same, well in this case LESS by scientific standards, because all is at atmosferic pressure, and hydrogen weighs less than air, it is a minus plus minus figure. but the volume is twice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on detonation it returns to its original volume less the energy that it has given up on detonation, well NO, it returns to its original volume that it was as water before it was changed to H1+H1, in which case, the volume is the same as was in its basic form in water.

The question I put forward is, where has the energy come from? Interesting problem, or no


Mike

[Farrah Day]

OK, I see.

So, much of the thermal energy from the explosion immediately escapes into the atmosphere through one of the vavles (and with it much of the water vapour), while the other valve allows ambient air in.

This is obviously very different to what happens in the confines of a engine combustion chamber, where the resulting energy is all contained.

However, with your set-up, with much of the thermal energy escaping, even the expanded gases of the air in the tee-piece will quickly contract and hence create a minor vacuum.

So you have to consider that this is likely not the implosion of water going from gaseous state to liquid, but rather just heated air contracting as it cools.

A closed system whereby the thermal energy is contained is really required, but is potenially dangerous, and I don't want to influence your experimenting as you might come up with some valuable insight that I had not considered.

Regards, Farrah

[Cherryman]

OK, I see.

So, much of the thermal energy from the explosion immediately escapes into the atmosphere through one of the vavles (and with it much of the water vapour), while the other valve allows ambient air in.

This is obviously very different to what happens in the confines of a engine combustion chamber, where the resulting energy is all contained.

However, with your set-up, with much of the thermal energy escaping, even the expanded gases of the air in the tee-piece will quickly contract and hence create a minor vacuum.

So you have to consider that this is likely not the implosion of water going from gaseous state to liquid, but rather just heated air contracting as it cools.

A closed system whereby the thermal energy is contained is really required, but is potenially dangerous, and I don't want to influence your experimenting as you might come up with some valuable insight that I had not considered.

Regards, Farrah

Tnx for youre answer.

In fact, the closed system is what i'm building. It will be a ring system in wich the explosion propels the object around and the "implosion" will "suck" the object. So my goal is to use the same explosion twice.

This in a closed ring. But due to safety my basis setup is of soft materials.

It will be intresting to see if the over pressure wich is feedbacked into the combustion chamber will have some influence on the process.

The final setup containes of one extra valve to create the "barrier' and direction of the air.

[Cherryman]

I started this little adventure whith the concept idear of creating a ring generator.

As i was experimenting with the explosions i found out about the "sucking" effect afterwards, i decided to use that force in the same setup.

Here is a little animation of the initial idear, you see some "overpressure" escaping, this i now feed back into the combustion chamber tue the inlet valve (So first it sucks, and then it might get pushed some air in due to the cooling of the air behind the object and the approaching object.. until the pressure levels out as the object passes and the proces start over again.



So this is the old design, due to experiences i made a few changes. but i think you will understand the concept.

I will not pollute this topic any further off topic.

Be safe.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Mike

I'm still trying to get my head around what you are suggesting. I've reread you post numerous times but I'm having difficulty in seeing what you're getting at. I fear we may be seeing things very differently.

Well, we know that atoms do effectively expand. A given amount of gaseous hydrogen at STP might take up a volume of 10 litres, but when heated will take up a considerably greater volume. This is the same for all gases, and indeed the volumes of many solids alter with temperature.

The distance between gaseous molecules is relatively enormous, so clearly something is dictating this distance and hence the percieved size of the molecule. Logically I would assume it to be the orbiting electrons that create a replusion from the neighbouring molecule. And the hotter the gas is heated the more energy is absorbed by the electrons, the more the replusive effect becomes, and hence the greater the volume of gas for the same mass.

However, if all gases, irrelevant of their molecule size take up the same volume at any given temperature and pressure, then why would a gas with a much larger molecule and many more electrons in many more orbits, expand by exactly the same amount as the tiny H2 molecule with just two protons and two electrons?

I don't know the answer to this.

Take the example of the balloon half filled, weigh it, 1gram, fill it with more hydrogen to twice its size, the weight is the same,

I'm not following this sentence at all?

As we can't weigh hydrogen gas in a traditional sense, we tend to use its lifting power as an indicator of the hydrogen content in order to determine its mass.

But I don't follow why you're saying adding more hydrogen does not increase its overall mass. Twice as much hydrogen will have twice as much mass.

Did you check out Avogadro, as I think he might have a few answers to your questions.

Avogadro's Hypothesis and Law

Farrah.