By the way, do remember that these electrolysis devices, particularly Bob Boyce's, don't separate the hydrogen and oxygen generated and the gas produced is highly explosive.
Mike, separating the gases or not, there is no novelty. Faraday himself experimented with that, from his valuable experiments we have today concepts like equivalents, what developed into the Nernst equation, in essence the roots for modern electrochemistry.
There are a couple of interesting points like how to overcome slow mass transport, where for instance sonic waves help, rf in the low freq range (few MHz) with a special transducer, i.e. a piezoelectric transducer for that frequency can also produce that effect, very fast mixing. This has been done for 50 years already (have a look at the ultrasonics journal, for instance).
Ale, I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that generating energy from this reaction is impossible, or the reaction itself is impossible. And I understand I do not know how the reaction is occurring, that is why I would like to try the experiment, usually that is the purpose of conducting an experiment that has already been done. To see the results, and to try to figure out for how it works for you. · I agree with the law of energy conservation, that it can’t be created from nothing, there is no free lunch. · But, I know your going to shoot me for saying this, but i like the idea. · Humanity dose not have all the answers. We simply struggle to understand what we can not perceive. What you are telling me is called a theory. It answers *most* of our questions about matter, light and energy. But science is theory. There are some things that are known to be necessarily true. Such as logic, true = true and nothing else. True is always true and there is no arguing. · A lot of science is theory based off of the results of an experiment. To say we have all the answers is an understatement. We may not have truth for a long time · For example how do you explain Wave-particle Duality and the photoelectric effect? · Chances are you’ll give Einstein’s theory of the photo-electric effect. But still a theory, constructed after the results of an experiment... It is an interesting idea that most of our science is not necessary that it be true as we explain it. But I am not saying that nothing can be true, but if you can not question what you know then you can not learn. Thomas Kuhn had realized this; he called it a paradigm shift. Like when the theory of quantum physics was introduced. Basically it addresses the changes in our frames of reference dealing with science. If it is impossible by the definition of current laws of physics, then a new way of thinking must emerge. · Again, I’m not saying that you can create energy; I’m simply interested in this reaction for other purposes. · Now about the parallel RCL tank, that needs an AC current to work right? My problem is ill probably be working with a DC current. There’s no way to use an RCL tank with DC current is there? · Grasshopper, you said you could experiment with similar equipment? the interesting thing about this is that the salt is necessary for the experiment to work, and energy has to move through water in order to do standard electrolysis, and move from one point to another so the positive and negative charged electrodes, where the gasses collect. If you want to try this out, that would be cool! And let us know what happens so we don’t have to go through the trouble of building something [noparse]:)[/noparse]. ·
And please read the following: · I understand that I am mostly wrong with my interpretation on how this reaction can work without electrodes, and I have had some people make that quite clear. But all I have heard so far is how it can’t work. I’m interested in how this dose works. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Any ideas? I know it is some form of electrolysis, but how dose it work with out an electrode? How dose an RF frequency separate H from O2? I thought the elements had to collect at the positive and negative electrodes? If not, then how do the gasses keep from recombining, and why is the hydrogen release?
Post Edited (ThePenguinMaster) : 3/19/2008 4:06:15 PM GMT
Not to spoil GrassHoppers fun, It is an interesting experiment. See my post above. Inthat experiment the gasses are separated.
I could have just as easily used a bigger bottle capable of holding both electrodes, but I wanted only the 2H2, not both. Mainly because I wanted less explosive mix. And I also wanted to see just how much ,if any, water was formed by the burn.
The alternateing current is necessary, but I think you are referring to voltage swings above and below ground. This is overkill, just a swing from gnd to what ever positive voltage you want to use will suffice and it will also keep your electrodes free of corrosion. 30 minites at 12 volts DC made my negative electrode ( a 10 penny nail) look like it had been buried in the back yard for 20 Years.
Penguin master: I'm only trying to make you skeptic of "free lunch" nothing else.We are here to learn, to believe in the impossible we have star trek. OTOH, as a chemist, I'm curious but outrageous claims I have already seen and hear everyday from my students . Experiments are the best way, but without explanations it is just working in the dark, and I studied chemistry to find out how things work, the rest is not very important to me.
For electrolysis a pair of platinum electrodes are the way to go, sadly they cost too much, so carbon rods from Carbon-Zinc (NOT Alkaline) 1.5 V batteries are a very good starting point. Just clean them well, and use gloves, Add some NaCl to the water to improve conductivity, but not more than 30 g per liter, the ions do not move very well in concentrated solutions (more than 1 mol per liter, half mol is a safe value).
Ideally you should need less than 1 V, but due to mass transport problems and other loses higher potentials are needed. Keep it low !, do not use a car battery, use for instance rechargeable NiMH batteries (a pack of 4 should do the trick).
For a small amount of H2, you can light it with a lighter, you can contain a small amount in a upwards container (it is as you know lighter than air). Be careful, H2 does not smell and is colorless.
Browns Gas at work
If you are thinking of burning water to make fuel then you need to look at Browns gas.
The bottom line is producing more than enough hydrogen gas than it takes to make it. Using
frequencies in the RF range makes it more efficient. I don't know if that is what you are thinking but
you need to look at this site if you plan on sending an rf through water to produce combustion
.. http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html
This will not work. There are at least 3 energy conversions in this system and none of them are more than 100% efficient. You will always need to add in hydrogen, electricity or heat from an external source for this to keep running.
This may produce an efficiency in certain stages or the process (the heat engine may be more efficient) but it will not run without an energy input from an external source.
Thats Correct Steve I am doing a freq project and I am am going to use a Prop chip to generate the Freqout upto 30Mhz. I am not working on the Browns Gas. Just stating that the Prop can replace the DSS chip.... to generate freq ..
I was going to use a DSS chip but from the info I got the Prop can do it.....
A square wave might work? Hmm... I was thinking of using a more natural sine wave, but I guess it probably won’t matter, even if it dose boost efficiently.
Phil, you have definitely given me an interest in taking chem. next semester! I appreciate that. And isn’t star-trek real? They’re out there risking their lives and you call it fiction?! lol I’m joking. I understand that. Platinum is a little out of my price range, but luckily I work in a shop and carbon is hated by many, but unfortunately one of the materials we use for making fixtures that go through high temperature Heat treating ovens. I could easily persuade someone to let me either use scrap or buy some off of the company. Then I can machine it to any shape. This might be the most practical route.
I was planning on powering the Hydro generator with thermoelectric panels either between the roof of the car (hot side in, cool side out) and a block that goes in one of my radiator lines, or on the cat. Converter. Power and water level could me monitored by the prop and a solenoid would control the hydro flow and cut it off when the car is off. Pressure would come from one of the pressure lines in the car, ill have to make sure it doesn’t mess with the overall pressure needed to keep the computer happy, or it might increase my idle, and this would be so pointless... Also ill probably do it on my jeep that’s a stick shift and not an automatic. The transmission is controlled by gas/air flow sensors and overall rpm. By adding additional fuel, it would likely mess with the shifting patterns and again, it would cost more energy and be pointless.
also, what temprature dose electrolysis work the best? Is heated water better than cold water? or dose it not matter?
oh, and this could be a Electricity source, except the current design has no heatsinking. the 4 squares on the outside are thermoelectric generators, and this might go somewhere on your radiator line. Pinned and bolted together to make a good seal. It would be made of aluminum if i were to make it.
Post Edited (ThePenguinMaster) : 3/20/2008 9:07:21 PM GMT
There are small hydrogen powered engines, as demo units for H2 cells, that may be a good starting point easier to work with than a car engine... H2 is very different from a liquid, almost no viscosity, very very light, small molecules that escape holes others will not... At work I use metal pipes with metal-metal junctions... what does not leak CO2 probably leaks H2 :-(, sometimes frustrating...
You are taking on a big project, divide it in small pieces and make the pieces work on their own, then build bigger uints till the whole is... well complete
[noparse]:)[/noparse] I’m not even past the concept stage lol... It is going to be a wile. I haven’t decided if I want to go ahead with it or not. Thanks for the advice though! The advantage is that custom manufacturing is my specialty, but I will heed your warning about Hydrogen leaking. How dose one detect leaks? I see your point about subdividing the project. It’s harder to debug a complex system.
So do you think that running a frequency of any sort has any added effect? If not, I may experiment with other ideas first, and then try it later.
ThePenguinMaster, · "How does one detect leaks?" · Most gas leaks that create a turbulent flow will generate·plentiful ultrasonic sounds even at VERY low leak rates.· With the right equipment you can simply "listen" for them. ·
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Another leak detecting technique we employ in the Semi-Industry is the use of a simple oxygen detecter. The presence of hydrogen (or any other gas for that matter) will reduce the amount of oxygen around the area where the leak is. One issue with Hydrogen is the size of the molecule. It may leak in places where you have a good seal for larger molecules, but the hole is still big enough for allow hydrogen to pass.
If your container is capable of being presurized a pressure guage can tell when you have a leak, just not where. Once you have determined you have a leak, any truck that does heating an air service will most likely have one of the oxygen sensors spoke of on board and wouldn't charge a whole lot to find it for you!
Hmm... Ok so this project is definitely possible, but terribly off topic. I apologies for the off topic discussion. I’m ordering some parts to play around with, and if I get anywhere and decide to try the project and include some kind of frequency synthesis I will probably start a new thread. I guess this should go into the sandbox at this point.
But hey, there are a lot of good ideas. Listening to leaks? Wow that sounds cool! I’ve never heard of that before!
"Listening to leaks? Wow that sounds cool! I’ve never heard of that before!" - Absolutely... I think it might even be possible using this technique for the Propeller to heterodyne with an ultrasonic·transducer to detect leaks directly with a Propeller object!
“I believe that water one day will be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen, which constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and light of an intensity of which coal is not capable….”
He goes on to say· “ water will be coal of the future”
Jules Verne, Mysterious Island 1876
François Isaac de Rivaz (Paris, December 19, 1752 – Sion, July 30, 1828) was an inventor from Switzerland. He is credited with the construction in 1806 of the first internal combustion engine, powered by a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. He continued to build a rudimentary automobile powered by it in 1807. He also experimented with steam-powered vehicles in the late 18th century. It is reported that this engine was built, but was not commercially successful. Although there was a certain degree of early work on the idea of the internal combustion engine, development truly began in earnest in the mid-nineteenth century. Gasoline was not used for internal combustion engines until 1870.
On Stanley Meyers:
WFC "Water Fuel Cell" AND THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS ·
WFC technology encounters a credibility gap because it appears to run counter to the long established human laws governing our interpretation of nature. Some people therefore reject WFC because it appears to be un-natural and just on more spurious claim for perpetual motion. In fact WFC is entirely natural. It merely demonstrates a new and revolutionary way of harnessing what nature has always had on offer. It does not infringe the two main laws of thermodynamics, i.e. ·
THE FIRST LAW:· The total energy of a thermodynamic system remains constant although it may be transformed from one form to to another.· In the case of WFC technology the system is global. The energy required to drive the engine comes from the ZPE “Zero point energy contained in water, a virtually inexhaustible source.· The exhaust from the engine is water vapor which returns to the atmosphere. ·
THE SECOND LAW:· As originally formulated by R. Clausius in 1865, this law states that "The Entropy of the World strives towards a maximum" As recently formulated by Prigogine and Stengers (10) this law "contains two fundamental elements: ·(1)· a negative one that expresses the impossibility of certain processes (e.g. heat flowing from a cold to a hot source)· and ·(2)· a positive, constructive one.· It is the impossibility of certain processes that permits us to introduce a function, entropy, which increases uniformly and behaves as an attractor for isolated systems: It is at maximum when the system is in equilibrium.· Non equilibrium is the source of order and brings order out of chaos.·Since WFC technology postulates non equilibrium it can be said to be supported by the positive element of this law.
Post Edited (firewater) : 8/28/2008 3:25:59 AM GMT
I'm sure this has already been said on this thread before but I feel obligated to say it, too:
Use your common sense - if you're generating a radio frequency that is tuned to water molecules and is amped up enough to break them apart, consider that you are mostly water. Your eyes are especially vulnerable to radio frequencies of this nature. You can burn your corneas if you are not careful. Unless you really know what you're doing (and I doubt you do, or you wouldn't be asking such basic questions) do not play with this kind of energy at the levels required. The scientists you see in the demonstrations probably have the radiation focused in such a way that it will not harm them, but I'm guessing that takes some special knowledge. I've seen radio waves used to melt metal, and the old microwave ovens used to be called Radar Ranges for a reason. It's one thing to use radio for walkie-talkies, it's another thing when you boost it up and start wiggling molecular bonds apart.
To quote a famous movie:
"Are you crazy? You'll shoot your eye out, kid."
You might also microwave your gonads, too. And that could get mighty painful.
Comments
There are a couple of interesting points like how to overcome slow mass transport, where for instance sonic waves help, rf in the low freq range (few MHz) with a special transducer, i.e. a piezoelectric transducer for that frequency can also produce that effect, very fast mixing. This has been done for 50 years already (have a look at the ultrasonics journal, for instance).
·
I agree with the law of energy conservation, that it can’t be created from nothing, there is no free lunch.
·
But, I know your going to shoot me for saying this, but i like the idea.
·
Humanity dose not have all the answers. We simply struggle to understand what we can not perceive. What you are telling me is called a theory. It answers *most* of our questions about matter, light and energy. But science is theory. There are some things that are known to be necessarily true. Such as logic, true = true and nothing else. True is always true and there is no arguing.
·
A lot of science is theory based off of the results of an experiment. To say we have all the answers is an understatement. We may not have truth for a long time
·
For example how do you explain Wave-particle Duality and the photoelectric effect?
·
Chances are you’ll give Einstein’s theory of the photo-electric effect. But still a theory, constructed after the results of an experiment... It is an interesting idea that most of our science is not necessary that it be true as we explain it. But I am not saying that nothing can be true, but if you can not question what you know then you can not learn. Thomas Kuhn had realized this; he called it a paradigm shift. Like when the theory of quantum physics was introduced. Basically it addresses the changes in our frames of reference dealing with science. If it is impossible by the definition of current laws of physics, then a new way of thinking must emerge.
·
Again, I’m not saying that you can create energy; I’m simply interested in this reaction for other purposes.
·
Now about the parallel RCL tank, that needs an AC current to work right? My problem is ill probably be working with a DC current. There’s no way to use an RCL tank with DC current is there?
·
Grasshopper, you said you could experiment with similar equipment? the interesting thing about this is that the salt is necessary for the experiment to work, and energy has to move through water in order to do standard electrolysis, and move from one point to another so the positive and negative charged electrodes, where the gasses collect. If you want to try this out, that would be cool! And let us know what happens so we don’t have to go through the trouble of building something [noparse]:)[/noparse].
·
And please read the following:
·
I understand that I am mostly wrong with my interpretation on how this reaction can work without electrodes, and I have had some people make that quite clear. But all I have heard so far is how it can’t work. I’m interested in how this dose works. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Any ideas? I know it is some form of electrolysis, but how dose it work with out an electrode? How dose an RF frequency separate H from O2? I thought the elements had to collect at the positive and negative electrodes? If not, then how do the gasses keep from recombining, and why is the hydrogen release?
Post Edited (ThePenguinMaster) : 3/19/2008 4:06:15 PM GMT
I could have just as easily used a bigger bottle capable of holding both electrodes, but I wanted only the 2H2, not both. Mainly because I wanted less explosive mix. And I also wanted to see just how much ,if any, water was formed by the burn.
The alternateing current is necessary, but I think you are referring to voltage swings above and below ground. This is overkill, just a swing from gnd to what ever positive voltage you want to use will suffice and it will also keep your electrodes free of corrosion. 30 minites at 12 volts DC made my negative electrode ( a 10 penny nail) look like it had been buried in the back yard for 20 Years.
For electrolysis a pair of platinum electrodes are the way to go, sadly they cost too much, so carbon rods from Carbon-Zinc (NOT Alkaline) 1.5 V batteries are a very good starting point. Just clean them well, and use gloves, Add some NaCl to the water to improve conductivity, but not more than 30 g per liter, the ions do not move very well in concentrated solutions (more than 1 mol per liter, half mol is a safe value).
Ideally you should need less than 1 V, but due to mass transport problems and other loses higher potentials are needed. Keep it low !, do not use a car battery, use for instance rechargeable NiMH batteries (a pack of 4 should do the trick).
For a small amount of H2, you can light it with a lighter, you can contain a small amount in a upwards container (it is as you know lighter than air). Be careful, H2 does not smell and is colorless.
Have fun
Ale
If you are thinking of burning water to make fuel then you need to look at Browns gas.
The bottom line is producing more than enough hydrogen gas than it takes to make it. Using
frequencies in the RF range makes it more efficient. I don't know if that is what you are thinking but
you need to look at this site if you plan on sending an rf through water to produce combustion
..
http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html
This will not work. There are at least 3 energy conversions in this system and none of them are more than 100% efficient. You will always need to add in hydrogen, electricity or heat from an external source for this to keep running.
This may produce an efficiency in certain stages or the process (the heat engine may be more efficient) but it will not run without an energy input from an external source.
I was going to use a DSS chip but from the info I got the Prop can do it.....
Phil, you have definitely given me an interest in taking chem. next semester! I appreciate that. And isn’t star-trek real? They’re out there risking their lives and you call it fiction?! lol I’m joking. I understand that. Platinum is a little out of my price range, but luckily I work in a shop and carbon is hated by many, but unfortunately one of the materials we use for making fixtures that go through high temperature Heat treating ovens. I could easily persuade someone to let me either use scrap or buy some off of the company. Then I can machine it to any shape. This might be the most practical route.
I was planning on powering the Hydro generator with thermoelectric panels either between the roof of the car (hot side in, cool side out) and a block that goes in one of my radiator lines, or on the cat. Converter. Power and water level could me monitored by the prop and a solenoid would control the hydro flow and cut it off when the car is off. Pressure would come from one of the pressure lines in the car, ill have to make sure it doesn’t mess with the overall pressure needed to keep the computer happy, or it might increase my idle, and this would be so pointless... Also ill probably do it on my jeep that’s a stick shift and not an automatic. The transmission is controlled by gas/air flow sensors and overall rpm. By adding additional fuel, it would likely mess with the shifting patterns and again, it would cost more energy and be pointless.
also, what temprature dose electrolysis work the best? Is heated water better than cold water? or dose it not matter?
oh, and this could be a Electricity source, except the current design has no heatsinking. the 4 squares on the outside are thermoelectric generators, and this might go somewhere on your radiator line. Pinned and bolted together to make a good seal. It would be made of aluminum if i were to make it.
Post Edited (ThePenguinMaster) : 3/20/2008 9:07:21 PM GMT
You are taking on a big project, divide it in small pieces and make the pieces work on their own, then build bigger uints till the whole is... well complete
So do you think that running a frequency of any sort has any added effect? If not, I may experiment with other ideas first, and then try it later.
·
"How does one detect leaks?"
·
Most gas leaks that create a turbulent flow will generate·plentiful ultrasonic sounds even at VERY low leak rates.· With the right equipment you can simply "listen" for them.
·
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Also, a lighter will do the trick (
-Parsko
But hey, there are a lot of good ideas. Listening to leaks? Wow that sounds cool! I’ve never heard of that before!
"Listening to leaks? Wow that sounds cool! I’ve never heard of that before!" - Absolutely... I think it might even be possible using this technique for the Propeller to heterodyne with an ultrasonic·transducer to detect leaks directly with a Propeller object!
http://www.inficonultrasonicleakdetectors.com/en/pdf/074-345-P1A_Whisper_OM.pdf
http://www.superiorsignal.com/usndacr.pdf
http://www.monarchinstrument.com/ultrasonic.htm
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
He goes on to say· “ water will be coal of the future”
Jules Verne, Mysterious Island 1876
François Isaac de Rivaz (Paris, December 19, 1752 – Sion, July 30, 1828) was an inventor from Switzerland. He is credited with the construction in 1806 of the first internal combustion engine, powered by a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. He continued to build a rudimentary automobile powered by it in 1807. He also experimented with steam-powered vehicles in the late 18th century. It is reported that this engine was built, but was not commercially successful. Although there was a certain degree of early work on the idea of the internal combustion engine, development truly began in earnest in the mid-nineteenth century. Gasoline was not used for internal combustion engines until 1870.
On Stanley Meyers:
WFC "Water Fuel Cell" AND THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
·
WFC technology encounters a credibility gap because it appears to run counter to the long established human laws governing our interpretation of nature. Some people therefore reject WFC because it appears to be un-natural and just on more spurious claim for perpetual motion. In fact WFC is entirely natural. It merely demonstrates a new and revolutionary way of harnessing what nature has always had on offer. It does not infringe the two main laws of thermodynamics, i.e.
·
THE FIRST LAW:· The total energy of a thermodynamic system remains constant although it may be transformed from one form to to another.· In the case of WFC technology the system is global. The energy required to drive the engine comes from the ZPE “Zero point energy contained in water, a virtually inexhaustible source.· The exhaust from the engine is water vapor which returns to the atmosphere.
·
THE SECOND LAW:· As originally formulated by R. Clausius in 1865, this law states that "The Entropy of the World strives towards a maximum" As recently formulated by Prigogine and Stengers (10) this law "contains two fundamental elements:
·(1)· a negative one that expresses the impossibility of certain processes (e.g. heat flowing from a cold to a hot source)· and
·(2)· a positive, constructive one.· It is the impossibility of certain processes that permits us to introduce a function, entropy, which increases uniformly and behaves as an attractor for isolated systems: It is at maximum when the system is in equilibrium.· Non equilibrium is the source of order and brings order out of chaos.·Since WFC technology postulates non equilibrium it can be said to be supported by the positive element of this law.
Post Edited (firewater) : 8/28/2008 3:25:59 AM GMT
Use your common sense - if you're generating a radio frequency that is tuned to water molecules and is amped up enough to break them apart, consider that you are mostly water. Your eyes are especially vulnerable to radio frequencies of this nature. You can burn your corneas if you are not careful. Unless you really know what you're doing (and I doubt you do, or you wouldn't be asking such basic questions) do not play with this kind of energy at the levels required. The scientists you see in the demonstrations probably have the radiation focused in such a way that it will not harm them, but I'm guessing that takes some special knowledge. I've seen radio waves used to melt metal, and the old microwave ovens used to be called Radar Ranges for a reason. It's one thing to use radio for walkie-talkies, it's another thing when you boost it up and start wiggling molecular bonds apart.
To quote a famous movie:
"Are you crazy? You'll shoot your eye out, kid."
You might also microwave your gonads, too. And that could get mighty painful.