Basic Electrolysis

[witsend]

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

Regards, Farrah.

Farrah, aren't molecules also potentially ionised and can therefore be referred to as ions?

If I can rabbit on a bit more about the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen - I've just googled it. Apparently hydrogen - albeit abundant - has escaped into our upper atmosphere. Else it's only present in molecular forms - which accounts for the fact that we're not losing oxygen to the spontaneous creation of water. It worried me enough to look it up LOL.

Anyway I have much to learn here. Thanks for all the info.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

Farrah, aren't molecules also potentially ionised and can therefore be referred to as ions?

Yes, molecules can be ions too, take for example the Hydroxide ion, OH-, formed when water ionises. But I'm not aware that O2 molecule actually ionises in the creation of O3.

If this is not the case, then please someone cite a credible reference to O2 ionising to form O3.

Regards, Farrah.

[HairBear]

Sorry! You are correct. the O3 molecule is triatomic and stable. I did not mean to look at Ozone in particular, but to look at how it becomes Ozone. It is my understanding O+ will combine with O2 to form O3. Is this correct? My focus was meant to look closer to the formation of the O+. I do not believe the coronal discharge method involves electrons being excited to a higher energy level like how UV and IR-B do. I am under the impression the potential alone can and will strip an electron from an atom depending on the strength of the atom and strength of potential.

[sucahyo]

The biggest problem I can see right away is the arcing between the plates. How do you suppose I can keep a high potential between two plates without the current flowing?

Some patent insulate the electrode with glass. I do smell ozone and even hear the plate ringing in my insulated experiment. I use my 100mA sting oscillator and car coil.

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

It is not only that. Any device that can force an atom to ionize is an ionizer. And there are many things that can ionize an atom.

Both methods excite electrons, the O2 becomes unstable as a molecule and dissociates, but it is extremely unstable as an atom, so quickly recombines with another stable O2 molecule.

Pulsed DC will allow them to separate longer compared to AC or stable DC.

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary
Yes, molecules can be ions too, take for example the Hydroxide ion, OH-, formed when water ionises. But I'm not aware that O2 molecule actually ionises in the creation of O3.

If this is not the case, then please someone cite a credible reference to O2 ionising to form O3.

Regards, Farrah.

Got it. Of course. The O3 is just another 'attached' atom. No more nor less electrons.

Your topic here is electrolysis - so, hopefully this is not off topic. In the 'recharge' of a battery you effectively re-assemble your electrolyte - say sulphuric acid - from it's previous bonding with the lead plates? Is that right? There's no addition of electrons to that mix because there's been no elmination of electrons in the decoupling of that sulphuric acid in the first instance. Is this not a process of fission and fusion - but here applied to molecules rather than atoms? Effectively, the first ionised molecular bond is broken. Sulphur to lead, to release hydrogen. And then hydrogen combined to the water to produce hard water. The electron count in the hydrogen atom is constant. The electron count in the sulphur is constant. But their new molecular arrangement is varied. Then in the recharge of that battery, again no new electrons added to the mix. The third hydrogen atom is decoupled from the oxygen and reassembles with the sulphur. And that electrolytic imbalance is re-established.

So. If electrons formed the current flow - which I'm not disputing here, I'm only questioning, - then those electrons have been 'reshuffled' somehow from that first mix and simply organised themselves according to the direction of current flow or according to the applied voltage imbalance and then recongregated into the new molecular arrangement. You see Farrah? The electrons would have had to be 'taken out' of the hydrogen atom first - before they could be assembled back into the 'mix' to form hard water. Hydrogen only has one electron (excepting dueterion and titium) - and stripped of it's electron we have a proton. When do we ever have evidence that your standard lead/acid battery is a proton generator?

That's why I'm inclined to think that electrolysis is something else. I believe we are simply influencing the bound condition of those atoms - not the atoms themselves. It's something outside the atomic structure but yet belongs to the atom - or is 'housed' by the atom. But it's invisible - which is a good thing. Our astrophyicists need this 'invisible' energy source.

Then there's the question of energy cost. If we want to disassociate just two hydrogen atoms from one oxygen atom then we'd need to apply conditions of pressure and heat that are really expensive. And if we want to dissasociate hard water from 'soft' then we already know how to do this. We do it in batteries. But the actual cost of this energy is also in the actual manufacture of dedicated mixes such as sulphuric acid and in the creation of those lead plates in the first instance. Then the use of that energy - according to mainstream is still subject to a loss only. I see a lot of attention given to cold fusion but even the Fleishmann-Pons experiments used exotic materials such as hard water with palladium electrodes. What is the cost of assembling those materials?

Then look at the resistance of atoms to heat. Just take the fact that our sun only converts hydrogen to helium. It can't make a more complex atom. In fact the only time it's considered possible is in exploding stars. Atoms withstand extraordinary punishment and neither chemistry or heat make much material difference to that strong force. The best we can do is to make it anionic or cationic. And then we can use that natural imbalance to generate some sort of change to produce some sort of energy.

But what flows? What causes that bonding? It's evident that covalent bonding results in an equitable distribution of charge. It's reasonable to assume some natural chemical process organises this. But then we still come back to that hotly debated topic - what causes current flow in the first instance - if the application of current or voltage is first required to rearrange those molecules?

Then take fire. We have nuclear fire - in suns, that is apparently different to the 'fire' in hot metals and is yet different to 'flame' that we see in everyday life. Some form of nuclear fire is apparently required to generate our complex atoms - but fire, as in 'flames' or in the heating and subsequent expansion of metals, makes absolutely no material difference to the structure of those atoms that may thereby be dissassociated by that 'fire'. As with current flow this cannot reasonably be attributed to the 'change' in the electron count of an electrolytic mix - nor can flame or fire materially alter the structure of the atom.

So. We can say that electrolysis results in the change to the structure of the atoms or the molecules. But it depends on an applied electric current or applied voltage - or applied pressure or applied heat - to first effect that change. That's all. That's the only solution given by mainstream - from what I can see. It says nothing about what makes that current, what causes the applied voltage imbalance and what generates that flame. Which is why I propose that fire and bonding and the rest - may simply be from an external source to the atomic structure itself and may account for the molecular and all bonded states of atoms. And since all applications of electrolysis depends first on an applied electric field, then - that's the right question. What makes that electric force?

Abject apologies if this is off topic. But I rather suspect it goes to the heart of your question. I do hope so.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

Your topic here is electrolysis - so, hopefully this is not off topic. In the 'recharge' of a battery you effectively re-assemble your electrolyte - say sulphuric acid - from it's previous bonding with the lead plates? Is that right? There's no addition of electrons to that mix because there's been no elmination of electrons in the decoupling of that sulphuric acid in the first instance. Is this not a process of fission and fusion - but here applied to molecules rather than atoms? Effectively, the first ionised molecular bond is broken. Sulphur to lead, to release hydrogen. And then hydrogen combined to the water to produce hard water. The electron count in the hydrogen atom is constant. The electron count in the sulphur is constant. But their new molecular arrangement is varied. Then in the recharge of that battery, again no new electrons added to the mix. The third hydrogen atom is decoupled from the oxygen and reassembles with the sulphur. And that electrolytic imbalance is re-established.

So. If electrons formed the current flow - which I'm not disputing here, I'm only questioning, - then those electrons have been 'reshuffled' somehow from that first mix and simply organised themselves according to the direction of current flow or according to the applied voltage imbalance and then recongregated into the new molecular arrangement. You see Farrah? The electrons would have had to be 'taken out' of the hydrogen atom first - before they could be assembled back into the 'mix' to form hard water. Hydrogen only has one electron (excepting dueterion and titium) - and stripped of it's electron we have a proton. When do we ever have evidence that your standard lead/acid battery is a proton generator?

That's why I'm inclined to think that electrolysis is something else. I believe we are simply influencing the bound condition of those atoms - not the atoms themselves. It's something outside the atomic structure but yet belongs to the atom - or is 'housed' by the atom. But it's invisible - which is a good thing. Our astrophyicists need this 'invisible' energy source.

Then there's the question of energy cost. If we want to disassociate just two hydrogen atoms from one oxygen atom then we'd need to apply conditions of pressure and heat that are really expensive. And if we want to dissasociate hard water from 'soft' then we already know how to do this. We do it in batteries. But the actual cost of this energy is also in the actual manufacture of dedicated mixes such as sulphuric acid and in the creation of those lead plates in the first instance. Then the use of that energy - according to mainstream is still subject to a loss only. I see a lot of attention given to cold fusion but even the Fleishmann-Pons experiments used exotic materials such as hard water with palladium electrodes. What is the cost of assembling those materials?

Then look at the resistance of atoms to heat. Just take the fact that our sun only converts hydrogen to helium. It can't make a more complex atom. In fact the only time it's considered possible is in exploding stars. Atoms withstand extraordinary punishment and neither chemistry or heat make much material difference to that strong force. The best we can do is to make it anionic or cationic. And then we can use that natural imbalance to generate some sort of change to produce some sort of energy.

But what flows? What causes that bonding? It's evident that covalent bonding results in an equitable distribution of charge. It's reasonable to assume some natural chemical process organises this. But then we still come back to that hotly debated topic - what causes current flow in the first instance - if the application of current or voltage is first required to rearrange those molecules?

Then take fire. We have nuclear fire - in suns, that is apparently different to the 'fire' in hot metals and is yet different to 'flame' that we see in everyday life. Some form of nuclear fire is apparently required to generate our complex atoms - but fire, as in 'flames' or in the heating and subsequent expansion of metals, makes absolutely no material difference to the structure of those atoms that may thereby be dissassociated by that 'fire'. As with current flow this cannot reasonably be attributed to the 'change' in the electron count of an electrolytic mix - nor can flame or fire materially alter the structure of the atom.

So. We can say that electrolysis results in the change to the structure of the atoms or the molecules. But it depends on an applied electric current or applied voltage - or applied pressure or applied heat - to first effect that change. That's all. That's the only solution given by mainstream - from what I can see. It says nothing about what makes that current, what causes the applied voltage imbalance and what generates that flame. Which is why I propose that fire and bonding and the rest - may simply be from an external source to the atomic structure itself and may account for the molecular and all bonded states of atoms. And since all applications of electrolysis depends first on an applied electric field, then - that's the right question. What makes that electric force?

[/QUOTE]

To me, talking science is never off-topic when is well-considered and thoughtful.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

HB

It is my understanding O+ will combine with O2 to form O3. Is this correct?

I don't believe so, no. That would give you O3+.

Electrons do not leave the atoms in the process, they are simply excited into a different state/orbit, which is then no longer conducive to maintaining the molecule status. The O2 dissociates into two higher energy oxygen atoms, each of which then latches onto a stable O2 oxygen molecule upon contact.

Farrah

[witsend]

Hi Farrah - I see you on line. I need to digest your reply and will try and get this answered later this evening.

LOVE THE SUBJECT.

[witsend]

Right. In such reactions there are no reduction in electrons, they simply move about through the system, just the same as in an electrolyser. Of course any gas evolving does take electrons with it as part of its atomic or molecular arrangement, but electrons alone are not thought to leave the system. So the system as a whole remains overall electrically neutral.

Ok. So I take it than that the hydrogen that's been freed from it's bond to sulphur can then bubble through the electrolyte. The question here is does the hydrogen atom lose it's electron so that the electrons can cause the 'flow of current'? The understanding is that there are no extraneous electrons introduced to the system.

It still strikes me that the term 'cold fusion' refers to the rearrangement of molecules rather than atoms. In the Fleischmann-Pons number there was reference to the release of some fundamental particles but this, apparently, was never actually a part of their claim.

Yes. I never realised that hard water referred to anything else. Sorry. LOL. I thought H3O WAS hard water.

Rosemary, remember mainstream science says that within liquids, the electron itself is not the charge carrier. In liquids ions are the charge carriers, and there is a two-way current flow of cations and anions. So although the electron (or lack of) is still responsible for the charge, it is only as part of an atom (ion) or molecule.

So then. Here's my question. If hydrogen separates from the sulphur bond - which it does, and as it's not an ion, but simply an atom - then, is this hydrogen therefore not considered to be a charge carrier? As I see it these are the options. The hydrogen does not lose it's electron - and therefore we still need some kind of 'charge carrier' to generate the current flow. Or it does lose its electron and their electrons then flow as current through the circuit? Then these same electrons re-enter the electrolyte mix either at the positive or the negative terminal (I've heard both options by different engineers). And it then rebonds with the hydrogen atom. AND - at the same time as it rebonds it also then links the hydrogen to your standard water molecule making H3O. I suppose this is theoretically correct. But how does that electron separate from the hydrogen to generate that current flow? Under usual circumstances - hydrogen gas can be collected and stored without losing that electron. What - in that electrolyte mix induces it to first lose that electron? If indeed it does?

Likewise a standard electrolyser could then be classed as a proton generator, as the water molecule dissociates into OH- and H+. So we have certainly generated a proton, but it is so unstable that it immediately bonds with water molecule to form H3O+. Apparently this happens in mere femtoseconds.

I notice that in the bonding you're referring to the creation of H3 to oxygen. Presumably then we start with H3 before that disassociation? Or do we then get some random mix of hydrogen and oxygen? Sorry to ask simple questions like this. I'm rather depending on your patience. There are some things that I simply can't find on google.

I get it. But then neither the hydrogen nor the oxygen are ions. So where did they get that charge? And, more to the point - what carried that charge?

LOL Definitely not. I'm looking for something outside the atom is all. But that's only because I can't see it within the atom. It's not from want of trying.

Farrah - there is no need to make any transition to any new concepts. But it would certainly help to look for an alternate explanation - unless and until mainstream can give some more precise answers. Perhaps my level of understanding is just way too simplistic. And there's no question I'm painfully literal. Probably a whole bunch of subtleties that I'm not familiar with.

I never realised it was this simple. In which case, no wonder it's so seductive as a concept. Like I said. I love the idea of getting energy this cleanly and this efficiently.

I guess so. That's certainly what I've read. But what I find EXTRAORDINARY is that such respectable scientists would jeopardise their good names with such outrageous claims if they were entirely false. It niggles. Seems awfully reckless and neither of them had a history of being reckless. But you notice they also refer to this as fusion - yet they actually don't claim to fuse atoms at all.

I only work with tap water and relatively cheap and plentiful, stainless steel!

Golly. I didn't actually realise you did active experimentation. I'm so impressed.

We need a potential difference in order to initiate current flow, but we need current to flow to a point in order to create a potential difference in the first place! The chicken and the egg!

I have to say, this is the point that niggles me most.

Me too.

[witsend]

Actually I've rabbited on about the re-entry of electrons into the battery via the terminals - whichever is required. But here's my actual question. If the electron transfers back into the body of the battery itself it has to transition through the terminal material itself. How does it do this? Is it assumed that it's done by 'electron drift'? The one valence electron releasing the next in some kind of synchronous dance step? If so, it would take about 5 minutes to re-enter - that's according to the known velocity of electron drift. If it simply passes through then it does something that scientists can't do experimentally. They can barely get electrons through thin gold leaf. Another practical difficulty I need to get my mind around. LOL.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Rosemary

Ok. So I take it than that the hydrogen that's been freed from it's bond to sulphur can then bubble through the electrolyte. The question here is does the hydrogen atom lose it's electron so that the electrons can cause the 'flow of current'? The understanding is that there are no extraneous electrons introduced to the system.

The hydrogen is always in ion form (the proton) in these reactions, not an atom, so is not an atomic gas that will float off. It is an aqueous ion bound within the liquid medium.

In an electrolyser the water ionises into an aqueous proton and an aqueous hydroxide molecule OH- (being more electropositive the oxygen atom effectively steals the hydrogen atoms electron). So the hydroxide ion takes the electron from the hydrogen atom during the dissociation, leaving just an aqueous proton.

Likewise, sulphuric acid in water ionises into 2H+ and SO4--, so this also results in two aqueous protons. And again, these ions are charge carriers capable of current flow within the fluid. But again, no hydrogen atoms.

In the electrolysis of water, these ions carry the charges through the liquid only exchanging charges at the electrodes. So these ions effectively complete the circuit (cct) allowing current to flow.

Actually I've rabbited on about the re-entry of electrons into the battery via the terminals - whichever is required. But here's my actual question. If the electron transfers back into the body of the battery itself it has to transition through the terminal material itself. How does it do this? Is it assumed that it's done by 'electron drift'? The one valence electron releasing the next in some kind of synchronous dance step? If so, it would take about 5 minutes to re-enter - that's according to the known velocity of electron drift. If it simply passes through then it does something that scientists can't do experimentally. They can barely get electrons through thin gold leaf. Another practical difficulty I need to get my mind around. LOL.

I always assumed that electron drift and indeed the rate of drift of any given electron was not of major concern because of my ballbearing analogy. And I see electrons as being absorbed into the metal like water being absorbed into a dry sponge. I would then liken the saturated sponge to a metal with neutral charge (or no potential difference across it). Hence unable to accept further water/charges.

Yes I remember someone years ago experimenting with firing electrons through a thin metal (can't remember what metal - maybe gold). Most electrons did not pass through, but every now and then one would hit a reactive screen placed behind the metal target. And for the first time scientists began to see solids as not-quite-so-solid - eventually concluding that atoms comprise mainly of space.

As I mentioned in earlier posts we do tend to take much for granted, all too often blindly accepting things and blatantly failing to question things that really should be questioned.

Like you, I have many more questions than I do answers.

Farrah

[Farrah Day]

Rosemary

You may or may not have seen this, but if not, with your little zippons in mind, you might find it interesting bedtime reading:

Magnetic Current - Radio Craft Articles 1944

Farrah

[witsend]

Farrah, thanks for link. I'll check it out when I can first get it printed.

ta

[Farrah Day]

[witsend]

Hi Farrah - didn't you give us the answer here?

Likewise a standard electrolyser could then be classed as a proton generator, as the water molecule dissociates into OH- and H+. So we have certainly generated a proton, but it is so unstable that it immediately bonds with water molecule to form H3O+. Apparently this happens in mere femtoseconds.

EDITED Actually that's wrong. Sorry. I'm going to try this again.
LOL

EDITED AGAIN My guess is that it collects an electron and then forms a spare hydrogen atom - which can then be channelled away and used? Anyway - that's my contribution as an amateur.