Basic Electrolysis

[witsend]

How's this Rose? In John Bedini's diagram below, a simple switchless type way of doing it. I can't remember if a motor was needed as a load or not. With plain electrolysis, a pulse is not exactly necessary.

Hi HairBear. Many thanks for this. It's something on these lines. But obviously my point is still as clear as mud. I'll get back to this. I need to clarify the argument better...assuming I have an argument. The first time in a long time and I'm actually being pressured for time. LOL. Not that I'm complaining. But I'll have some sort of answer by week end - I hope.

[Farrah Day]

Rosie, I got to admit, I'm still unsure as to what you're getting at.

Perhaps it's along the lines of why can't a rechargeable battery in a closed cct, recharge itself?

Non-rechargeable batteries obviously have a non-reversible chemical reactions taking place, but not so with a rechargeable. But as I see it the problem is as soon as we introduce a load, this load will dissipate energy of some sort, whether it be EMR or heat. So even though energy could be seen to be returning to the battery, it is less than unity.

That said, this is obviously a very classical way of looking at things and may be from a very different perspective to your own... or Bedini, etc. And to be honest I've been too busy with other things to give it any great thought.

[witsend]

Rosie, I got to admit, I'm still unsure as to what you're getting at.

Perhaps it's along the lines of why can't a rechargeable battery in a closed cct, recharge itself?

Non-rechargeable batteries obviously have a non-reversible chemical reactions taking place, but not so with a rechargeable. But as I see it the problem is as soon as we introduce a load, this load will dissipate energy of some sort, whether it be EMR or heat. So even though energy could be seen to be returning to the battery, it is less than unity.

That said, this is obviously a very classical way of looking at things and may be from a very different perspective to your own... or Bedini, etc. And to be honest I've been too busy with other things to give it any great thought.

Hi again Farrah. I know your time constraints. Not a problem. It's just that our tests prove - unequivocally that the energy dissipated at a load does not relate to the energy delivered by a supply source. Armed with that info - then indeed - I challenge some foundational classical concepts. It goes to the gullet of what makes current flow. But I'm not looking for converts. All I'm doing is taking that evidence - empirical I might add - and using the same conceptual thinking - but applied to the chemistry of alkaline and lead acid batteries. If there's merit then this may be an effective way of conserving charge. The thesis begs that the energy dissipated actually comes from the material of the resistor. But I assure you. I'm in a very small minority here. And I actually am only interested in the empirical evidence. Right now I'm trying to source a really small lead acid battery. LOL. But I don't want to take you from your own work. It's way too important. I'll plod on. I'm good at plodding.

[witsend]

Actually I could explain this better. What our own tests show is that a battery is able to entirely conserve charge while it is able to dissipate energy at a load. Admittedly only at fractional moments but it is measurably evident that one can deliver more energy back to the battery than was first delivered. This is empirical and repeatable. Added to which, there is a marginal but entirely disporportionate reduction in battery charge evident over time. Much less than is required to dissipate the measured energy from the load. Therefore it begs the proposal that there IS an alternate supply source on the circuit. Obviously the challenge is to get to total conservation - or a closed system. My thinking is that we could do this by allowing the discharge of the lead acid to represent the 'recharge' of the alkaline - and vice versa. The loss to the one would represent a 'gain' to the other - provided always that current flow is not based on electron flow...... which is the thesis.

Hope that's clearer.

[citfta]

Current flow not equal to electron flow?

Hello, I hope you don't mind my butting in on this thread, but you have me confused. If current flow is not electron flow then what is current flow? I have worked in electronics for over 50 years and the theory of electron flow works very well in a practical way.

As far as your idea about reusing the energy from one battery to charge another battery and run a load at the same time, that is exactly what we are doing with the Tesla switch. You should spend some time studying that thread. My own experiments have shown me that you can indeed run a small load and keep the batteries charged at the same time. But the load has to be very small compared to the size of the batteries. At least in the set-up I have. The goal of the Tesla switch thread is to be able to run larger loads and still keep the batteries charged. Some of the testers on that thread have managed to make some good gains in that direction.

Carroll

[Farrah Day]

Hi again Farrah. I know your time constraints. Not a problem. It's just that our tests prove - unequivocally that the energy dissipated at a load does not relate to the energy delivered by a supply source. Armed with that info - then indeed - I challenge some foundational classical concepts. It goes to the gullet of what makes current flow.

This is surely fascinating stuff Rosie, and dare I say it may well come into play with what I'm doing. And, I'm sure there really is something very worthwhile pursuing in all this.

Hello, I hope you don't mind my butting in on this thread, but you have me confused. If current flow is not electron flow then what is current flow? I have worked in electronics for over 50 years and the theory of electron flow works very well in a practical way.

As far as your idea about reusing the energy from one battery to charge another battery and run a load at the same time, that is exactly what we are doing with the Tesla switch. You should spend some time studying that thread. My own experiments have shown me that you can indeed run a small load and keep the batteries charged at the same time. But the load has to be very small compared to the size of the batteries. At least in the set-up I have. The goal of the Tesla switch thread is to be able to run larger loads and still keep the batteries charged. Some of the testers on that thread have managed to make some good gains in that direction.

Carroll
Today 09:30 AM

Hi Carroll

I don't think Rosie is dismissing the existence of the electron, or electron flow, but rather arguing that the electron might not be the energy carrier as such. More that electron flow is a by-product of the energy flow... though I'm sure Rosie will put me straight if I've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Will take a look at that thread.

Incidentally, I remember using two stainless steel tubular electrodes in an electrolyser and then finding that they held a charge once everything was off. This charge was able to charge a capacitor time and time again without any loss. So I suppose the charge on the capacitor could in theory be made to do some work... time and time again. It was very perculiar in that I could not discharge the charges on my electrodes by shorting them out, I had to physically wipe the charges off. I think I now know what was occuring, but it was extremely interesting and certainly threw up possibilities.

Ahh, so much science... so little time!

[witsend]

Hello, I hope you don't mind my butting in on this thread, but you have me confused. If current flow is not electron flow then what is current flow? I have worked in electronics for over 50 years and the theory of electron flow works very well in a practical way.

Hi citfta.

The concept of 'electron flow' in current flow is even questioned by mainstream physicists. Read Dyson or Zukov. Both are authorities on conventional or mainstream physics concepts. Electrons are widely considered to be leptons and having a like charge they cannot share a path - as detailed in Pauli's exclusion principle. Current flow - at it's most basic understanding includes the 'flow' of something on a shared path. The alternative concepts to this is that valence electrons are somehow induced - one after the other - to synchronise their positions in those outer boundaries - creating a kind of domino effect. But the counter argument to this is that the speed at which current flow is established through a circuit exceeds the rate at which these adjustments would be made. The other point related to this is that in the unlikely event that electrons do 'share a path' the question then is what happens when one recharges a battery from a utility supply source? Do electrons get transported from that supply to the battery to recharge it? Now broaden that question. Do electrons get transported from a utility supply source to light our lights, heat our ovens, run our fans? You see the problem. We would need an inexhaustible supply of electrons from the source that is nowhere factored into a reasonable evaluation of the electrons available and released from that energy supply. To obviate this argument it was proposed that there were 'free electrons' that are localised at the point at which the work is done and these then are attracted to the circuit to supply the required current flow. But two factors mitigate against this. There would have to be an enormous number of such free electrons - well beyond anything thus far discovered. And a circuit is shown to work very efficiently with insulation over each and every component part - which would preclude an 'entry point' so to speak of those free electrons. Which is why physicsts refer to the word 'charge'. And charge itself is not ever fully defined.

The goal of the Tesla switch thread is to be able to run larger loads and still keep the batteries charged. Some of the testers on that thread have managed to make some good gains in that direction.

That's more or less my own goal. But I'm more interested in the principles that allow this. Mainstream require an equivalence between what is delivered and dissipated.

Here's the link on the 'free electron model'.
Free electron model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


citfta - I am not 'punting' my thesis. I am not sure about Tesla's theories and I have no idea about Bedini's. But I'm only qualified to speak about my own thesis - and work with that. But we have our own record of some extraordinary results ranging from COP>1 to COP>17 and our results are based on heat measurements which are reasonably conclusive.

EDITED apologies I should have addressed you as Carroll? Will do so in future.

[witsend]

I don't think Rosie is dismissing the existence of the electron, or electron flow, but rather arguing that the electron might not be the energy carrier as such. More that electron flow is a by-product of the energy flow...

SPOT ON

Incidentally, I remember using two stainless steel tubular electrodes in an electrolyser and then finding that they held a charge once everything was off. This charge was able to charge a capacitor time and time again without any loss. So I suppose the charge on the capacitor could in theory be made to do some work... time and time again. It was very perculiar in that I could not discharge the charges on my electrodes by shorting them out, I had to physically wipe the charges off. I think I now know what was occuring, but it was extremely interesting and certainly threw up possibilities.

Ahh, so much science... so little time!

Farrah the thread is LOOONG. Try looking at the thesis - but only when you've got the time - which I see is really constrained. Otherwise read our Open Source paper on this. I've posted it on Scribd under aetherevarising. For various reasons - you'll need to do a small search here.

[Farrah Day]

Rosie

The alternative concepts to this is that valence electrons are somehow induced - one after the other - to synchronise their positions in those outer boundaries - creating a kind of domino effect.

This is what I thought was the generally accepted idea.

Do electrons get transported from that supply to the battery to recharge it? Now broaden that question. Do electrons get transported from a utility supply source to light our lights, heat our ovens, run our fans? You see the problem. We would need an inexhaustible supply of electrons from the source that is nowhere factored into a reasonable evaluation of the electrons available and released from that energy supply.

I never see electrons as getting 'used up'. I see them as already being there in every part of everything, if they weren't everything would be ionic.

As I see it, as many electrons exit a circuit as enter a circuit, so none are used up, they're just induced to move around, so we can't run out of electrons... everything is always in equilibrium... but in saying this I've just created a question for myself:

If as many electrons exit a cct as enter a cct, where is energy being lost? If that cct is being used to light a bulb, so radiating photons, where is that energy coming from if the same amount of electrons leave the cct as entered the cct?? If it is a difference in drift velocity, how would this work? We would have electrons entering the cct faster than they exited the cct.

No, can't be. The load would reduce the drift velocity of electrons entering an exiting the cct. This reduction in drift velocity might account for energy dissipated in a load. But no, that wouldn't make sense either... it would have to be just the drift velocity of electrons 'through' the load that changed... but then when they leave the load, where do they get the energy from to once again increase drift velocity...?

Now look what you've started Rosie...

[witsend]

Now look what you've started Rosie...

LOL Farrah. That's a good thing surely. But DON'T let it interrupt your work there Farrah. I'm watching progress with bated breath.

EDITED. Just substitue the 'electron' with a vague concept of 'charge' and then think about the electrons in electrolysis just staying in that localised area of the cell. The definition of current flow is HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS. Especially on this forum.

[Hoxan]

Hello everyone,

I need some Hydrogen Peroxide and want to make it because its too expensive in my country.

I have uploaded schematic of my design. What do you think, can it work?

First I will use ordinary electrolysis to break apart hydrogen and oxygen from water. Then i will take pure oxygen and put it in container with spark gap. High voltage will generate sparks that produce ozone, similar to classical ozone generators, but here with pure oxygen (not air). Ozone will bubble the water in third container.

So is it possible to create Peroxide by bubbling ozone through pure water?

[TheCell]

What happened? Did the rest of the thread become lost in another universe?

From Farrah's concept came results???

Cheers!

[RAMSET]

I miss Farah.........

Mr Cell
Perhaps you will do very nicely with Farrah's results.

It would be good to see something special reach the market place.

Please keep us posted.
thx
Chet

[RAMSET]

Farrah
here is something new for you

Breakthrough in Hydrogen Production Provides the Cheapest Fuel Source, Game Changer... -- MENLO PARK, Calif., March 12, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ --

Enjoy

Chet