Water, Part 3

Just for a little background on this before I continue. I did all of this back in '92-'93 and couldn't find anyone to give me the benefit or courtesy of a hearing then so I shelved it. That's where it stayed until  a couple of weeks ago when I ran across it and thought I might try to  see if I could find anyone now to listen. I had mixed results with that  and so said to hell with it I'll just put it up on the Internet and  maybe someone else will have the time and/or money to see if this thing  will really work. So have fun.
    Next let's look at the claim that "pure" water is required to electrolyze water. I actually saw that in a textbook when I was doing my initial research into this. It didn't explain WHY pure water was necessary and that might lead a student to think that it really IS required in the sense that it won't work without it.
    Very simply the book was wrong. I electrolyzed tap water from a well and it worked just fine with the addition of an electrolyte (rock salt).  Actually pure water (distilled) is a poor conductor of electricity. The only reason that pure water (with electrolyte added) is better is that  you won't have a lot of gunk like limestone, mud, algae, etc.. to muck up your electrolysis cell.
    Before I start into a new area I want to sum up what I have presented  so far. The crux of it is that while it is not absolutely
true that it  takes precisely the same quantity of energy to electrolyze a given  quantity of water as is given off when the products of that reaction are  reunified by combustion the actual difference is very small.
    Given the fact that there is a difference though and the fact that the greater amount of energy falls on the side of combustion it does lead to some interesting possibilities. Mainly the possibility that, through the use of all means at our disposal, we might be able to use plain old water as our next primary source of energy.
    Actually there are several more factors which we must take into consideration before we get to the actual designing of any apparatus because they too work in our favor.  1) EMF: The presence of an electromagnetic field weakens the hydrogen
bond. A simple statement but an obviously important one. That means that if you placed your electrolysis unit in the vicinity of an electromagnetic field of sufficient strength, you would need LESS electricity running through your cell to cause separation. Ergo, if you kept increasing the strength of that field you should reach a point where you don't need ANY electricity in your electrolysis unit at all. The only seeming disadvantage would be that there wouldn't be any electrodes for the gasses to collect on and be retrieved from.
    A potential proof of the above hypothesis does exist somewhere. I heard Art Bell mention an experiment that he had heard of which was supposed to have been conducted in Sweden (I believe). At any rate, the actual objective of the experiment was to create an extremely powerful electromagnetic field. Having accomplished this the story goes, that the researchers then placed various objects within the field to observe the effects of the field on these objects (if any).
    Supposedly a container of water was placed within the field and when the field was turned on the water "boiled away". That would seem to be the wrong term though wouldn't it? What probably actually happened was that the water spontaneously separated due to the strength of the field.

    At any rate it still requires energy to create an electromagnetic field and such energy has to be created somehow (like by burning H2 and O2 <grin>). So it seems like we could be back to square one again right? No because if you wanted to induce a permanent field in the vicinity of your separator cell so that the hydrogen bond would be weakened and you  could therefore use less energy to effect your separation why not consider a room temperature superconductor?
    Is that really valid? I don't know as it is a last minute addition and I haven't had time to really check into them. My main point is to show that there are several ways to weaken the hydrogen bond without putting any additional energy into the system from your primary source on an ongoing basis. Therefore, if the hydrogen bond can be weakened it is common sense to realize that it is not "written in stone" that it takes just as much energy to cause the separation as is given off by the  burning of the products. For that matter, electrolyze water then build a hydrogen bomb and ignite it and put that power output into your system...hehehe.
    Actually it could just as well be true and that would be ok too because I believe that I can show you how to utilize enough EXISTING advantages at both ends of this process to make it useful. The schematics for actual devices (quite an assortment of them) will be presented in future installments.
 2) TEMPERATURE: Water is more susceptible to electrolysis at certain temperatures. Interestingly enough the optimum temperature to electrolyze water is 98.6 degrees (or thereabouts), which is of course normal human body temperature. Again, we have another way to weaken the hydrogen bond.
 WEIRD SCIENCE NOTE: As an aside, spontaneous human combustion (if it really happens at all) is supposed to result in the incineration of the victim's body at 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit or better. Coincidentally enough H2 and O2 burned together generate a flame of about 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Water is most susceptible to separation at the normal human  body temperature. The human body is 70% water. The human body has plenty of electrolyte (salt). The human body has it's own electrical system to provide ignition (real stretch there) and energy to electrolyze. So put two and two together.......Oh well, just a thought.
 3) ELECTROLYTE: Various types of electrolytes have been tried and some do work better than others. This fact could be viewed as a simple example of one catalyst being better than another. Since all a catalyst does is speed up the reaction without changing the amount of energy required (incorrect statement. mj) it doesn't quite count with the above two examples but
 nevertheless it is important to the overall performance of the system so I have included it here. I have read that Ruthenium Salts make excellent electrolytes. To the point that they will enable water to separate solely from the energy provided by sitting a jar of water containing these salts in a ray of sunlight! No electricity needed!
    Ok that will be all for this installment. I'm sorry if I seem to be going on in such minute detail here but I feel that it is important for us all to understand how I got to where I am on this before we tackle the actual devices themselves. When I first put this together I sent the complete package to The U.S. Department of Energy and they sent me a letter back the same day they received it quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously they didn't even take time to go past the  first paragraph. Next I sent a copy to Greenpeace. No response. They must have been too busy collecting donations.
    Have no fear though by this coming weekend I hope to have the entire lot of it up here. As an obviously wise man once told me: "The proof is in the pudding" so the pudding's coming.



 
 
 
 
 
 
  1