Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83680
  • *Latest: dnz007

  • *Total Posts: 516043
  • *Total Topics: 15381
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?  (Read 11420 times)

Offline nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« on: January 08, 2009, 12:22:51 AM »
breaking water into pure hydrogen and pure oxygen, is dangerous.


instead, what about polarizing the water?
with 2 magnets. like this:


   - magnet +  + WATER -  - magnet +


one half of the water is overall positively charged,
and the other half of the water is overall negatively charged.


when a drop of positively charged water,
touches a drop of negatively charged water,
electricity is formed.


i also read that when someone combined positively charged air,
with negatively charged air,
heat is created.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline CrazyEwok

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2009, 12:35:02 AM »
Some small problems in your idea...
water molecules are small and essentially you are trying to "uniform" how they are orientated. I would think your proberly thinking of flowing the water through the magnets. IF your water polarizes as soon as it leaves the magnetic field it will just scramble again... if you can figure out a way to get a current out of that it would be awesome... Good Luck

Offline nitinnun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2009, 12:54:13 AM »


the collector electrodes could be placed,
immediately beside the magnets.

for maximum charge-transfer,
from water to electrode.


it is easier,
simpler,
smaller,
and cheaper,
to spin water in a bucket.

than to attach a motor,
to a balanced wheel,
which turns magnets.

you could even add a material to the water, to increase its electrical resistance.
for obvious reasons.

(although my research has show me,
that "polarized water",
ALREADY has a rediculously high electrical resistance.)


the spinning water, is the path of least resistance !



i just came up with the idea.
so i have had all of 9 minutes, to refine it.

the idea also has stiff competition, for my attention.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2009, 12:54:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2009, 11:53:52 PM »
I also had the same idea a long time ago...

Principally this is doable, but the keypoint here is really, that the water will always try to neutralize itself as fast as possible. This means, you have to seperate the different charged particles from each other while they are still in the field, and also separate them from the neutral water partciles in front of the field.
What you then have is nothing else than kind of a Kelvin generator, but which runs with the help of a Magnet instead of electrostatic induction to separate the charges...
BTW: You will always need some energy to let the water flow through your unit, usually this come from the potential gravitational energy.

What I think is interesting is the following fact.
The Kelvin Generator (or your magnet method, doesn't matter) mustn't bring up the energy to seperate the water into H30+ and OH- ions, the autoprotolysis of the water will do it. You only have to separate the charges. This means in one cup there will flow water with much more H3O+ ions and in the other cup much more OH- ions. This means, one cup is now positively charged and the other negatively. You can then discharge them and they will give electric energy. BTW: the electric energy generated is <= the gravitational potential energy needed to separate!!!

But what is now really interesting is, that one cup now has way too much H Atoms inside and the other one, way too much O atoms... Although they are both now electrically neutral (after the discharge)
This would actually mean, that e.g, if you take again the cup with the too much H atoms in it, and pour it again in the Generator, then in the resulting new positive cup will be even more H atoms. Like that it should be possible to get such high H concentrations, that the H will start to gas out of the water and you will have H2 leaving the water -> Hydrogen.
And the energy to generate the Hydrogen did come from the Autoprotolysis (heat, through molecular movement) and not from the gravitational energy.
This should actually violate the 2nd LOT.

I always wanted to test this theory, but actually couldn't find the time yet...
Maybe you have some time?
BTW: If you just take the H enriched water, before it starts degassing, it probably will start to burn as soon as you try to incinerate it, as due to the higher temperature of the flame, the gas will get out of the water and then also burn, which heats the water even more, so more gas is leaving which again burns...
This is IMHO exactly what e.g. Joe showed in one of his vids, when he burnt water.
This is the same principle as you know from your soda, where the water is CO2 enriched, and will also gas out the more you heat it...But CO2 doesn't burn...

I actually think it should even be possible to use such H enriched water as a fuel replacement, but then you need more water than you would usually need fuel! But on the other hand you don't have to pay for generating the hydrogen, as the energy is coming from the heat of the environment.
Two questions remain: Does this really work? Can this H enriching process be made so effective to be able to produce enough H, even with a relatively small apperatus, to be able to drive a car...

Add:

I just calculated what would be the energy in H enriched water.
You can have a maximum of 1.6mg/l H in water before it degasses. Energy of H2 is 33.3kWh/kg. This actually means, that there is only 1.5e-5W/l in such H enriched water, which is actually almost nothing. So I don't think it can be used directly as fuel replacement.
Sure you can still burn it, it will just not burn very long...I think this is also the reason why Joe on his burning water vid extinguished the fire after a short time, as he knew, that it wouldn't have burnt much longer anyway...The remaining water on the table is then just pure water...which will not burn anymore...
(This is just a guess...)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2009, 12:52:10 AM by Shanti »

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2009, 12:41:02 AM »
This is an interesting idea Shanti,

what you get here is the hydrogen rich as well as oxygen rich water and an electric discharge to boot. I wonder what the sum total of the combined energies thus liberated would add up to. If it drives more than the pump required to elevate the water you would have overunity.

A fascinating thought, worth looking into I think.

Hans von Lieven

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2009, 12:41:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2009, 03:52:15 AM »
Interesting idea nitinnun, shanti,

I see the cellery connection too.
Looked like alcohol but the flame was different blue. Seemed more difficult to ignite.
The apparatus, that comes to mind is like those running water ormus separators.

DrSpark


Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2009, 04:05:10 AM »
If that really was water joe burned in the video,
Than you people just described how!!!

I wonder if you make strong acid water and strong
alkaline water  tossing all the neutral water aside.
Heat and electric??? when the two come together again.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2009, 04:05:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Fast

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2009, 04:56:52 AM »
I was thinking about that Joe burning water video a few days ago. I just needed to know how he did it. And like to add, don't forget about the silver spoon. After reading more about silver, I found that silver dissolves oxygen.

wikipedia states:
"Oxygen dissolves in silver relatively easily compared to other gases present in air. Attempts have been made to construct silver membranes of only a few monolayers thickness. Such a membrane could be used to filter pure oxygen from air and water."

There is more to read about oxygen chemisorption, but in short.

Well, Joe put some water in the silver spoon.. gave it a zapp, that made the silver take some of the oxygen from the water making it hydrogen rich. And now you got burning water.

That's what I thought happened, but I don't have any silver around so can't do any tests.
Did test with an ordinary spoon some years back, but that didn't work hehe.

Fast

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2009, 01:56:24 PM »
Quote
Looked like alcohol but the flame was different blue. Seemed more difficult to ignite.

This would easily be explained, and also speak for this theory. As you first have to heat the water with the flame, so that the H2 starts to gas out, before it can be ignited. This means, you have to keep a flame very near the surface of the water for quite some time, before it starts to burn. And this is exactly how Joe ignites the water in the vid...

@Fast: Interesting statement about the silver...Seems, like I will have also to have a closer look at it's properties...
But I think just using the silver with normal water will not work very good. Best would be if you use (one sided) preionized water. This is probabely also what Joe did...

Add:

I just looked again at the Joe-Vid. It's interesting that he has the 2 bottles of water. One is normal water, which he also allows people to drink, and the other one he says is positive charged water, and he says you mustn't touch it!
Well this would exactly fit with this theory, when the positive charged water is actually nothing else than water with way too much H3O+ ions in it (or simply said the positive cup of the Kelvin Generator), and still not electrically neutralized. This is actually quite an interesting idea. For as long as you keep the H3O+ ions charged they will not separate the hydrogen out. Only right before you use it, you neutralize it and then the H gasses out (I think here the silver could act very much as a catalyst, especially if you add an external electric field, like he did). Like that you should actually be able to quite increase the amount of Hydrogen you can store in the water in this state...(much more, than you could store just by enriching it with H2). The problem is, that you really have to watch, that the water is not able to electrically discharge...And as can be seen by the Kelvin Generator the potentials you get in the water can easily reach tens of kilovolts...
« Last Edit: January 10, 2009, 04:41:31 PM by Shanti »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2009, 01:56:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2009, 01:45:36 AM »
Shanti,

Do you have a link to the video its been year or two?
If the two waters were misted or fogged and allowed to mingle, the intersection of the two might make for an interesting display.

I have been working with electrolysis with pure silver and water for 10+ years and the only thing I have noticed and I have never confirmed it but the liquid silver water seems to take longer to cool than just water.

Hydrogen peroxide and metallic silver will react violently, silver ions will not do that in peroxide. One of the tests for silver ion water.

Maybe two membranes in the water as a dielectric and just a strong charge across it will separate the water. If its PH is 7 when you start.
Sandwich:
I=insulator.
C=conductor.
w=water.
M=membrane???
+CIwwwMwwwwwwwwwwMwwwIC-
The wider the cell, the higher the needed dc voltage charge across it. BUT its just a charge not a current flow.

Can it be done with only one membrane in the middle?
+CIwwwwwwMwwwwwwIC-

Hope this helps in some way.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3290
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2009, 02:09:16 AM »
I

But what is now really interesting is, that one cup now has way too much H Atoms inside and the other one, way too much O atoms... Although they are both now electrically neutral (after the discharge)
This would actually mean, that e.g, if you take again the cup with the too much H atoms in it, and pour it again in the Generator, then in the resulting new positive cup will be even more H atoms. Like that it should be possible to get such high H concentrations, that the H will start to gas out of the water and you will have H2 leaving the water -> Hydrogen.
And the energy to generate the Hydrogen did come from the Autoprotolysis (heat, through molecular movement) and not from the gravitational energy.
This should actually violate the 2nd LOT.

these 2 waters could be ran through opposite sides of a membrane fuel-cell, and the resulting electricity added directly to the energy that was 'discharged'.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2009, 02:09:16 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2009, 02:28:50 AM »
the re-neutralized water is then returned to the Charge seperator Cell in circles.
ResinRat2 where are you  :)

Offline Shanti

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2009, 12:07:17 PM »
Quote
Do you have a link to the video its been year or two?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3539465122468328116#25m24s (at 25:24)

Quote
Maybe two membranes in the water as a dielectric and just a strong charge across it will separate the water. If its PH is 7 when you start.
Sandwich:
I=insulator.
C=conductor.
w=water.
M=membrane???
+CIwwwMwwwwwwwwwwMwwwIC-
The wider the cell, the higher the needed dc voltage charge across it. BUT its just a charge not a current flow.

Can it be done with only one membrane in the middle?
+CIwwwwwwMwwwwwwIC-

Yes it can be done that way, there's also a patent for this, well not exactly. The patent is without the membrane, but you got me...(shouldn't make a difference)
The problem are the insulators. As the insulators have a much higher resistivity as the water, almost all the voltage potential drops at the insulators and will not be seen by the water anymore. See it as a conventional series resistors combination. The voltage drops across the different resistors is proportional to their relative resistance...
This means, you have to develop really huge voltages to split water like that...

Quote
The wider the cell, the higher the needed dc voltage charge across it. BUT its just a charge not a current flow.

Well that's not really correct. This is the same as Stan Meyer who always proclaimed he's just using voltage but no current, but you can't charge a capacitor without current!!!
And if the water breaks up inside this capacitor, which you suggested, then this means, the properties of your dielectric changes, as the ions will now wander in the E-Field of the cap and therefore weaken it, which on the other hand means, the charge of your capacitor will drop. And if you would want to keep the charge, you would have to put more current into it.
Sure this as you also already suggested could be counteracted by using the lower density of the gases to perform the work, of getting the charges out of the "dielectric" of the capacitor. But as my calculations have shown, the density difference should be way too low to counteract the the energy needed to get them out. But my calculations are always very rough, and certainly not all factors included. So maybe...
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 12:52:48 PM by Shanti »

Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2009, 12:58:28 PM »
Shanti,

I wasn't trying to produce gas with that charged cell, only separate the lo from high PH waters.
Once separated the two spaces near to the plate on each side is drained into two separate containers. Hoping the membrane will maintain the separation as the two drain.

Yes to charge the cap you have a current flow and as the water *separates* there will be a current. But is nothing like Current used in brute force electrolysis. and electricity never touches the water, in this stage.


Offline drspark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: water "polarization", INSTEAD of water electrolysis?
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2009, 01:05:37 PM »
Shanti,

In the case of two membranes only the water on the side closest to the plate is drained on each side and the water in the middle in discarded.
the I=insulator is the container wall  think of a rectangular container with the conductive plates on the outside.

 

OneLink