Dankie
Its ""demanding wanna LEARN""[OOOHHHH AM I EVER LEARNING]

To quote Poynt99 ""question everything, double check the facts, THEN decide your path..""

Chet

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1pJEz0YGlQ

Watching Stiffler apparently dissociate water with only one stainless steel electrode is quite intriguing, but more importantly would tend to fall outside the realms of standard everyday electrolysis.

...

look and listen more carefully.
the bolt is connected to the sec circuit with a stainless wire too.

And I thought I could talk!  Sorry Loner... could you repeat that?

Joking apart.... I decided to print it off to mull over later, incase looking at the monitor for that long would melt my eyeballs.

That said, I do like a bloke that speaks his mind!

A lot probably all comes down to the fact that much of science is over-simplified in order to be visualised.  Let's face it, some form of energy surrounds us and everything else within the universe all of the time... and it's just asking to be tapped into.

Just to emphasise this point. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism involves 6 components to describe the electric and magnetic fields at each 4-dimensional point in space-time, something that we would find impossible to visualise, so there is clearly always more going on than we perceive... or maybe are capable of perceiving!  It seems to me that there really are occasions that we only know of somethings existence through theoretical mathematics. But hey, if things were too easy we'd all be bored out of our minds!

Anyway, just got to go finish the housework... back later.

PS. Nop, you're right, I must have been distracted for the first few seconds of the video as I had not seen the attached ss bolt previously.

Here's a couple of very interesting Stiffler videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy8BJ6nq6Uk&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tIhY_-l0tE&feature=channel_page

Incidentally for anyone that doesn't know - and I didn't - Stiffler was a forum moderator at one time. I found a Stiffler thread on this site of some 268 pages, over 2600 replies and which has been viewed over 140,000 times. However, it seems he was plagued by idiots and low-lives from start to finish, and I guess he eventually decided it wasn't worth the hassle to continue posting here - frankly it's not hard to imagine how he felt!

ok first a link
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/21011

Recently, it was discovered that the near infrared spectrum and refractive index of water can be affected by a strong magnetic field. Some researchers have suggested that the magnetic field somehow strengthens hydrogen bonds, but the exact mechanism behind these results remains a mystery.

now whith that quote in mind and what we know of how magnetic fields are formed with current flow (amps). now look at convention cells. Massive amps are used. Magnetic fields are created from the flow of electrons. The strength of the magnetic field is directly proportional to the amount of electron movement.
So if (please note that it is an IF not a set thing) magnetic fields strengthen the hydrogen bonds this would show why Meyers was onto something with HV. Now everyone that is looking into this tech knows that Meyers used HV at low amps and it was thought that it was simply the Pulsing sequence that was his magic formula. If it was the frequency then wouldn't the same frequency at high amps work too? but if you throw in that magnetic fields STRENGTHEN the bonds of hydrogen then you need to excite and attract the molecules without strengthening their bonds... Seeing as Voltage is simply potential and amps is the current (very simplified!!!) then there should be large gains from using higher voltage at the same watts/joules. as there is less magnetic field generated... SHOULD

Loner, I personally have no problem with quantum physics and I enjoy your insights.

I’m always prepared to step outside of the classical physics box.  I guess it’s just that I like to keep one foot inside the box so I can be quickly pulled back should I get sucked into a trans-dimensional worm hole! 

Just to keep things within a visualised frame for the moment, we all know that drawing a heavy current through a standard electrolyser causes water to dissociate. But if - as I suspect is generally accepted to be the case - that this current simply serves to cause water to ionise due to electric field fluctuations created by simple ionic movement - collisions, near misses, etc (yes, brute force) - then this heavy current is surely not itself required.

So, assuming then that it is an active electric (or derivative) field that promotes the ionisation of water, and that by pulsing voltages across water we can promote some really good ionisation, what then is the next step…?

Well with the standard electrolyser, we have the electrodes within the cell to not only provide the voltage to create electric fields, but also to allow the ions of water to pick up or drop off electrons. So it would seem that the logical thing to attempt to do would be to provide a way of creating electric fields, and so ionisation, but then not also using the voltage source as the charge exchange mechanism.

OK, after giving this some thought, if we completely insulate two electrodes and pulse high dc voltages across the them, we will get no current flow and no gas, but still should have all these hydrogen (hydronium) and hydroxyl ions, there for the taking.  That said, ionisation is an endothermic reaction, so we must assume, even without current flow through the solution, that we are using some energy to initiate the process – hence we should expect some power dissipation from the cct.

The big problem is how do we make use of these ions… how do we provide these ions with the opportunity to drop and collect charges, and so evolve as gas, without creating a current flow through the cct…?

Well, here’s an interesting thought – at least it is to me…

We provide the ions with a means of exchanging charges that does not interfere with the high dc voltage pulsing cct itself.  How?

We provide a conductive path outside of the solution, with additional electrodes that sit within the solution – a simple ion exchange bridge, whereby the ions can exchange charges with each other.

It seems almost too simple… and I’ve not yet tried this, so might well be overlooking some obvious flaw here… but…

What if the main insulated electrodes are, say one inch apart, and we place numerous ss rods (or maybe an ss mesh), just in front of each insulated electrode… and then electrically connect these inner electrodes together via a conductive bridge outside of the solution.  Presumably, being close to the electrodes, each rod  (or mesh) would be sitting within a region of high ion density within solution, but one amongst the +ve ions and the other amongst the –ve ions.

Do you see where I’m going with this…? 

The high voltage applied to the main insulated outer electrodes would be doing all the ionising, but using very little power, while the additional inner electrodes are electrically bridged to allow the ions to exchange charges, independently of the main pulsing cct - effectively at no energy cost.

Similar, if you like to the two sides of a floating plate in a standard electrolyser.

For it to work, and for the inner electrodes not to be influenced by the voltage potentials of the insulated outer electrodes, we could have the inner electrodes electrically disconnected during the dc voltage pulse, but then connect between pulses.  The inner set of electrodes would be flipping on and off in time but 180 deg. out of sync. with the main outer electrode voltage pulses.

Could it work… would it work… or am I having a bad day?

Loner… have you ever tried anything like this?

Hi Loner

By all means feel free to follow your nose on this... I fully intend to do the same.

I suspect there may well be a common ground to be found somewhare between the quantum and the classical, but for now, at least, I'll be staying with what I'm comfortable with.

Right or wrong, I’m not too comfortable with H2Opower’s take on things, so I’ll be staying clear of that thread. I wonder about the legitimacy of continually ionising the oxygen atom again and again, etc, and why this in itself is not a great power drain. But as I don’t feel qualified to make educated comments on his ideas, I’ll reserve my judgement and let H2Opower’s progress speak for itself.

Since my last posts, I too have been getting a little excited by the prospects of undertaking some experiments to try to validate my own ideas. So, like you I might be taking a little time-out to devise and set up a few bench tests.

Good luck... and may the force be with you !

Anyone has more info on this catalyst?
developed by MIT chemist Daniel Nocera has mimicked the step in photosynthesis in which green plants split water.

keep up the good work
regards, atv

Actually, this approach (understanding at a molecular level) to HHO makes the most sense IMHO.

Until we have a better understanding of why electrolysis happens, it seems futile to try building a better device to achieve it.

"State of the art" at the moment revolves around amperage and that more is better, but it just strikes me the same as using an electric hand drill to saw a board in 1/2.
It can be done, but is woefully inefficient, and when that fact is announced the answer seems to come back that the drill bit needs to be bigger.

The best descriptions (or theory) as to how/why electrolysis happens that I've seen and been able to BASICALLY understand are those from Andrija PUHARICH (whose research some seem to think Stan Meyers may have used as a spring board for his devices).

These (Puharich/Meyer) devices haven't seemed to have great luck with replication but have the approach that makes the most sense.

NOW I'll go back and read the entire thread to get a gist of your theories.