Dissociation of the Water Molecule

Ok, let’s look at this subject from a new perspective.

As folks might be aware, I’m not one to blindly attempt to replicate something in the vain hope that it might actually do what I want it to do.

No, I’m more for starting right at the beginning. To my mind this means starting with an understanding of the basic science behind some of the reactions and taking things from there.  Clearly a better understanding of what is happening at atomic and molecular level will lead to educated speculation of how to exploit various favourable reactions.

From there the natural progression would be to devise, design and fabricate the necessary electronics and hardware to achieve a specific goal.

Loner recently brought to my attention a certain, Dr. Stiffler, whom until this point I was unaware of. Stiffler has some very interesting things going on at his website, but in keeping with the subject in hand, he also is seen dissociating water here:

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

Stiffler’s website: http://67.76.235.52/

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.

Stiffler states that most of the gas being evolved is hydrogen, with very little oxygen, though how he would know this is not clear, and I presume this to be simply an assumption on his part.  I personally would expect it to be only hydrogen – certainly not both gases. But I’m getting ahead of myself here, and this is not relevant to what I’m about to this post.

There is a saying, ‘There’s more than one way to skin a cat’, and I’ve been considering the various techniques by which water is apparently dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen, and looking for the common denominator.

We have:

1. Standard everyday straight dc electrolysis
2. Pulsed dc electrolysis
3. Naudin with his insulated electrode
4. Stiffler with a single electrode
5. Kanzius with no electrodes at all

There may well be other methods, not mentioned, but what do they all have in common?  What is the common denominator and hence the key?

‘Electric Field’

All of the above methods expose water to an electric field of some magnitude or another.

Plain, everyday water self-ionises due to electric field fluctuations caused by molecular interactions, but quickly recombines if this reaction is not further influenced in any way.

With standard, everyday straight dc electrolysis, we draw great big ions through the water. This creates a lot of turbulence and far more intermolecular/ion collisions, which then results in greater electric field fluctuations and hence greater ionisation.

With pulsed dc, one would assume that the effect might be somewhat amplified by the voltage spikes produced within the water itself. These voltage spikes being created by very fast decay of the magnetic field generated by the ionic current flow each time the pulse switches off.  The same way a car ignition coil generates a very high voltage in the secondary coil by magnetic inductance.   After all, each ion current carrier will generate it’s own magnetic field, and surely produce a back emf of it’s own.

All the above methods are producing electric fields in one form or another, so we can assume that all will be adding enough energy to increase the ionisation of water above and beyond the normal level of self-ionisation.

So, if for a moment we take it as a ‘given’ that all the methods promote the ionisation of water due to electric field fluctuations, then it makes sense that some methods will be more efficient at doing this than others.

But of course, it’s not quite as simple as this… there is a problem… 

Though we might be having great success in increasing the ionisation of the water molecule, that only gives us, H+ and OH-, which will quickly recombine if we influence it no further.

To be of any use to us at all, we need the H+ and OH- to pick up and drop charges in order to become useful atoms.

It’s clear to see how and where charges are collected and dropped when we have a +ve and –ve electrode submerged in the water or electrolytic solution, but the reaction is not quite so obvious when we have a single (or insulated electrode) or – in the case of Kanzius – no electrodes at all.

So, at this point, while I’m fairly happy to think that the ionisation of water is the result of electric fields – applied or otherwise – I am at the same time baffled by some of the the electrochemistry involved thereafter.
 
Over to you Loner...

Hi Alan

I've already got that info, but in just re-reading from page 83, it doesn't make anymore sense to me now than it did two years ago.

If hydrogen and hydroxyl ions are picking up and dropping charges at the electrodes, this constitutes normal electrolysis current flow - as it states.  However, then stating that the ions that did not react at the electrodes, will form into hydrogen and oxygen between pulses, and so will not cause current flow through the cct is odd to say the least - they would surely just recombine into the water molecule.

Ask yourself, how can one H+ ion join with another H+ ion to form H2?  It can't happen, they are like charges and would repel each other for a start. They need two electrons from somewhere in order to become a stable, neutral hydrogen molecule.

It is not right - the paper does not state where these two electrons come from!  If they come from the cathode, then current will flow around the cct... standard electrolysis.

Just another reason why I've always been so doubtful about the science.   

From what I understand, H+ doesn't try to combine with H+, instead it reacts with H2O forming H3O+, followed by the chain of reactions on page 88:
H3O+  + Metal -> Metal+  + H + H2O
H + H -> H2 + 436 KJ/MOL
OH- + Metal -> Metal- + OH
OH + OH -> H2O2
H2O2 -> H2O + O + 49KJ/MOL
O + O -> O + 491 KJ/MOL

don't know if this in compliance with reality, but clearly electrons are provided and absorbed by the electrodes.

However, then stating that the ions that did not react at the electrodes, will form into hydrogen and oxygen between pulses, and so will not cause current flow through the cct is odd to say the least - they would surely just recombine into the water molecule.

didn't notice that, gonna reread
ok, i see:
the period when the voltage field is turned off, ionized charges may recombine and h2 and o2 may be collected.
which ionized charges does he mean? h3o+ + oh- -> 2h2o ?

Hi Alan

The H3O+ hydronium ion is often ignored in high school electrolysis, and indeed by many other sources of electrolysis info, which brings up my point about electrolysis not itself being quite as simple and easy to understand as we are often led to believe.

As far as I am aware, the hydrogen proton (H+) only exists for a tiny fraction of a second before it reacts with the electron cloud around a molecule, in our case a water molecule, hence H3O+.  Also unlike the hydroxyl ion, the hydrogen ion moves through the water, effectively hoping from one water molecule to the next (or rather displacing another hydrogen proton), in much the same way as electrons move in a conductor. This action is known as the Grotthuss Mechanism and does rely on the clumping, or binding nature or water molecules.

So, with a voltage applied across two electrodes in water, we don't necessarily get the original H+ ion reacting at the cathode, but simply 'a' displaced hydrogen proton.  Because of this, I would expect the hydrogen reaction to be far more efficient than the hydroxyl reaction, given that the hydroxyl ion is much bigger and has to itself physically travel all the way through the liquid environment.

If we compare the H+ movement through water to that of electrons through a conductor, here is a good analogy:

Think of electrons travelling through a conductor as a hollow tube full of touching ball bearings. If the tube is full and you push an additional ball bearing into one end, then a ball bearing will instantly pop out of the other end. It is as good as instantaneous, though it would be sometime, should you continue re-inserting the expelled ball bearing, before the first additional ball bearing you pushed into the tube finally reappeared. 

So, assuming that the hydrogen proton does move in a similar fashion to the electron - although not with the efficiency of the electron - you might certainly expect it to require many times less energy getting from A – B than the hydroxyl ion.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that an electron from a mains 240 volt supply travels at around 3 inches in an hour.  I mention this because many people think of electrons as tiny particles whizzing around at near the speed of light – this does somewhat give you a rather different perspective of electricity doesn’t it!

The one good thing about all this, is that it’s not just us that are struggling to make sense of the electrochemistry. Scientists are still yet to fully understand all the properties of water, as it seems it does not always behave as predicted under certain conditions.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that an electron from a mains 240 volt supply travels at around 3 inches in an hour.  I mention this because many people think of electrons as tiny particles whizzing around at near the speed of light – this does somewhat give you a rather different perspective of electricity doesn’t it!

@ Farrah Day,
   Yes most people don't realize this, If I recall correctly I think it is 1 Coulomb of electric charge moving through a wire at a rate of 1 amp moves like 4 inches a second. Pretty slow really even though electrons can move close to the speed of light.

@ Dankie,
     Please be specific which buffoon here do you refer too?

Dankie

A better question ,Why does that seem to be your agenda?

If Stefan really new your ''business'', not Open source motives for coming to this Forum

Things might be different

Chet

demanding wannabe ??

cry

Dankie
Where did you get to with your VIC core? I believe that to be the core of the technology but the winding has got to be just right. Please share what you know. As Meyer already patenteted everything to do with that technology, I doubt if you will be able to get rich on the back of it. We can get there quicker, together.
At the moment I am trying to get someone to machine my Delrin bobbins.

Dude I am not the one you are after .

Ask 2curious4WFC , he is probably miles ahead of me .