# electrolysis



## Anonymous (Oct 5, 2008)

hello friends ,
I want to learn electrolysis process for gold refining.
is there somebody who tells me this point


----------



## bmgold (Nov 27, 2008)

I have clicked on this post many times and it seems to have been abandoned. I'll add a few notes on my early experiments of mixing water and electricity. I have tried many things as both electrodes and electrolyte solutions. Saltwater was my most used solution since it was cheap and easily available. The only electrodes I tried that didn't get destroyed real fast was carbon rods salvaged from worn out dry cell batteries. The cathode or negative side could be about anything but the anode or positive side got destroyed unless it was a carbon rod. Actually, the carbon rod would also get destroyed but much slower and produced chlorine gas unlike the other metals tried. I made a bleach solution this way which would bleach cloth but not as fast as real bleach. 
I tried dissolving stuff like copper and silver using this homemade bleach with a little HCl added a few drops at a time and it did kind of work. This was long before finding this forum so I was doing this without any real knowledge of what was happening. All I knew was that a few drops of acid would create chlorine fumes so I didn't add much at a time. I now see that I had it wrong and should have probably done it the other way, add a little bleach to the acid. The weak bleach would have probably diluted the acid to much but I almost did it right without any real instructions. The silver was probably turned into silver chloride but it never darkened with light exposure. It stayed a white precipitate so I'm not sure that is even what it was. The copper did dissolve but after a while, probably when the solution was saturated, it crystallized out as, I think, green crystals. This was a long time ago so I might be wrong about the color but it did form small crystals. 

Someday I may try some more experiments with electrolysis or get my gold stripping cell finished but for now my job takes most of my time so I just can't play around like I once could. You can have time or you can have money but I've never figured out how to get both at the same time. Maybe if this gold refining thing made me money instead of cost me money but then it probably wouldn't be fun anymore. Maybe I'm wrong about that. 

Maybe I'm wrong about everything but at least this isn't an empty post anymore. 

Another experiment was a homemade fuel cell using baking soda electrolyte and two nickel electrodes made from welding rods (sold for arc welding cast iron). This was supposed to be platinum wire but I didn't want to spend that kind of money for an experiment. Anyway, this cell was hooked up to a battery charger for a few seconds to cover the electrodes with hydrogen and oxygen bubbles and then unhooked and a volt meter was hooked up to the electrodes and a low voltage was still there until the bubbles of gas were gone. No real current but it did demonstrate how a fuel cell works since it used the same electrodes the voltage had to be from the gases on the electrodes and not from the galvonic reaction of the electrodes like copper and zinc in a potato powered clock. I know this was a bit off the gold refining topic but it was an interesting experiment and might work better with platinum or maybe even the cheaper palladium electrodes. I don't have either one to try it and the current is so low that it don't have any real use except as a demonstration.


----------



## butcher (Nov 27, 2008)

you have brought up a question for me, if the fuel cell requires electricity to seperate the water and hydrogen and then gives back electricity when they recombine back to water, how can this be efficient considering losses? and I would think unless you were using solar or similar power for the process I dont see how it could be profitable.


----------



## Platdigger (Nov 27, 2008)

Because a fuel cell uses just that....a fuel.

Generally this will be hydrogen. But the hydrogen can be produced onboard from gasoline, alcohol....or some other fuel.

I think there are some types that can use acohol directly also.

It is just that there is a better conversion of the fuel to usable energy with a fuel cell.............

Of course, this is my understanding of them.
Randy


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 27, 2008)

butcher said:


> I dont see how it could be profitable.


Smart man!

The laws of physics dictate that one does not convert energy from one form to another without losses. Anyone that thinks they can use trick devices to get a "free lunch" is ignoring what is known to be true. They will spin their wheels endlessly, and never admit they are wrong. Even educated people get caught up with the notion that there is perpetual motion. It boggles the mind. 

Harold


----------



## bmgold (Nov 28, 2008)

The idea for the fuel cell was from a website. I don't remember which one right now but will try to find it and post a link. The electric input was just to provide an easy way to get the hydrogen and oxygen on the electrodes. I've never tried it but it is supposed to work with no electric input if you have hydrogen and oxygen to bubble on the electrodes. No free energy here, it does use fuel. As I stated this was just a simple demonstration and didn't make enough power to light an LED light or anything but showed on a voltmeter. Maybe a few in series would have done more but I didn't try it. 

If real fuel cells catch on maybe it will bring the PGMs prices back up or at least keep them from falling to far. If palladium drops much lower I'm going to have to find a place to buy a little bit just to have or to play with. 

Anyone know a good place to get a little bit of pure palladium like a half ounce or ounce coin or bar? The local coin dealer don't carry anything but gold and silver. I found a place online that sold little 1/2 gram rounds but the price was 20 times or so more than spot price. Nice idea and a good way to get a bit for a collection but no chance of ever breaking even as an investment.


----------



## jimdoc (Nov 28, 2008)

You can try here to see if they have pure palladium;
http://www.preciousmetalswest.com/alabaster950Pd.php

I was going to check with them for some, now that you
can't find it anywhere. For a reasonable price anyway.
Jim


----------



## Lou (Nov 28, 2008)

How much Pd do you need guys?


Lou


----------



## jimdoc (Nov 28, 2008)

Lou,
I found some, that is why I didn't get a chance to
check with precious metals west. I will remember
to check with you if I need any more.
Thanks. Jim


----------



## Oz (Nov 28, 2008)

Jim,

Out of curiosity what form, purity and price.


----------



## jimdoc (Nov 28, 2008)

Oz,
I found a 1 ounce bar for spot, and added
it to my collection of elements since I sold
all the scrap rings I had awhile back.The 
guy needed cash so I got lucky. At the
price its at now you can't really go wrong.
Jim


----------



## Oz (Nov 28, 2008)

Well that’s sweet! At today’s prices you don’t find many selling PGMs if they can help it, let alone at spot.


----------



## bmgold (Nov 28, 2008)

I found the link to the fuel cell that gave me the idea. I didn't follow the directions exactly but still got enough results to prove that it would work (to me at least)

http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/fuel_cell/fuel_cell.html


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2008)

the idea of fuel cell is to convert fuel to electricity directly, avoiding the loses of friction and waste heat associated with the normal methods.

I have read of fuel cells being 80 percent efficiant, but they can not get them to work on normal gasoline (at least that is what they say).

Compared to normal cumbustion engine at about 30 - 35 percent you can see were the profit would be - double the mileage or more since an electric motor can work without cooling system, transmission, and the motor can be smaller for same HP.

Jim


----------



## butcher (Nov 28, 2008)

the " fuel" still has to be water or some form of Hydrogen and Oxygen chemical, that must use some form of energy to seperate it, taking either much time or energy in the form of solar, wind, water , wave, neuclear , or some type carbon based fuel to generate the electrical power to seperate hydrogen and oxygen, to me they are not much more than a battery, kind of working on a similar principle, chemical / electrical. maybe a better battery or mouse trap, time will tell. also there are dangers involved with hydrogen and oxygen wanting so bad to go back to being water, but that is the same problem with most of our fuel sources, and could be worked out.


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 29, 2008)

Hey you all,
I couldn't let this go by.
I recently constructed a fuel generator consisting of a plastic container (clear), sets of stainless plates, each spaced 2.5mm apart, one connected to + the other to -. The container was filled with distilled h2o with a bit of soda. Attached to the closed lid were the + & - electrical connections, and an output tube running to a one way valve and on out a length of hose.
When 12v dc was applied, (drew about 12 amps!) the hydrogen and Oxygen began to separate, each to it's own cathode or diode. in a very short time, there was heavy concentrations of Hydrogen being produced from the output tube. You could grab a palm full and wave it away from the tube and make large fireworks with a match. (if you've never seen Hydrogen burn, that's ok, you really can't see it very well; it burns very quickly and very hot)
So, as far as perpetual motion goes, nope. Will Hydrogen fuel produce more work than it takes to separate it from water? I reckon it does. In the right setting, the amount of energy generated from separating water using [email protected] amps is over twice what it takes to generate the 12V 12A. 
Weird things like this haven't been studied more; The same as why we can't produce efficient solar cells on the cheap... once they're sold, there's no profit in it I guess.
There's my 2 cents anyway.

Oh yeah, as I was going to my office during the experiment, one of my guys decided my one way valve was a hindrance and removed it.
They said later they couldn't see the flame run back up the tube, but they heard it right before it hit the container and blew up.
I just heard the explosion. no worries, but does give pause for thought.
thanks


----------



## butcher (Nov 29, 2008)

sounds as though you cell produced alot of energy in that explosion.


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 29, 2008)

Yep. Hydrogen is an awesome fuel IF controlled properly...
Will do a ton of work.


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 30, 2008)

Harvester3 said:


> Will Hydrogen fuel produce more work than it takes to separate it from water? I reckon it does.


I think not. Why would it yield more energy to combine than it took to separate the two originally? That makes no sense, especially considering there are losses any time you convert one substance to another. The losses are due in part to friction and resistance. If I am wrong, and you have evidence to the contrary, please post it, along with the requisite cites. 

I'm not scientist, but conservation of energy, the laws of physics, say you're wrong. This kind of nonsense is the reason countless numbers of people spend time on something that is sure to waste their time. 

You can not get more out of anything than you put in. Otherwise it would, indeed, be perpetual motion. 

Harold


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 30, 2008)

I understand why perpetual motion isn't possible, as I said. What I did say, and must now admit I have been expecting your comment, is that Hydrogen as a fuel will perform 2x the amount of work as is required to separate Hydrogen from H2O. There's nothing perpetual about it, as one function (splitting Hydrogen away from it's compound) has little in common with the other (burning Hydrogen as a fuel). It's as if by mining Hydrogen, the expense is less than the reaped benefit; If it costs the same to mine gold and platinum, and the ore ran equal in mineral, I'd rather go for the platinum, wouldn't you?
I probably should have kept my mouth shut on this, however I've never been that smart [:~). 
I meant no offense, and take none, however, I wonder about all those souls who are wasting their time on projects which yield very little other than the satisfaction of learning.
Thanks
jim


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 30, 2008)

Harvester3 said:


> I understand why perpetual motion isn't possible, as I said. What I did say, and must now admit I have been expecting your comment, is that Hydrogen as a fuel will perform 2x the amount of work as is required to separate Hydrogen from H2O.


Please explain in terms I can understand why you feel that is true? It defies everything science has proven to be correct. 



> There's nothing perpetual about it, as one function (splitting Hydrogen away from it's compound) has little in common with the other (burning Hydrogen as a fuel).


The bonds are broken with a given amount of energy, which is returned when they are recombined. You have shown *nothing* to support your position of a double energy yield. Why is that? Remember, opinions, while welcome, have no value in this case. 

There are losses in the process. You not only don't get a double return, you don't even get an equal return. If that was not the case, we would have converted to hydrogen power long ago. It simply doesn't work as you proposed. Consider this. Some of the energy that is applied to splitting the water is lost in the way of friction (resistance). You don't even get a full measure from the power, let alone losses when the two are re-combined. 

The example of platinum and gold ore is nice foot work, but has nothing in common with the problem at hand. What you proposed most certainly is perpetual motion----taking more out than you put in. It doesn't work------it hasn't worked, and it's not going to work. 

I agree----no offense taken nor implied. It just that we should stick with reality here. No pie-in-the sky schemes, no private messages from God, no nonsense. The only thing a person will learn from pursuing this project is that it doesn't work. We already know that. I'm not keen on smoke screens. 
Harold


----------



## bmgold (Nov 30, 2008)

I once built an under-hood hydrogen/oxygen generator and spent more hundreds of dollars than I care to admit on this idea. I modified sensors and the ignition and could control the amount of gasoline going to the engine and also adjust the timing all from the driver's seat. I did prove to myself that hydrogen works as a fuel in that I could cut the gasoline back to where the engine would barely run with no power at all and then thow a switch and bring the power back with hydrogen fuel. I also proved to myself that there was no increase in miles per tank of gasoline. I expect that the extra load on the alternator was more than the extra fuel it produced. I knew this idea shouldn't work. I even saw all the calculations why it wouldn't work but had to prove it myself. The generator is on a shelf now and not in any vehicle so this should indicate my opinion on how well this idea worked. 

Keep experimenting with it if you want since that is the only way some of us (me included) will be convinced one way or another. 

I expect Harold may be right on this one.


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 30, 2008)

bmgold said:


> I expect Harold may be right on this one.


It's not that I consider myself clever. The facts support the notion that there is no gain by using hydrogen via electrolysis. There is, in fact, a loss, although it may be small, depending on the efficiecy of the equipment in question. 

I've never argued that hydrogen isn't a source of power----it certainly is----but one can not violate the principles of physics in order to capitalize on its use, and expect to gain more than is expended. That's not going to happen. 

I'll leave this subject with this observation. People with outstanding educations and funding have tackled this problem for more than 30 years, perhaps longer. I have seen no successful examples. Not even close. 

Harold


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 30, 2008)

Well, that's fair enough. Think on this please;
We drill oil wells, erect windmills, whatever. Is the amount of work necessary to make such energy more, or less than the resulting amount of proceeds in terms of energy/work? If the answer is more, that may explain the current state of economic affairs [:~) I would suggest the answer has been since history began keeping track that certainly man has found ways to squeeze more out of the equation than he puts in.
It's possible that my post takes into account an "economic" factor that a pure scientist such as you obviously seem to be, might consider irrelevant.
What of uranium? Do you suggest that the energy required to unleash it's incredible power is greater than said power? Even with a basic algorithm of loss (friction, etc) it still most certainly appears to provide energy in a generous way, otherwise we could all be using pedal power for lights. Magnetism? Gravity itself.
For every action, there is an equal... It just may be possible that there are rare instances where one stumbles upon a gimme. Not very scientific I know, but it happens every day.
So, enough of the chasing childish things which will forever be impossible. 
It's been a pleasure gentlemen.
Jim


----------



## Harold_V (Nov 30, 2008)

Harvester3 said:


> Well, that's fair enough. Think on this please;
> We drill oil wells, erect windmills, whatever. Is the amount of work necessary to make such energy more, or less than the resulting amount of proceeds in terms of energy/work?


Not the same thing, and you'd serve readers well to not make that kind of comparison. 

When hydrocarbon products are mined, they have energy potential----we pay to extract them from the ground, but that has no relationship to their potential. In a sense, the extraction cost can be equated to the resistance losses of an electrolysis cell. The energy we reap is stored in the material, a product of natural conditions. The difference is, we didn't pay the price of storage and combination. It's not a free lunch, nature put the energy in long ago. We simply took advantage of the work that was done. We recover far less than went in, as you likely know. It's a losing proposition, too. Not the economics of harvesting, but the wasted energy (heat) in it's consumption 

Splitting water is not the same thing. There is no energy in water, it was expended when the water was formed. Said another way, it is the ash left over from combustion. We can heat it and turn it to steam taking advantage of it much the same way we use a length of copper wire as a conductor, but it, like the wire, does not contain energy. It must be added (we do that by turning the water to steam). It is, for all practical purposes, nothing more than a vehicle to transport energy. We do it by hydropower (weight) and steam. 

The two elements in water are bound in such a way that a given amount of energy is required to separate them. When they are re-combined, they give back the energy. Not more, not less. The same amount. Conservation of energy, remember? You are out the electrical losses that were a function of the hydrolysis. All you can hope for is to break the bonds as cheaply as possible. With energy, the very product you seek, you will never recover more than you put in. If you didn't put it in, nature did. No free lunch. 



> What of uranium? Do you suggest that the energy required to unleash it's incredible power is greater than said power?



All kinds of energy is released when one splits the atom. We all know that. That, of course, is well beyond my comprehension and understanding. I am unable to comment. 



> It just may be possible that there are rare instances where one stumbles upon a gimme.



I agree-------but when they do, it won't violate the rules of physics. There still won't be a free lunch, but we may find a far more efficient way to extract power. I hope you're the one to do it. I trust you're up to date on quantum mechanics? 

Remember, we didn't write the rules, we observed the rules. They were discovered. Few have been prove to be wrong. That's why you don't see any of these hare-brained notions in real life. Just unsubstantiated claims. I have become a cynic as a result. 

Harold


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2008)

Harvester I really dont think anybody meant any offence in the disscusion,
hydrogen may well be a great source for power since water is so plentiful and it also recombines back to water, and hydrogen can be converted by other means such as solar energy etcetera, although the large volume that gas (expansion) as I understand it is still a problem of storage, the laws of physics are there and are fact, and cannot be avoided, fire wood may not take me much energy to pick it up and start a fire to get warm,but my work is not all of the energy that went into producing that fire, it took the solar energy to grow the tree, the soil decomposing to feed the tree, and animals breathing to give its air. things are not free somebody must do work for them, and its the same with energy, we need a source or learn to do with less and not be as wastful with what we can produce, maybe both.


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 30, 2008)

Good Sunday you all,
Certainly no offense taken Butcher; it's been very interesting. There's always more to see and I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to be having a conversation such as this, with folk such as you all.
Harold_V, if you would, why could we not view the harvesting of Hydrogen in the same way as oil? Is it not possible the same entity which caused oil to be created and stored might also have a hand in the amount of BTUs [email protected] H2 will furnish to the one who sets it free from its compound? You all have stated, and I agree, there is no free lunch; Butcher gathers dead falls, bucks it up and burns it for heat. The energy stored in the timber aside, he has spent many BTUs in the process of the gathering/cutting/stacking (you know, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, thinking back to all the heat I've used up cutting fire wood!) just as the efforts of men are spent drilling/gathering/refining oil. I wonder when all is said and done if it really doesn't completely even out in terms of work used for work received...
My point isn't to attempt to cheat the laws of nature but more likely to find a loophole, such as the one found (apparently) in oil, where the earth has done considerable work already in creating/storing a material which provides more energy than is required to use it.
I doubt your statement that atomic energy theory is "well beyond my comprehension". I've been sandbagged before my friend! 
again, thanks you all. I am grateful for your time and generous gifts of wisdom.


----------



## OMG (Nov 30, 2008)

If you convert water to hydrogen and oxygen, then recombine them back to the original product you cannot extract energy out of it.
But if you take some 'compound' and convert it into something else (that is more stable/has less energy) then you can take the excess energy from it.
That's how oil works, it is full of energy, and you just extract some energy from it as it converts to the lower energy state of the CO2 and other gasses produced in burning it.
With uranium, the reactors are actually converting it into different elements. It is not uranium anymore, it is plutonium or some other lower energy element. And the difference in energy between those two elements is what is being harvested.
If you are looking for some energy loophole, don't look for things that can be 100% recycled back to they're original state because you can't extract any energy from that.
Virtually all sources of stored 'chemical' energy were originally stored from the energy of the sun. The trick is to find things that that sun has been storing energy in for a long time. Or just get electricity from the sun directly using solar cells.


----------



## Harvester3 (Nov 30, 2008)

right.
The extraction of energy from H2, and the subsequent return of H2 to H2O, in this premise are two incidents related only because of H2s desire to return (of it's own accord) to it's compound of water.
Solar cells are an interesting project, in that it's very curious we can't seem to produce efficient panels at a cost that is economical. I think motivation, or lack of long term return for the manufacturer is the underlying cause here.
Thanks
Jim


----------



## qst42know (Nov 30, 2008)

It's not that they are not trying.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514154702.htm


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2008)

I see it like computers or oil, 
like when we run out of oil blubber to burn in our oil lamps and and the price goes so high that lighting a lamp is only for the rich who can afford that luxury, will will start getting another source of fuel for our lamps, like trying to use that black crudy crap that when you are trying to drill a water well in texas you know that stuff that guy call kerosene he sells for medicine, it burns but stinks.
the more people need it and are willing to put the money and effort in it the cheaper and better it will become, the more advanced our technology in it, like computers.


----------



## butcher (Nov 30, 2008)

speaking of solar cell build yourself one .
http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html


----------



## OMG (Dec 2, 2008)

Or if you want to build one that will deliver enough power that you can use,
http://www.solideas.com/solrcell/english.html


----------



## Traveller11 (Jan 18, 2009)

Fuel cells are an interesting invention but, outside of their ability to convert hydrogen and oxygen into electricity at an efficiency in excess of 84%, I seriously doubt their real practicality.

By the way, it is an accepted fact in the world of energy that it takes 1.1 times as much energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen as you can hope to recoup when burning H2 and O2. Also, if the maximum efficiency enjoyed is with the fuel cell at 84%, this return is even lower.
Compare this to petroleum with an average 32:1 ratio of return on energy. Outside of not producing CO2, there is little to be gained.

If we manufacture electricity, use that electricity to dissociate water into H2 and O2, recombine H2 and O2 in a fuel cell to make electricity and use that electricity to power an electric motor, would we not be further ahead to eliminate the middleman and use the original source of electricity to charge batteries in an electric car? America is currently well set up for the distribution of electricity; no distribution (or manufacturing) system exists for hydrogen and to build such an infrastructure could easily cost billions, if not trillions.

As a wise man once said, try to work with what you already have.


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 19, 2009)

Traveller11 said:


> By the way, it is an accepted fact in the world of energy that it takes 1.1 times as much energy to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen as you can hope to recoup when burning H2 and O2.


You know that, and I know that, but there's no end to "clever" people that think they can circumvent the laws of physics. People still believe in perpetual motion, in spite of the fact it makes no sense. Who was it that said there's a sucker born every minute?

Harold


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 4, 2009)

Butcher: Have you ever read Walt Noon's book, How To Build Your Own Solar Cell ? Interesting !!!!!!!!! Phill 

While we are at it ? Anybody out there ever throw a five to ten foot arc ? And stay away from the archives. Has anybody on this forum personally done it ? I'm curious. Phill


----------



## butcher (Feb 4, 2009)

Nope have not read Walt noons book, and have not spent that much time trying to build solar cells have expierimented with a few alternative power, or energy devices but can see that power is so available and cheap now, so besides a hand pump on my well, and a commercial generator for electricals outages at short term, I dont see the reason to do it, when I was a kid in kentucky I lived with people who lived as they did in the 1800's, no running water, kerosene lighting, and wood cookstoves,hunting, canning and growing most all there own food and raising tobacco for other supplies needed, so I can see were today we Use and are so wastful with, this energy that is so plentiful and reasonable cheap. I feel we really need to learn to use less, more Led lighting and other technology's, look at the fresh water this country flushes down the commode,how much fresh water people use to wash a little dirt off themselves, or driving these tons of steel to get from place to place,when powering something as light as a bycycle would do the same moving them from here to there, we may see the day when we will have to wake up and see this,but I am afraid that might not happen untill the world has almost wasted so much of these resources we enjoy today at reasonable prices,maybe we will come up with alternative energys, to keep our spoiled lifestyles, that is if we are not just struggling to find bread for our tables,and still have a house, with a table to put bread on, things are starting to look like we may have to learn more lessons called tough times. kinda reminds me of texas, some years you would see lots of coyote's and almost no rabbits, when they ate almost all of the rabbits, the coyote"s start to starve and get diseased, then a few year later there are hardly no coyote and thousands of jack rabbits, this is a cycle of life, soon coyote population regains strength.and life goes on.

not sure how I got this far off track what are we doing with chemical processes?


----------



## GeeDub (Feb 10, 2009)

bmgold said:


> I have tried many things as both electrodes and electrolyte solutions. Saltwater was my most used solution since it was cheap and easily available. The only electrodes I tried that didn't get destroyed real fast was carbon rods salvaged from worn out dry cell batteries. The cathode or negative side could be about anything but the anode or positive side got destroyed unless it was a carbon rod. Actually, the carbon rod would also get destroyed but much slower and produced chlorine gas unlike the other metals tried. I made a bleach solution this way which would bleach cloth but not as fast as real bleach.



I know the discussion has evolved past this, but here is an experiment i did back in the mid 80's:
I too was interested in refining with brine because it was cheap. I melted silver chloride into a bar that was cast around some scrap sterling wire. Used that as the positive and a carbon rod from a welding supply company as the negative. I got the same chlorine gas and bleachy water, and the silver chloride became a porous block of metallic silver. Only thing was, it took a looooong time to go all the way through the bar.


----------



## butcher (Feb 10, 2009)

I believe lowering current to proper density of cathode would limit the chlorine from gassing off


----------



## bmgold (Feb 10, 2009)

> I know the discussion has evolved past this, but here is an experiment i did back in the mid 80's:
> I too was interested in refining with brine because it was cheap. I melted silver chloride into a bar that was cast around some scrap sterling wire. Used that as the positive and a carbon rod from a welding supply company as the negative. I got the same chlorine gas and bleachy water, and the silver chloride became a porous block of metallic silver. Only thing was, it took a looooong time to go all the way through the bar.



Glad to see this message getting back to refining information. I hope to get back to work on the gold and silver recovery/refining once the weather warms up enough to work outside. I would still like to find an easy, cheap method using actual household chemicals and not nitric or even HCl to recover/refine precious metals but this is probably just a dream. I'll have to resort to the tried and proven methods at least to start with but I'm not above trying something I know won't work if for no other reason than to prove it to myself.

Thanks for the reply. I hope this brings in more on topic posts on electrolysis as used for refining. (I am also interested in the other uses and alternative energy so I'm not really against that type of post either)


----------



## butcher (Feb 11, 2009)

your expieriments in electrolisis may come in handy, to break down the metals to powder, then the chemicals could be minimized. how about that salt cell using a membrane cell?


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 13, 2009)

Traveler11:

Hate to burst your bubble old man, but Mother Earth News back in the eighties - built a self contained hydrogen powered vehicle which is still running around Henderson County,NC. It pops up every now and then. Last summer ( '08 ) it was tooting along in downtown Hendersonville, NC. Also, there are two other homemade vehicles using hydrogen fuel in this immediate area. 

I know nothing of the present ownership of these vehicles, but they do exist. Phill

Butcher: Just saw your post about living. I remember working in the mines as a child ( 8 ) and what we took for granted then as necessities would sure toast a lot of civilized brains today. My pipes froze last week and of course - blew. I just took my sweet time repairing and thanked the Man upstairs that I had piped water and not have to chop a hole in the spring and drag buckets of water around. But, you know, despite the fact that everybody carried a gun, there were no drug problems. Ah, the days when, whatever..................Phill


----------



## Traveller11 (Feb 13, 2009)

No bubble has been burst; least of all mine. Hydrogen powered vehicles are not uncommon. In fact, virtually the same plumbing used on a car to power it on natural gas will work well for hydrogen with a few changes.

The question is the economics of producing hydrogen as a fuel.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on what is meant by a "self-contained hydrogen powered vehicle"? Are you saying that the engine of this vehicle is able to produce enough power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen AND still have enough power available at the flywheel to move the vehicle down the road?


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 14, 2009)

Traveller11 said:


> Are you saying that the engine of this vehicle is able to produce enough power to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen AND still have enough power available at the flywheel to move the vehicle down the road?



Not for long, it won't. There is no free lunch, and that describes one. Ain't gonna happen.

Harold


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 17, 2009)

Harold: What ain't gonna happen ? I do not follow your drift. Elucidate, please !

Traveller: All I can tell you is what I have seen on the road and in Mother's Eco-Village. ( Which no longer exists ) How they do their closed-circuit operation is beyond me. If I had the room and the TIME to indulge in this type of experimentation, I would gladly go for it. Sorry about the lack of information on this end; but there should be a great deal of information on the net somewhere. 

Phill


----------



## jsargent (Feb 17, 2009)

Why is it that every time someone builds a hydrogen fueled car some people immediately assume it's some sort of free-energy hoax and they dutifully trot out the second law of thermodynamics and so forth? This is nonsense. Free energy or perpetual motion is NOT what hydrogen fuel advocates are promoting at all. Same goes for all-electric vehicles. The fact is these vehicles are much more efficent than the common internal combustion engines because the source electric power for these systems is or can be supplied by the Power Grid (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc). The source electricity can also be supplied by photovoltaics of course which greatly increases the "efficiency". The MPG equivalent for an electric vehicle is commonly in excess of 100MPG. 

Now, having said this, I must also add that the day will come when power generation systems will be produced that tap into the quantum fluctuations of the Zero Point Energy Field, extracting usable energy from Space itself. This may not happen for decades but chances are good that it WILL happen. This too is NOT perpetual motion in any way, any more than wind power is perpetual, though the net effect is the same. As Dr. Richard Feynman was fond of saying "There's enough energy in the space occupied by an empty glass to boil off all the oceans on Earth".

Now back to work boys and make us some gold.


----------



## Traveller11 (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm afraid that you seem to be doing a good deal of jumping around here. EVO was discussing a "self-contained hydrogen powered" vehicle. By this I would assume he was referring to the great number of systems currently being promoted on the Internet. They all make the nonsensical claim that the alternator of the car engine is able to dissociate water into H2 and O2 and thereby give you greater fuel economy.

As Harold pointed out, there are no free lunches; at least not in this universe anyways.

I stated in an earlier post that the energy required to dissociate a given amount of H2O into O2 and H2 is roughly 1.1 times as much as you can hope to recover when combusting the same amount of H2 and O2. In other words, in a "self contained hydrogen powered vehicle", this would lower your fuel economy rather than raise it.

If you compare electric cars to hydrogen fueled cars (be they internal combustion, external combustion or fuel cells) there really is no contest. If we assume that all hydrogen production requires electricity, hydrogen simply adds an expensive extra step to the objective, which is propelling a vehicle up and down the road.

Why go to the trouble of dissociating H2O into H2 and O2, at an obvious loss, when it would be far simpler to send the electricity to the consumer and let him recharge the batteries of an electric car?

I have already stated that the distribution system for refuelling electric cars exists; it is the electric grid tied into every home.

Unfortunately, no distribution system for hydrogen exists. Nor does the manufacturing infrastructure for making hydrogen. To create all of this would, in my estimation, cost billions if not trillions.

The future of the car lies in a better storage battery.


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 17, 2009)

Gentlemen: Hydrogen is a possible way to go - for the polliticians - trillions ? Exponentially speaking, of course !!! And I was referring to the homemade vehicles of which I spoke. I haven't ventured on the net in this direction - knowing all the crap that will come up. Batteries have come a long way - for sure - but we still have a long way to go.

Have either of you ever read the arguments and discussions that arose between Brown, Westinghouse and Tesla ? Century + later and the theories still abound as to what is and what is not practical. Man just is not satisified. Just has to go out and stir up the Hecates kettle all over again. Will we ever learn ?

Phill


----------



## jsargent (Feb 17, 2009)

Traveller11 said:


> I'm afraid that you seem to be doing a good deal of jumping around here. EVO was discussing a "self-contained hydrogen powered" vehicle. By this I would assume he was referring to the great number of systems currently being promoted on the Internet. They all make the nonsensical claim that the alternator of the car engine is able to dissociate water into H2 and O2 and thereby give you greater fuel economy. *It's been my experience that it's best to dismiss crazy ideas out of hand when dealing with complex systems. The IC engine and the electric power generating system tied to it wastes a great deal of energy. IF some of this otherwise wasted energy can be dedicated to dissassociation of water then there is no reason why fuel efficiency could not be improved. Even if all you did was route the exhaust thru a heat exchanger to drive a small turbine, one could capture wasted energy that way with no drain on the engine. *
> As Harold pointed out, there are no free lunches; at least not in this universe anyways. *BS! The universe is chock full of free lunches. You just have to know where to look. Aside from the cost and energy used to create the initial machinery and maintain it, there are abundant free lunches when it comes to electrical energy production. Hydrothermal, wind, hydroelectric, photovoltaics, tidal, etc. Now I realize Howard was referring to "no free lunches" in terms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and he is right, in terms of conventional 19'th century physics. (Which is the level of science currently being used to generate power in the world today)*
> 
> I stated in an earlier post that the energy required to dissociate a given amount of H2O into O2 and H2 is roughly 1.1 times as much as you can hope to recover when combusting the same amount of H2 and O2. In other words, in a "self contained hydrogen powered vehicle", this would lower your fuel economy rather than raise it. *Assuming it required dedicated power from the engine yes *
> ...


----------



## jsargent (Feb 17, 2009)

EVO-AU said:


> Have either of you ever read the arguments and discussions that arose between Brown, Westinghouse and Tesla ?
> Phill



I'm somewhat familiar with Westinghouse and Tesla. George Westinghouse was a close friend of my great grandfather. In fact my great grandfather worked for Westinghouse and while working for him, invented the Westinghouse Air Brake used on all trains today. 

Tesla and his work have always been of interest to me. There's a great biography by Margaret Cheney called "Tesla: Man Out of Time" if you're interested


----------



## qst42know (Feb 17, 2009)

This has been discussed at great length. HHO, Brown's gas, etc. All are dependent on electricity from more traditional sources, a charged battery, a running engine. Because no conversion of energy (electricity to gas) is perfect there are always losses however small (resistance heat). 

The idea you can create energy from nothing is Bong hit science, the more bong hits, the more sense it makes. The laws of physics will not allow it but a couple more bong hits and you may even invest in one of the publicly traded companies that promote this so called science.

It can be a convenient source of hydrogen for a PGM torch but what you get out is always less than what you put in in terms of energy.


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 18, 2009)

qst42know said:


> This has been discussed at great length. HHO, Brown's gas, etc. All are dependent on electricity from more traditional sources, a charged battery, a running engine. Because no conversion of energy (electricity to gas) is perfect there are always losses however small (resistance heat).
> 
> The idea you can create energy from nothing is Bong hit science, the more bong hits, the more sense it makes. The laws of physics will not allow it but a couple more bong hits and you may even invest in one of the publicly traded companies that promote this so called science.
> 
> It can be a convenient source of hydrogen for a PGM torch but what you get out is always less than what you put in in terms of energy.



If the comments, above, do not make sense, you really should avoid any contact with the "wizardry" of hydrogen in a closed system. Your lack of understanding will be the source of lost wealth and time. 

There is no such thing, and there will never be such a thing. There will always be losses to insure that's true. 

I am not open to discussion in this matter unless you can provide evidence that losses don't exist. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 18, 2009)

jsargent said:


> As Harold pointed out, there are no free lunches; at least not in this universe anyways.





Traveller11 said:


> *BS! The universe is chock full of free lunches. You just have to know where to look.*


*
Talk is cheap! Show me, and prove to me it's "free energy". It may be collected free of charge, but it was not created free. There is a loss any time energy is transferred from one form to another. 

Hydro-power isn't free-----the difference is we don't pay for lifting the water that provides the energy. If we did, it would be a losing proposition. 

Offer an example that's free. 

You can't do it!

Harold*


----------



## jsargent (Feb 18, 2009)

Harold_V said:


> jsargent said:
> 
> 
> > As Harold pointed out, there are no free lunches; at least not in this universe anyways.
> ...


*
I already gave you five examples of free energy. (Wind, geothermal, photovoltaics, hydroelectric, tidal) These are "free" in the sense that no human activity is required to impart the initial energy into the system. Solar radiation, natural radioactive decay and lunar tidal forces are the sources of the initial energies into which we simply put our taps in the form of windmills, hydroelectric dams and so forth. I AM NOT SAYING THE ENERGY IS FREE IN THE SENSE OF PERPETUAL MOTION. Nothing vilotates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and yet, these sources are free in the sense they cost us nothing other than the machinery.

My second point, and perhaps this is what you are questioning, is that there exist sources or resevoirs of energy in the universe which are virtually limitless yet we have not built the machinery yet to exploit these sources. The Zero Point Energy Field is one such source. Someday I predict we will understand how to tap this resevoir of energy, just like early 20'th Century scientists who tapped the power of radioactive decay with the machine we call the Nuclear Reactor. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am an inventor and I'll happily reinvent the wheel if it makes the wheel more efficient or cheaper or whatever. It's a genetic thing. I can't help it.*


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 19, 2009)

I understand your position, and I applaud your efforts. We would be nowhere without folks with a curious and creative mind. 

As long as you understand that the forces you mentioned are not without cost (albeit not to us), I am in full support of your endeavors. What I do not support is the notion that you can fill a can with water, splitting the water electrically to be used as fuel to power a vehicle, then capturing the water that is formed upon the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, creating a closed loop system that is self powered. That, indeed, is perpetual motion, and is nothing short of a waste of time for everyone involved. 

Best of luck to you.

Harold


----------



## butcher (Feb 19, 2009)

Plant grass ride a horse, use by product on garden. of coarse even that is not all that energy efficent, but there is no free lunch, never has been never will be.


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 19, 2009)

Jeff: Now I know where you inherited your gift of intelligence.

Butcher: Alice's Restaurant, maybe ? ( I just found yur post about sheetrock for cupels. Cute; Gotta try that ! )

Harold: You have got the handle, ole buddy !


----------



## jsargent (Feb 19, 2009)

Sheetrock for cupels? Now THAT'S brilliant. Yet one more item I can buy at Lowe's for a purpose it was never intended  

Here's the Lowe's List so far in no particular order:

HCL.... Muriatic Acid
Oxalic Acid... Wood deck bleach
Peroxy Monopersulfate... Non-Chlorine Pool Oxidizer (Oxone Brand) 
Sodium Bromide... Spa Shock Treatment
20% Acetic Acid
Citric Acid
Calcium Hypochlorite
Sodium Chlorate... used as a weed killer or some such thing
Sodium Chloride 50lb bags... water softner salt
Distilled water
Ferrous sulfate 
Sodium Hydroxide (drain opener)
Sodium Bisulfite (rust remover)

Probably a few things escape me at the moment but it's amazing you can get all these items so easily nowadays if ya dig around in Lawn and Garden.


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 21, 2009)

Jeff:

That is an astounding list. Gosh darn it, I have so many things to try now, I'll never get ahead. But oh what fun. An old professor of mine once said that I had too many projects started and too many lists of unavailable materials. Sad, but true !!!!! "Course that was about five decades ago. Boy, if he was only here today to see the raw and artificial materials at our disposal. ( Except for big brother and homeland security )

Lowes' drain cleaner doesn't turn me on. Have you ever heard of Thrift. Really nice with which to work.

Two books that I like are :

The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla by Marc J. Seifer and

Tesla Said by John T. Ratclaff However, I'll look up your title.

Have a nice weekend. Phill


----------



## jsargent (Feb 21, 2009)

Harold_V said:


> I understand your position, and I applaud your efforts. We would be nowhere without folks with a curious and creative mind.
> 
> As long as you understand that the forces you mentioned are not without cost (albeit not to us), I am in full support of your endeavors. What I do not support is the notion that you can fill a can with water, splitting the water electrically to be used as fuel to power a vehicle, then capturing the water that is formed upon the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, creating a closed loop system that is self powered. That, indeed, is perpetual motion, and is nothing short of a waste of time for everyone involved.
> 
> ...


Thanks Harold and best luck to you as well and thanks too for sharing your experince gained during your years of refining. This forum and the people who contribute to it are an invaluable resource to all of us. I learn something new every day here it seems.


----------



## EVO-AU (Feb 28, 2009)

Jeff:

How did you happen on peroxy monopersulphate and in what capacity do you find its use ? Phill


----------



## jsargent (Mar 1, 2009)

EVO-AU said:


> Jeff:
> 
> How did you happen on peroxy monopersulphate and in what capacity do you find its use ? Phill



Phill- I ran across monopersulfate in this patent which is a fairly straightforward halogen leach process. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5401296/description.html
I find it useful in driving up the ORP of most any leach process in a convenient and controllable fashion. Ozone, chlorine, nitric acid and other oxidizers will do the same thing but with their own sets of problems.

Jeff


----------



## EVO-AU (Mar 3, 2009)

Jeff: I read you. I'll have to play with the stuff. My orps usually run no higher than 550 to 600. Phill


----------



## jsargent (Mar 5, 2009)

EVO-AU said:


> Jeff: I read you. I'll have to play with the stuff. My orps usually run no higher than 550 to 600. Phill



With monopersulfate it's easy to drive the ORP too high. According to this patent that would be in excess of around 950mv I seem to recall. I read if the ORP goes too high it can actually passivate the gold particles with an oxide layer which inhibits further dissolution. In any case once you get to the desired ORP it takes very little additional monopersulfate to maintain it.


----------

