electrolysis

[Harold_V]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 1cuft@4psi 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]

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]

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]

It's not that they are not trying.

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

 

[butcher]

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]

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

 

[OMG]

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

 

[Traveller11]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bmgold]

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)