Re: [Vo]:theory behind hydroxy gas production using Stanley Meyers unit

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Off hand I have no idea if the apparatus alluded to here works, but 
there are a few glitches in the post which are worth pointing out.


MAJ Todd Hathaway wrote:
This outlines some of the theory behind hydroxy gas production in the 
Bob Boyce resonance drive systems we are building, similar to the 
Stanley Meyer's system as described below:
 
The electrolysis process is not dependent on energy.

Yes it is.  You must overcome the binding *energy* of the H, the H, and 
the O.  When you "burn" them back to water, the energy you get back is 
that binding energy.

From Arrhenius theory, molecules in solution dissociate into ions and 
the ions are collected at the electrode. No energy is required for 
ionic dissociation and electrolysis processes are so efficient that 
they are used to measure current. When the Arrhenius theory is applied 
to the dissociation of water, the key requirement to produce 1 mole 
(~1 gram) of hydrogen is that 1 Faraday of electricity flows.

However, you can't just ignore the voltage, or assume you can set it to 
whatever you want.  Voltage must be high enough to overcome the binding 
energy of the water molecules, or your electrolysis cell won't go.

Current is *a* key requirement.  Voltage is *another* key requirement.

If it is assumed that the hydrogen is produced by passing 1 amp of 
current for 96,494 seconds (1 Faraday = 96,494 coulombs) at 1 volt, 
then the energy needed is ~96.5 kJ. That same 1 gram of H2 is capable 
of releasing 285kJ during the combustion process with oxygen. The 
process of producing hydrogen from water usually requires an 
electrolyte to produce it in quantities. Polarization occurs at the 
electrodes with hydrogen collecting there. A number of methods are 
known for improving the efficiency of the process. In theory the 
process can be made energy efficient

The term "energy efficient" has not been defined.   What do you mean by it?

without a breach of any of the laws of thermodynamics.

If you're trying to say you can split water for less energy cost than 
what you get back when you recombine the hydrogen and oxygen, then the 
claim that you can do it without violating the laws of thermodynamics is 
flatly false:

It breaks the first law, which is conservation of total energy.

It also breaks the second law, which says free (usable) energy must 
decrease.

Whether it's *possible* is something else, to be determined by 
experiment, but please don't claim you can do it without violating the 
laws of thermodynamics.

Enough for now; I have no further comments on the text so I'm snipping 
it off here, as per the house rules.

[snip]