If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here.
The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: > >> A >> conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control >> electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control >> electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an >> increase of >> electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. > > > I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to > consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water > electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through > proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in > electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable > electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this > is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the > electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in > there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary > electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its > own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the > third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC > resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the > frequency the more so. > > I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy > the "conduction by diffusion" argument, though. I experimented with a > 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light > speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different > from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo > that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and > a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 > experiments: > > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf > > I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this > arena. Here is a neat group working on "Soft Condensed Matter" at least: > > http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html > > It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is > considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ > ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to > water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. > > >> >> Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely >> accurate in >> the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I >> publish >> it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense >> nature. >> >> But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs >> and a >> few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. >> >> Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) >> >> Eg - energy gain >> Vs - source or supply voltage >> Is - supply current (amps) >> Na -Avogadro's number >> ec - Electron charge >> f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle > > > > There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part > is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. > When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
