Buoyancy device by phase change of water to ice

[Willy]

Another observation.

Making sheet ice allows faster freezing, but also faster melting while
rising.

If the ice sheets are formed with lines of perforations,  their own buoyancy (as they rise)
can be used to break the sheets into smaller sheets and then stack those smaller sheets into
a cube form. This, before they enter into a cube shaped insulating jacket. All or nearly all,
accomplished by the energy of their own buoyancy  .

[Willy]

Interlude / direction change.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but

It is my understanding that the electrolysis of water into H and O
under pressures (i.e. under deep water) greater than atmospheric pressure (i.e. sea level)
DOES NOT DECREASE the efficiency of the electrolysis in terms of

Electrical (edit...  joules and / or wattage) input per mass of gasses produced.

High pressures decrease the RATE of production (gas produced per unit of time)
but also simultaneously decrease the electric current flowing through the electrolyte
(per unit of time) ? ? ?

Efficiency in terms of energy input to energy output remains the same ? ? ?

The advantages of electrolysis

while under water pressure 

as opposed to in atmosphere

1. The use of a supporting buoy at the top of the rise, in water as opposed to the use of a tower
or a lighter than air balloon buoy in atmosphere at the top of the rise.

2 The availability of neutral buoyancy rope in water as opposed to the unavailability
of a neutral buoyancy rope in atmosphere. A long rope gets very heavy in atmosphere.

3. Greater energy output per unit of  rise distance.

[kolbacict]

Efficiency in terms of energy input to energy output remains the same ? ? ?

Not much less will be the real output gas per current, but that's not the point.
Too little volume of gases is produced in absolute terms, or gigantic currents are needed.
Or you need to look for other chemicals that produce a larger volume of gas at a lower current.

[Willy]

Not much less will be the real output gas per current, but that's not the point.
Too little volume of gases is produced in absolute terms, or gigantic currents are needed.
Or you need to look for other chemicals that produce a larger volume of gas at a lower current.

"Not much less will be the real output gas per current, but that's not the point."

                      Correction, this is very much so is a main point of this presentation.


                            "Too little volume of gases is produced in absolute terms. "

                                  1.   Your statement is unclear, since it does not tell us what
                                        you mean by the phrase "absolute terms".
                                   2.  Mass of gases produced, not VOLUME. is that which I
                                        spoke of.
                                   3. The gases produced will have less volume at depth, than
                                                             they will have at sea level.
                                    4. The gases remain buoyant at depth until their density matches
                                                                        that of the water.
                                        Question ? ... At what depth under water / at what pressure,
                                         does oxygen, does hydrogen reaqch the same density as water?
                                                       Temperature is also a factor in this whole process.
                                    5. The gases increase in buoyancy as they rise in the water.

                            "Or you need to look for other chemicals that produce a larger
                                                   volume of gas at a lower current."

                                                                      I do not agree.

                            Your point is a valid one. 
                       Thanks

                       EDIT...  Your point is an important one and valid.
                                        Thank you very much. Great input !

[Willy]

12,214,800 joules to produce 1 cubic meter of hydrogen at sea level (82 grams).
1 cubic meter of hydrogen by buoyancy in atmosphere can lift 1.2 kg of weight.

9.8 joules to lift 1 kilogram 1 meter

9.8 x 1.2 Kg = 11.76 joules to lift 1.2 Kg 1 meter

12,214,800 joules electrical input / 11.76 joules of energy gain as lifting per meter
= 1,038,674 meters in altitude. or  1,038,674 kilometers
3,407,723. feet  or  645 miles altitude break even point.

There is a minimum rising distance IN ATMOSPHERE, of the hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis in order to break even between, the joules of energy gained as gas rise, and the joules of energy input to do the electrolysis. The break even point occurs at 645 miles
elevation !

asdfasdfsadfsdfsdf

Given that the heat produced in an electrolyte plus the heat of the combustion of
the H and O produced, is equal to the input electrical energy to do the electrolysis
(unity), an over unity gain can be realized after the hydrogen's rise due to buoyancy
in atmosphere and    then    combustion at altitude.  It is a small percentage O.U.
and difficult to make practical use of.

           under water
Increase in the gas density will decrease the buoyancy force available from the gases.
                 
The rate at which the density of the gasses increases as water pressure increases
(with greater depth), makes a break even point unobtainable ?

unless...
Combustion after the gas rise and the heat from the electrolysis are again taken into
account.

What I have been / am examining here (second part of this topic), if it is possible to
improve that O.U percentage via under water electrolysis
          and if not,
then can it be more easily accessed when done under water.
or
perhaps, under water but also in part, above water?