HHO Cell - Stan Meyer Design.

[WilbyInebriated]

He says that oxygen isn't forming, but that isn't accurate (and in reality impossible)......   Oxygen is forming but instead of bubbling up, it is forming an oxide layer on the electrode....        Stifler seems quick to jump to conclusions.

is that a fact? i missed where he said that, could you give the time in the vid where he says that? (in reality you are not an authority on what is possible or not)
do you have a hypothesis and experiment(s) to verify this? you failed to noticed the stuff pouring off the electrode and settling in the water? how is that an oxide layer? it is distilled water, deionized.
you seem quick to jump to conclusions. i'm wondering what you think then of the single electrode electrolysis? obviously contradictory as stiffler noted.

edit: i see you have edited your post to now to include, 'then falling off....' 

[Farrah Day]

When I said the electrodes would not need to be actually in the water if voltage alone was able to produce gas, I was of course inferring that they would not actually need to be in contact with the water, ie they could be insulated from it. For example, the outer electrode could simply be aluminium foil wrapped around the cell container, so not in contact with the water. Whilst the other electrode could be sitting within the water, with or without insulation - it wouldn't matter.

is this proven?

Is what proven?  I was not trying to prove anything, rather just making a logical statement in the case of folks that assume voltage alone will dissociate water.

Anyway nice one with the video links Wilby - I've not seen those ones before. Got to say I find these videos and indeed Stifflers SECs quite fascinating. But I can tell you, as simple as it is the SEC circuit is a real sod to replicate.

I love the SEC stuff though, because it really does seem a strange but fully demonstratable science, and certainly opens a few doors to new ways of thinking.

Granted, there looks to be some strange thinks happening and though Stiffler does not mention it, I think Newbie has a good point.  If that electrode is copper then it could well be oxidising, so he would not get oxygen evolved. And, given that copper oxide is a solid so of far greater density than a gas, even a tiny build up would compare to the hydrogen being evolved.

However, with hydrogen being given off at the ss cathode, the reaction would balance and Faradays laws of electrolysis would apply.  If this experiment ran for longer, it might be more telling.

If anything I think it would be foolish not to initially assume the copper to be oxidising as we would then appear to have an unbalanced equation. However, should this prove not to be the case then we would have something really intriguing.

Although he calls it single wire and wireless electrolysis, there always does appear to be two wires actually in the water itself. I wonder why there is no mention of this experiment with regular tap water...  as it would be a very logical step.

There might well be a very logical reason why the hydrogen is not immediately leaving the water. All electrolysers do this, they just get cloudier a lot faster. The resulting gas always mixes with the water and never goes straight up and out. It's just like the head settling on a pint of Guiness.

In Stiffler's case, the gas is being evolved so slowly that large bubbles do not form, and the tinier the bubbles the more they are affected by the movement of the water molecules themselves and water currents. I personally do not think this in itself is anything remarkable.

[WilbyInebriated]

Is what proven?  I was not trying to prove anything, rather just making a logical statement in the case of folks that assume voltage alone will dissociate water.

Anyway nice one with the video links Wilby - I've not seen those ones before. Got to say I find these videos and indeed Stifflers SECs quite fascinating. But I can tell you, as simple as it is the SEC circuit is a real sod to replicate.

I love the SEC stuff though, because it really does seem a strange but fully demonstratable science, and certainly opens a few doors to new ways of thinking.

Granted, there looks to be some strange thinks happening and though Stiffler does not mention it, I think Newbie has a good point.  If that electrode is copper then it could well be oxidising, so he would not get oxygen evolved. And, given that copper oxide is a solid so of far greater density than a gas, even a tiny build up would compare to the hydrogen being evolved.

However, hydrogen would still be being given off at the ss cathode, the reaction would balance and Faradays laws of electrolysis would apply.  If this experiment ran for longer, it might be more telling.

If anything I think it would be foolish not to initially assume the copper to be oxidising as we would then appear to have an unbalanced equation. However, should this prove not to be the case then we would have something really intriguing.

Although he calls it single wire and wireless electrolysis, there always does appear to be two wires actually in the water itself. I wonder why there is no mention of this experiment with regular tap water...  as it would be a very logical step.

There might well be a very logical reason why the hydrogen is not immediately leaving the water. All electrolysers do this, they just get cloudier a lot faster. The resulting gas always mixes with the water and never goes straight up and out. It's just like the head settling on a pint of Guiness.

In Stiffler's case, the gas is being evolved so slowly that large bubbles do not form, and the tinier the bubbles the more they are affected by the movement of the water molecules themselves and water currents. I personally do not think this in itself is anything remarkable.

i never said you were, i was just asking for clarification as to whether or not your statement was an assumption or conjecture or something you had seen demonstrated.

thanks. fascinating indeed. actually it is pretty easy to replicate, after all it is only 15 components or so. of course having an original one of stiffler's SEC 15-3's to reference from helps a lot.

i agree, except with that 'demonstratable' word you used.

the electrode is not copper.

again, not a copper electrode. bugger huh?

speaking from over a year of experience with the SEC 15-3 i think it would be foolish to assume anything.

yes in one or more of those videos there is actually 2 wires in the water, but only one wire supply. one of those clips has only one electrode in the water, and it is evolving hydrogen. here is the 'easy button' for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_yOSDVJ1vY&feature=channel listen at around 2:50.
why would tap water be the logical next step?

the hydrogen is immediately leaving the water, it is the ?oxygen? that is not. furthermore, the guiness analogy doesn't hold. anyone who has built a cell will tell you the evolved gases fill the top of the container and then start 'saturating' down. this does nothing of the sort. watch again, or better yet get a working SEC together and try it yourself.

really? got other examples of this rate of gas evolution at the same power input that stiffler is using? or other examples of using one electrode and still evolving gas?

what's with you and the spell check? browser doesn't support it? too lazy? is the clue in my forum name?  demonstrable, oxidizing, electrolyzers

edit: imho, you misspelling oxidizing twice does damage to your chemistry credibility.

[newbie123]

In Stiffler's case, the gas is being evolved so slowly that large bubbles do not form, and the tinier the bubbles the more they are affected by the movement of the water molecules themselves and water currents. I personally do not think this in itself is anything remarkable.

"Making the normal sound  remarkable" is pretty much the theme of this site, for the most part imho....     But if Stiffler had real information/data/measurements on what was forming on the cathode in his experiment, and actually SHOWED the product is something other than oxide or O2, then it might be interesting, but all you can do is speculate after watching his video (which isn't very scientific and standard procedure here on this site) ...

[WilbyInebriated]

"Making the normal sound  remarkable" is pretty much the theme of this site, for the most part....     But if Stiffler had real information/data/measurements on what was forming on the cathode in his experiment, and actually SHOWS the product is something other than oxide or O2, then it might be interesting, but all you can do is speculate after watching his video (which isn't very scientific and standard procedure here on this site) ...

i'm calling bs here. stiffler provides plenty of information to replicate this, he just doesn't tolerate ignorance, like yours.

here is where you speculated (which isn't very scientific and standard procedure here on this site). 

He says that oxygen isn't forming, but that isn't accurate (and in reality impossible)......   Oxygen is forming but instead of bubbling up, it is most likely forming an oxide layer on the electrode, then falling off....        Stifler seems quick to jump to conclusions at times.    Cool experiment though.

anyways, my point is that there is most likely more than one answer to these questions pointing you in a crooked line. i'll leave you two to do that voodoo that you do, so well.