Dissociation of the Water Molecule

[HeairBear]

Hey Farrah! Your back! Did you bring a finished replication of anything with you this time? Oh well, back to the bench! Or lab, kitchen, what ever it is we use for our brain toys. Welcome back! Newbie should be right behind me with a post in... 3, 2, 1....

[Farrah Day]

I've got a lot going on at present, as I'm experimenting with a few ideas all at the same time to see if I can find a common denominator that links them all. All include elements of electromagnetic induction.

Just wondering if anyone has actually built, and has a working Dave Lawton D14 PWM.

I ask as I've never been able to reproduce the results Lawton claimed with the bifilar coil included, whereby he powered a light bulb via a rectifier cct added across the cell - no success at any frequency, even though I have a perfectly working D14.

Has anyone else ever replicated this experiment?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfc/D14.pdf

[newbie123]

Here's a Naudin CF replication.   Seems like a pretty  valid attempt.

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/2003/replicationjln.htm

[L505]

It's all very well saying that voltage pulls the water molecule apart, but what is the balanced chemical equation to back up such a statement? Meyer certainly never provided one.  And how do you get gases evolved from pulling the water molecule apart if no charges are exchanged??

They all think that the light bulb "burns off" the electrons in the electron extraction circuit and what comes out the tail pipe is some water that is missing electrons (or magically the electrons reappear again from somewhere even though they destroyed them previously with a light bulb). In fact light bulbs don't do such a thing and neither do resistors. 

And assuming the electrons go missing (which is stupid), nope, they still don't have a balanced equation with the missing electrons regardless. Maybe they release toxic anti-water out the tail pipe (water with missing electrons that were "burnt off by a light bulb") and that's how stan died.. from "anti-water poisoning" in his lungs.

So basically the key item people need to explain (ask the right questions, idiots) is how electrons go missing. They don't go missing in the light bulb, because light bulbs don't burn electrons off. A light bulb is just a resistor that slows electrons down. No one has answered the "right questions" and we are back to arguing with crackpots and quacktards.

Yes, a balanced chemical equation is needed. But that is hard mind work. And quacktards and crackpots don't want to do hard mind work because they don't have minds. Just lots of crack.

[HeairBear]

OK, Farah. I need your help here to help explain what can happen and the equation to define it. I can't find any real answers so far.

Using a longer tube set style cell to electrolyze water in the normal Faraday fashion with a minimal current applied, but, enough to produce a small amount of gasses. Assuming the voltage potential is great enough to positively ionize both hydrogen and oxygen atoms as the gas bubbles rise up through the tubes. We now have both elements in an unstable state and both are positive in charge repelling each other keeping them from reforming back into water. These bubbles also have a tendency to remain in the water much like a cloudy foam and will recirculate through the tubes if conditions are right.

Here is my question/s... What happens to the unstable atoms in the water? Positive ions are in fact atoms with missing electrons, are they not? Do they not seek out, or, are very attracted to anything that can fill the void to stabilize the atom? Can the ions take electrons from a water molecule if it is polarized to 109°? The most I have found on these matters pertains to oxygen in the positive ion state which is categorized as a super oxidant or something along those lines.

Any opinions, equations, or rants are welcome.