Over the last decade I have covered a lot of miles looking at energy solutions. Most if not all free energy claims have failed to materialize into a product that can benefit society. There are still a few doors open worth investigating like LENR. Most efforts into energy research are directed towards storage solutions, energy harvesting and alternative energy technologies with a zero carbon footprint..
Hydrogen has for many years has been touted as the clean energy breakthrough, but suffers from high energy inputs to produce through the electrolysis process. Most Hydrogen is produced from petroleum gas reformation. Despite claims from many people over many decades of cheap and efficient hydrogen production, or in some cases HHO, however nothing has ever been demonstrated better than 85% efficiency. There are some promising hydrogen producing technologies on the horizon we have covered recently.
I came across this information recently where a scientist over 80 years ago claimed electrolysis of water being powered by magnetic forces only. This never was accepted by peers and very little experimentation has been done. Some enthusiasts recently are trying to revive this technology and experiment to see what is real and what is mythology. I think this is worthy of further investigation and would be happy to hear form anyone who may be a lot more knowledgeable than I am on the topic. It may of course be another trip up the creek, but that the adventure of the journey.
I have divided the story into three parts, the first being a video of an experiment where some success is claimed (without the data unfortunately) This at least raises the question of the possibility.
Part1: Hydrogen and oxygen – polarized magnetolysis
My name is Fabio Bilancioni, I would like to show a phenomena that I call “polarized magnetolysis”.
After many experiments I made always with different conditions in order to remove external trouble elements and always coming to the confirmation of my theory, I decided to put in web what can be an important discovery. I hope that someone can confirm its validity or, on the contrary, disprove it.
I unconsciously traced what the Austrian Physicist Mr. Felix Ehrenhaft had already explored in the forties , what he called “magnetolysis” : it consisted in the dissociation of the water molecule into its components, oxygen and hydrogen, by means of a magnetic field without use of electric current (like in the traditional electrolysis).
Interference of an earth magnetic field
The variant I added to the debated results obtained by Ehrenhaft is the “interference” of an earth magnetic field with the one produced by permanent magnets placed in the following way:
1: some of them placed in circle around the container of distilled water,
2: some of them inside the container in contact with a steel sheet
3: some of them aligned outside the container.
Since the container has been placed on a floating platform, the aligned magnets (point 3) allowed the container/system to direct itself depending on the earth magnetic field, the same that happens with a normal compass.
I observed that:
– when the system directed itself in accordance with the earth magnetic field, a phenomena of gas bubbles started inside the container;
– the same phenomena stopped in every position outside earth magnetic field axis.
My hypothesis is that, somehow I don’t know, the earth magnetic field interacts with the one produced by the permanent magnets and in this way it splits the water molecule into its components: oxygen and hydrogen.
Since the phenomena appears only when the containers directs itself in accordance with the earth poles, I called it “polarized magnetolysis”.
I add that the liquid put into the container is distilled water.
I hope I have well explained the phenomena, visible in the video, and I would like to receive comments and remarks by other experimenter.
I thank you for your attention and I wish you a nice day.
You can contact me at following address: firstname.lastname@example.org
Part2: Physicist Mr. Felix Ehrenhaft
Magic with Magnetism
by Alden P. Armagnac (Popular Science June 1944)
Can a magnet take water to pieces? No, say physics textbooks. Yes, says Prof. Felix Ehrenhaft, former director of the Physical Institute at the University of Vienna, who now carries on his research in New York. If he should turn out to be right his findings in the realm of magnetism promise practical applications as far-reaching as the dynamos, motors, transformers telephones, and radio that have stemmed from Faraday’s fundamental research in electricity.
For his “impossible” experiment, Dr. Ehrenhaft employs the simplest of apparatus. Two shiny rods of pure Swedish iron, sealed in holes through opposite sides of a U-shaped tube, resemble a setup familiar to high-school students for breaking up water into hydrogen and oxygen gases by passing electricity through it. And that is exactly what would happen if Dr. Ehrenhaft attached electric wires from a battery to the rods. But he does no such thing.
Instead, he uses the iron rods as pole pieces, or ‘north” and “south” ends, of a magnet – either an electromagnet or a permanent magnet. Bubbles of gas rise through the twin columns of acidulated water, to be collected and analyzed. As might be expected, nearly all of the gas is hydrogen, liberated by a commonplace chemical interaction between the iron rods and the dilute sulfuric acid, one percent by volume, in the water. But the phenomenal part of the experiment is that oxygen also turns up, Dr. Ehrenhaft recently told the American Physical Society. To be specific, it is found in clearly measurable proportions ranging from two to 12 percent of the total volume of gases. When the gases obtained with a permanent magnet are separated, the larger proportion of oxygen is found above the north pole of the magnet. After rigorous precautions – including short-circuiting the magnet poles with wire, so that the poles will be at the same electric potential – Dr. Ehrenhaft concludes that there is only one place the oxygen can possibly come from. And that is from water decomposed with a magnet! Without a magnet, pure hydrogen is evolved.
There is an interesting sidelight to this experiment. A strong permanent magnet of the Alnico type suffers a marked loss of strength – say, 10 percent in 24 hours – after being used to decompose water, Dr. Ehrenhaft observes. In fact, makers of the magnets, which are supposed to last for years without material change, have viewed what happens to them with astonishment and dismay. But no fault lies with their products. Energy from an electric battery is used up in decomposing water, and it would be only reasonable to expect energy stored up in a permanent magnet to be drained likewise.
What gives the utmost significance to the reported feat of breaking up water with a magnet is the fresh evidence it offers for the existence of “magnetic current,” or a flow of magnetically charged particles, which has been suspected by noted pioneers and which Dr. Ehrenhaft now maintains he has proved. Confirmation of this amazing discovery would point to a possible future rival of electric current, perhaps capable of being harnessed in undreamed-of ways.
Needless to say, the scientific world will require a whole lot of convincing, since Dr. Ehrenhaft’s conclusions flatly contradict long-established beliefs. As every schoolboy is taught, a magnet has a north pole and a south pole. Break it in two with a hammer, and each piece will have a north pole and south pole of its own. No law forbids you to imagine a magnet with only one pole, and the idea comes in handy in certain electrical and radio calculations. But as for actual fact, you cannot have one pole without the other, an experimenter named Peter Peregrinus believed, he demonstrated it to his satisfaction, using a loadstone, in the year 1269, and prevailing opinion has backed him up ever since. (As we know now, the loadstone that he floated on a platform in water simply turned until its north pole faced the south magnetic pole of the earth, and vice versa. It showed no observable excess of north or of south magnetism – and hence the conclusion that the two were always equal.)
But would the dictum of “no separate magnetic poles” still hold true in a far more delicate test – say, if you substitutedmicroscopic particles of iron or other magnetic metals, as tiny as particles of smoke, for the massive chunk of rock that Peregrinus used ? Dr. Ehrenhaft has tried it. In an air gap between the north and south poles of a magnet, he sets up what he calls a homogenous magnetic field, that is, with the lines of magnetic force absolutely parallel. In this field, he finds, the metal particles move toward the north or south pole, reversing their direction according to the direction of the magnetic field. On the particles, he concludes, there must be an excess of north or south magnetic charge. Expanding the terminology of Faraday, he calls the particles magnetic ions. They are the single magnetic poles shown at the lower right of the colored drawing. Instead of bearing plus or minus electric charges, as familiar ions do, they carry north or south magnetic charges.
Now, just as traveling electric ions form an electric current, why shouldn’t traveling magnetic ions form a magnetic current? See for yourself another of Dr. Ehrenhaft’s startling experiments, and draw your own conclusions.
This time the heart of the apparatus will be a small glass cell, fitted as before with pole pieces of pure iron that dip into water containing one percent of sulphuric acid. An electromagnet, turned on or off at will energizes the poles. From a projector, a powerful beam of light converges upon the narrow gap between the pole pieces, and a low-power microscope, mounted horizontally, reveals what happens there. Adding a camera provides a permanent record.
You begin with the Magnet turned off. Looking into the eyepiece of the microscope, you see streams of bubbles rising from both pole pieces. They are of hydrogen gas, liberated by the same chemical action as in the first experiment.
Throw the switch that turns on the magnet, and the scene abruptly changes. Stopped dead in their tracks, some of the bubbles cling to the pole pieces. Others leave one pole and travel to the other. Dr. Ehrenhaft calls special attention to bubbles moving downward against their own buoyancy, impelled by some unseen force stronger than gravity.
Meanwhile a spectacular phenomenon has been developing – a miniature merry-go-round of gas bubbles between the faces of the poles and parallel to them. Incapable of being shown adequately in a time exposure, the effect nevertheless appears plainly as a white blur, when the upper magnetic pole is given a conical shape for photographic purposes. Visual observation, shows striking details. If copper particles, say, have been added to the acidulated water, they will rotate in the same plane as the hydrogen bubbles, but in the opposite direction. For both, the speed of the whirligig depends upon the strength of the magnetic field. Reverse the polarity of the magnet, and each set of particles spins in the opposite direction.
Here are no wild-eyed theories, but perfectly demonstrable facts. Any skeptical physicist has a standing invitation to see them with his own eyes at Dr. Ehrenhaft’s laboratory, placed at his disposal in the New York City quarters of the famous Carl Zeiss optical firm. How to account for the phenomena remains a challenge to science, unless Dr. Ehrenhaft’s conclusions are to be accepted. See how neatly they would draw an analogy between well-known electric effects and new-found magnetic effects:
Bubbles or particles that travel between pole pieces of a magnet behave just as if they were magnetic ions, or clusters of them – repelled by like magnetic poles, and attracted by oppositely magnetized poles. This corresponds exactly with the way that “electric” or ordinary ions interact with positive and negative electrodes. And as for the ring-around-a-rosy behavior of the hydrogen bubbles and copper particles, Dr. Ehrenhaft concludes that these are electrically charged particles – ordinary ions – rotating about a magnetic current. This would be an exact counterpart of the classical conception that magnetism rotates about a current-carrying electric conductor.
Now the staggering implications of Dr. Ehrenhaft’s observations begin to unfold. Existence of such a thing as magnetic current, once established, would pave the way for industries as gigantic as those that the discovery of electricity led to in its time. A “gold rush” for practical applications might be expected. Patents for them would command fabulous sums, since inventions employing magnetic current would be basic.
What form they may take, no man can foresee, and Dr. Ehrenhaft cautiously declines to hazard a guess. Yet a visitor to his laboratory cannot resist the temptation to let his imagination run free. New kinds of motors and generators? Better ways to transmit power? Transformers that will work on direct current instead of alternating current? Atom smashers? Radical methods of seeing things in the dark, and through microscopes and telescopes? Ways to tap power from the magnetism of the earth itself? And, in your home, substitution of magnetic current – who ever got a shock from it? – for electric current? Pure dreams, all of them, today – but some of them, perhaps, realities of 2044.
Before magnetic currents could be put in harness, of course, a myriad of questions about their behavior remain to be studied and answered. So far, no one knows whether they can be led through wires, like electric currents, as well as through conducting liquids. If so, the wires might be of entirely different materials than the best conductors for electricity. Likewise, the most effective insulators for magnetic current might be substances totally unlike those used for electrical insulators. The whole subject offers as vast a field for pioneering research as electricity did a century ago. And now, as then, an amateur experimenter puttering in his basement stands as good a chance of making an epochal discovery as does a distinguished scientists in a great laboratory.
Felix Ehrenhaft: TIME magazine, may,22,1944: Magnetic Current?
It was a startling idea—that magnetism, like electricity, flows in currents and can decompose water (TIME, Jan. 24). U.S. physicists kept politely mum. Their skeptical silence annoyed Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft of Manhattan. Recently, before the American Physical Society at Pittsburgh, he enunciated his theory again.
White-haired Dr. Ehrenhaft commands scientific respect: he was formerly director of the famed Physical Institute of the University of Vienna. He is also a noted heretic. In 1910 he tangled with Caltech’s brilliant Robert Andrews Millikan, then a young professor at the University of Chicago, who had just isolated and measured the electron. Ehrenhaft said that he himself had isolated electrical particles of various sizes, many of them smaller than the electron. Millikan demolished Ehren-haft’s proofs, won the Nobel Prize.
Now 65, a refugee without an adequate laboratory, Ehrenhaft has again challenged a basic concept. When an electric current passes through acidified water between iron poles, the current decomposes the water and oxygen is formed at the positive pole. It is Ehrenhaft’s claim that when the two poles of a horseshoe magnet are substituted for the current, oxygen is present in the gas that rises from the north magnetic pole. Therefore, he reasoned, the water is decomposed and there must be a flow of magnetic current.
The gases from Ehrenhaft’s tests were analyzed by Brooklyn’s authoritative Foster D. Snell, Inc. Results: about i% of oxygen, slightly more at the north magnetic pole, slightly less at the south, none at all if the iron was not magnetized. This analysis seemed to bear out Ehrenhaft’s conclusions.
At Pittsburgh only one physicist outspokenly opposed Ehrenhaft. Dr. Jacob E. Goldman, 23-year-old Westinghouse magnetism researcher, rose to remark that he had repeated Ehrenhaft’s experiments, found only bubbles, no magnetic current. His results suited another youngster, 27-year-old James T. Kendall of England’s Metropolitan-Vickers laboratory. Dr. Kendall declared in Nature that Ehrenhaft’s claims “may turn out to be no more valid than his previous claims of the existence of charges smaller than the electron.”
Dr. Ehrenhaft promised to prove his case.
Part 3: Modern Research
The following are samples of many papers and efforts by researchers both scientific and passionate enthusiast. Time or space does not allow to expand beyond these few. I welcome anyone with other nformation to please publish it in the comments section or email me at email@example.com
1. The effect of magnetic force on hydrogen production efficiency in water electrolysis
Water electrolysis is one of the most common ways to produce hydrogen gas. It has several merits, such as: high efficiency, high purity, and easy use. In this paper, electrodes with different magnetism are adapted on the hydrogen production by water electrolysis, and the influences of magneto-hydrodynamics on the electrolysis process are discussed. The influences of working parameters related to magnetism and water electrolysis are also discussed as well.
According to the experimental observations, the direction of magnetism will determine the direction of Lorentz force, the convection of electrolytic solution, the direction of the bubbles motion, and then affect the efficiency of water electrolysis. Furthermore, ferromagnetism electrodes are more affected by magnetism, and multiply the Lorentz effect. It reduces the polarization and over-potential during electrolysis, and thus increases the effectiveness of hydrogen production.
With the magnetic field at room temperature, electrode spacing of 2 mm and a voltage of 4 V, nickel electrodes (ferromagnetism material) can promote current density by 14.6%, and platinum electrodes (paramagnetism material) can promote current density by 10%. The promotion of current density is not significant for graphite electrodes (diamagnetism material). It indicates that the magnetic force does enhance the efficiency of water electrolysis, and ferromagnetism is the best choice for electrodes.
2. Water Electrolysis under a Magnetic Field
he energy efficiency of water electrolysis was considerably improved under a high magnetic field. This was proved by measuring the cell voltage, the IR-drop, and the electrode potentials for the electrolysis which was galvanostatically operated in alkaline (4.46 and KOH) and acidic ( ) solutions. A large reduction in the cell voltage was achieved in a magnetic field, especially at a high current density. The decrease of the IR-drop, which was measured by the current interrupter method, depended on the concentration of electrolyte solutions. In a magnetic field, the oxygen overpotential was reduced more than the hydrogen overpotential.
3. Magnetic and Electric Effects on Water
Due to the partial covalency of water’s hydrogen bonding, electrons are not held by individual molecules but are easily distributed amongst water clusters giving rise to coherent regions capable of interacting with local electric and magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation.
Magnetic effects on water
Liquid water is affected by magnetic fields and such fields can assist its purification. Water is diamagnetic and may be levitated in very high magnetic fields (10 T, compare Earth’s magnetic field 50 μT) Lower, but still powerful, magnetic fields (0.2 T) have been shown, in simulations, to increase the number of monomer water molecules but, rather surprisingly, they increase the tetrahedrality at the same time. Other studies show an increase in cluster size in liquid water is caused by a magnetic field . In contrast, the friction coefficient of water in thin films has been shown to reduce in a magnetic field (0.16-0.53 T), indicating a possible reduction in hydrogen bond strength . Salt mobility is enhanced in strong magnetic fields (1-10 T) causing some disruption to the hydrogen bonding. However this only causes a net reduction in hydrogen bonding at high salt concentrations (for example 5 M NaCl), whereas at lower concentrations (1 M NaCl) the increase in water hydrogen bonding in the presence of such high magnetic fields more than compensates for this effect. They may also assist clathrate formation . The increase in refractive index with magnetic field has been attributed to increased hydrogen bond strength . Weak magnetic fields (15 mT) have also been shown to increase the evaporation rate . These effects are consistent with the magnetic fields weakening the van der Waals bonding between the water molecules and the water molecules being more tightly bound, due to the magnetic field reducing the thermal motion of the inherent charges by generating dampening forces ]. Due to the fine balance between the conflicting hydrogen bonding and non-bonded interactions in water clusters, any such weakening of the van der Waals attraction leads to a further strengthening of the hydrogen bonding and greater cyclic hydrogen bonded clustering. This effect of the magnetic field on the hydrogen bonding has been further supported by the increased ease of supercooling (5 mT lowering about 1 °C,, the rise in the melting point of H2O (5.6 mK at 6 T) and D2O (21.8 mK at 6 T)and the 3 °C lowering of the sol-gel transition (at 0.3 T) in methylcellulose ], both indicating a weakening of the van der Waals bonding of the water molecules within a magnetic field. Far greater effects on contact angle and Raman bands have been shown to occur using strong magnetic fields (6 T) when the water contains dissolved oxygen (but not without the paramagnetic oxygen), indicating effects due to greater clathrate-type water formation .
The magnetic susceptibility of water increases from negative towards positive with magnetic frequency and is reported to be positive (i.e. it is slightly paramagnetic) in the range of 0.4-1 MHz for ambient water.
Static magnetic effects have been shown to cause strengthened hydrogen bonding and an increase in the ordered structure of water formed around hydrophobic molecules and colloids as shown by the increase in fluorescence of dissolved probes . Also, magnetic fields affect the infrared spectrum of water (showing its effect on water clustering) and these effects remain for considerable time after the magnetic field is removed. Surprisingly, even very small magnetic fields may affect the solubility of gases in seawater (solubility increasing with magnetic field (20-50 µT) , probably by their effect on the clathrate stability. This reinforces the view that it is the movement through a magnetic field, and it associated electromagnetic effect, that is important for disrupting the hydrogen bonding. Such fields can also increase the evaporation rate of water and the dissolution rate of oxygen (due to its paramagnetic nature) but cannot, despite claims by certain expensive water preparations, increase the equilibrium amount of oxygen dissolved in water above its established, and rather low, equilibrium concentration . Magnetic fields can also increase proton spin relaxation , which may speed up some reactions dependent on proton transfer. Treatment of water with magnetic fields of about one Tesla increases the strength of mortar due to its greater hydration. Treatment with constant transverse magnetic or electric fields is reported to gives rise to a disinfection effect
Electromagnetic effects on water
From the above, it appears that electric and magnetic fields have opposite effects on water clustering. Unstructured water with fewer hydrogen bonds is a more reactive environment as exemplified by the enhanced reactivity of supercritical water. An open, more hydrogen-bonded network structure slows reactions due to its increased viscosity, reduced diffusivities and the less active participation of water molecules. Any factors that reduce hydrogen bonding and hydrogen bond strength, such as electric fields, should encourage reactivity. Water clusters (even with random arrangements) have equal hydrogen bonding in all directions. As such, electric or electromagnetic fields that attempt to reorient the water molecules should necessitate the breakage of some hydrogen bonds; for example, electric fields have been reported to halve the mean water cluster size as measured by 17O-NMR(see also ‘declustered’ water) and increase reaction rates , hydration and solubility. Electromagnetic radiation (for example, microwave) has been shown to exert its effect primarily through the electrical rather than magnetic effect. The increased hydration ability of water in electromagnetic fields has been shown by the dissociation of an enzyme dimer (electric eel acetylcholinesterase), leading to gel formation, due to the microwave radiation from a mobile phone . The resultant aqueous restructuring caused by such processes may be kinetically stable.
Link and full article: http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/magnetic_electric_effects.html
Forum at Overunity.com