Author Options:

What's the difference between an electric boiler and an electrolyzer? Answered


I don't understand how they create steam without hydrogen and oxygen.

I've been researching the prior art on electric boilers. This involves the type that passes the current through the water.

Here's one of many examples: Electric Boiler

There are also jet flow boilers which seem to do the same thing. I thought it might be the ac current instead of dc which allows the creation of steam without the dissociation of the water molecules. I've actually been trying to create steam this way. But this has been driving me crazy. I started experimenting with a AA. I start small. Safety first. :-) Then a AA with a disposable camera circuit. It will charge up a cap to 319 Volts. Then I jumped to 9V, 12V car battery, 120VAC, then rectified 120VAC with a bridge rectifier. So far, I've just used regular tap water. My meter reads open circuit.  I've tried a couple different electrode materials for the 12V in the 2 gallon container: plated screws, aluminum plates, spark plug. The only thing I can think of is to decrease the size of the container, dramatically. Even then, I would still have the problem of dissociation. I've been told to throw in some chemicals to decrease the resistance. But that's how to get more hydrogen production as well, from what I've read.  I would think it should go something like this:

As I increase the power, heat would rise, proportionally, till it starts becoming a vapor. As I continue to increase the amount of power, the moisture of the gas decreases as the hydrogen and oxygen content increases. That's not what happens. Production starts almost immediately, with very little heat. No steam. I'm going to try decreasing the chamber next, but I still think I'm going to be getting hydrogen and oxygen, just with a higher moisture content as the water starts to heat up.


Simply wrap aluminum foil around a battery and throw that in water, a fast cheapo boiler.

I'm very skeptical, show a video !

What volume of water ?

What battery ?

Doesn't really matter, try using a D-Cell (It will get hot quite fast) and about a liter of water. Should get handwarm or so.

Iv been to Mars & back since your comment.

Warm is relative, for a CO2 cold Martian sand storm ....... Brrrrr


6 years ago

Have you considered turning H2O as a liquid into a Fog suspended vapor
by adding mechanical energy.


Take a look and there is a lot more information information on Google
if you search ( ultrasonic fog machine ).

No killer arcs in water,  Faster then a submerged electric heater and
easy to use.

Hope this helps.


Thank you for the reply. I hadn't actually looked up "ultrasonic fog" in the prior art. That's helped out a lot, it's all about finding the right keywords. Yes, I will be throwing sound into the mix to see what happens. Those are the 2 real things I'm interesting in, water and waves. And Ionization of gas. Anything that can raise or lower the energy levels of atoms and molecules. That's another thing I'm going to be working on. I have to reproduce some of the ionization experiments done by m3sca1, just to see what happens.

Ultrasonic Fogger 

Ever wonder how an "ultrasonic fogger" fogs? Most of them do use a piezo element. This is the exception I've found so far. I think the pressure probably caused the hydrogen and oxygen to recombine, maybe. It's something else to try. The electric heaters are resistance heaters. I've already made one of those, no big mystery. Run a current through a wire, it heats up. Stick it in water and the water heats up.

Awesomely Simple Ultrasonic Nebulizer Background

It's an old patent, and it doesn't read like a good idea.
I don't understand how they create steam without hydrogen and oxygen - do you think that this type of system wouldn't create hydrogen & oxygen?

It's a bad idea I think, which would explain why no one is using this idea to produce pressurised steam (if they ever have successfully).


Here's another one:


He does talk about a method of circulating the water in a confined space.

Why has no one produced something that works like this since those patents were published? - because you do better with normal immersion-heating.
Getting something patented is just a level of protection on an idea, it in no way validates the idea as being of any practical value.


That assumes their goal was efficiency. For many businessmen, that's the case. But there are some that purposefully make things so they break, distort, galvanize, and become useless after a set amount of time, so that people buy more. There's proof of that all around us. They can't even hide it on wikipedia anymore. That isn't the only one.


When I was in college, I had lunch with the dean to talk about my business ideas. I told him I wanted to make products that lasted. He said that they weren't supposed to last. He literally told me that they were supposed to break. And they are. Now, they just don't know how to stop and get back to the way things were, to do business the way Edison and Tesla did it. All the guys at the top, know this. They just can't admit it any more out of fear of what people will do if they find out. They had good intentions: to make the economy keep on growin' and keep people employed. It wasn't some conspiracy to make enormous profits. That's just the way it has been for the last 100 years. Their goal was never efficiency, it was to keep people employed by making a lot of products.

But you're right, some patents are junk. The only way to find out is to build them.

The only way to find out is to build them
You were asking questions around how these theoretical devices work - get building one then?

I never mentioned efficiency, and there's nothing in the patents that suggests these things would be long lasting, quite the opposite really...
(It looks potentially dangerous - be careful)


I read into it. There are other people I've dealt with that are almost fanatical about the perfection of the system. I apologize, it wasn't fair for me to judge you like that. It's not so much that I have my doubts, I just have to experiment around to learn about science and engineering. I'm worthless in a classroom environment. It goes in one ear and out the other. :-) But I swear, these people don't like others doing their own experiments. Or looking back through the prior art. There is some real hatred out there, and I don't understand it.

I didn't read through the whole patent but from the first few paragraphs and the images I figure it works similar to an arc furnace.

Using a gap in an electric circuit to create an electric arc which releases huge amounts of heat. Any water between the electrodes will vaporise due to the heat before it dissociates with the electricity. Any water that does dissociate will promptly burn and recombine since there is no separate storage for the gasses but there is a large spark.

Like lemonie said, it sounds like a bad idea, but I do think it could work if you get a good arc going (try a setup similar to arc welding and use de-mineralised water). Make sure the container can handle the pressure or it will blow up into a rain of metal shards, steam, boiling water and electricity.

Interesting. I've been looking over the prior art on arc furnaces. I've seen some guys do things like that, with the arc in the water. It's like Lemonie said, it produces hydrogen and oxygen saturated with water vapor. Or maybe they're the same thing. I don't know, yet. I'm not really looking for efficiency. I'm just looking for a bit of understanding in this crazy world. :-)