Would it be effective (not to imply efficient) to decontaminate

it would create pure distilled water. If you could control the voltage/current enough you could even prevent the splitting of heavy water(present in all drinking water) but that would require precise and expensive equipment.

>>8631055
Are you sure there wouldn't still be some NaF still present in the water? Would it accumulate on one of the electrodes? The bit about heavy water sounds interesting, but it's not the purpose of this.

>>8631040
it's easier just to boil it and condense it.

File: JesseVenturaFeatured.jpg (197KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 800x800px

>>8631040
>O- anions

>>8632762
>it's easier just to boil it and condense it.
Burning it was part of the plan anyway.

>>8632774
>O- anions
I don't understand.

>>8632846
You would use more energy electrolysing it than you would get back from burning it.

Boiling it is cheaper.

>>8632762
>>8632852
I think you're misunderstanding OP. It's not whether it's efficient or cost effective, but whether it's effective at making pure water. Disregard time and cost here.

>>8632852
>You would use more energy electrolysing it than you would get back from burning it.
Yeah, I know that, but I was making a hydrogen torch anyway. I even said in the op:
>(not to imply efficient)

I was also looking for a way to separate flouride from water, and wondered if I could kill two birds with one stone. I couldn't find it's decomposition temperature or something, but wasn't having any luck.

>>8631040
>>What effect would this have on sodium fluoride
Now instead of sodium fluoride in your water, you have HF, which ought to do a pretty good job of decalcifying your pineal gland.

>>8632864
Exactly. I know electrolysis of sodium chloride produces chlorine gas, but I can't find anything on what it does to sodium fluoride.

>>8632871
Hilarious.

>>8632864
>I think you're misunderstanding OP. It's not whether it's efficient or cost effective, but whether it's effective at making pure water. Disregard time and cost here.

Yeah, it would totally work, you would just have to clean out your electrolizers anode and cathode every so often.

>>8632865
>Yeah, I know that, but I was making a hydrogen torch anyway. I even said in the op

Yeah, it would totally work.

I think there's even a dude who'se already made a hydrogen flame electrolyzer welding thingie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGz5X1hB3Nw

>>8632896
>Yeah, it would totally work, you would just have to clean out your electrolizers anode and cathode every so often.
Yeah, I figured the electrodes would need cleaning regardless.

>I think there's even a dude who'se already made a hydrogen flame electrolyzer welding thingie.
The fact that he calls it HHO doesn't really help his credibility.

>>8632902
>The fact that he calls it HHO doesn't really help his credibility.

Well, considering that HHO is exactly what it is....

>>8632906
It's an oxyhydrogen torch. HHO is a pseudo-science word for it.

>>8632906
'HHO' does not follow any scientific naming scheme. It's H2 gas + O2 gas. It would be like calling air 'NNNNO'

>>8632911
>HHO is a pseudo-science word for it.

it's literally the elements in proper proportion that is used in the flame, famalam.

it doesn't matter if you don't like the term, it's technically accurate.

>>8632921
Fair enough. Considering the video you posted, I thought you meant it like this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/HHO_gas

File: original.jpg (24KB, 335x352px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 335x352px

>>8632927
>"it is claimed that HHO is a unique form of matter, made up of "magnecules" of hydrogen gas (HH) connected to lone oxygen atoms (O) by "magnecular bonds". "

>Unique form of matter

No, I did not mean it like that.

>>8632949
I think that article describes it wrong. From what I've seen it's more commonly described as a different kind of molecule than regular water, not a new form of matter.