Mookie's Electrolyser Accelerator

[Farrah Day]

Hi Mike, it's not that I'm being deliberately negative here, I'm just being my usual cautionary self, ie non-trusting and sceptical!

I'm quite familiar with the history of the common-duct electrolyser. I've been playing with this stuff for a good few years now and in fact I used to be in regular email contact with William Rhodes himself.

What is not clear from Eckmans paper is how the 'Brown's Gas' he analysed was produced. I mean are we to assume that the resulting gases are the same from a straight dc common-duct electrolyser as they are from an equivalent pulsed system?  Is he simply assuming that any common-duct electrolyser produces 'Brown's Gas'?

I've just re-read the paper, and though initially it reads well and very scientific, every time I see new things that put me on edge. This for example:

The third peak is the one that was deemed unidentified by the
test, but it is proposed that this is the linear water isotope,
because it contains the weight of water with a few extra
electrons.

Linear water isotope... what?  This makes no sense to me whatsoever, as an isotope is an atom with more or less neutrons - more or less electrons would simply make it an ion.  Why would he call it an isotope? I think they should propose something else!

And another thing that is really bugging me is where are all these electrons supposed to be coming from to provide water molecules with additional electrons?  If this was happening to any great degree, the current through the cell would be seen to diminish. Electrons from the cathode are needed to maintain the ionic current flow through the cell in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen in the first place!  

I daresay most people merrily skim through Eckmans paper without fully understanding the implications of what is being said, and so are without any concerns or questions... but I have a list of questions as long as my arm! To my mind a lot of what Eckman states simply does not sit right with me. Hence, as scientific as it may seem,  I'm extremely wary of this paper.

[vrand]

Hi Mike, it's not that I'm being deliberately negative here, I'm just being my usual cautionary self, ie non-trusting and sceptical!

I'm quite familiar with the history of the common-duct electrolyser. I've been playing with this stuff for a good few years now and in fact I used to be in regular email contact with William Rhodes himself.

What is not clear from Eckmans paper is how the 'Brown's Gas' he analysed was produced. I mean are we to assume that the resulting gases are the same from a straight dc common-duct electrolyser as they are from an equivalent pulsed system?  Is he simply assuming that any common-duct electrolyser produces 'Brown's Gas'?

I've just re-read the paper, and though initially it reads well and very scientific, every time I see new things that put me on edge. This for example:

Linear water isotope... what?  This makes no sense to me whatsoever, as an isotope is an atom with more or less neutrons - more or less electrons would simply make it an ion.  Why would he call it an isotope? I think they should propose something else!

And another thing that is really bugging me is where are all these electrons supposed to be coming from to provide water molecules with additional electrons?  If this was happening to any great degree, the current through the cell would be seen to diminish. Electrons from the cathode that are needed to maintain the ionic current flow through the cell in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen in the first place!  

I daresay most people merrily skim through Eckmans paper without fully understanding the implications of what is being said, and so are without any concerns or questions... but I have a list of questions as long as my arm! To my mind a lot of what Eckman states simply does not sit right with me. Hence, as scientific as it may seem,  I'm extremely wary of this paper.

Hi Farrad,

It looks to me that Eckman got his Brown's Gas from one of George Wiseman Brown's Gas "welder units", for two reasons, first because he quotes George, and second because he lives in the same area as George.  You can try calling or emailing Chris and ask specifically.  I emailed Chris months ago without response to date, although I was not expecting a reply anyway.  

There are not a lot of Brown's Gas units out there and since Chris is young and has chosen to research a famous "non-conventional energy technology," and has an "open mind" to discover/research new technologies, it looked to me that George might have even guided and asked Chris to do this analysis.  This is all conjecture on my part but does seems to fit the facts.

In any event, the Brown's gas that Chris analyzed looked about right for a typical common ducted system, through my mind.

Your next question on "...where are all these electrons supposed to be coming from to provide water molecules with additional electrons?"

My answer:

The electrons are coming from the DC power supply through electrode plates themselves, and here is why.  The Rydberg cluster theory states that not all of the Brown's Gas electrolysis input DC power is in splitting 100% the water molecule completely into hydrogen & oxygen, but that a good percentage of the electrons instead binds to form the Rydberg water clusters.  The gas spectrometer proves this out.  




The 3rd highest amount of atoms and molecules are what Chris calls  "Plasma Expanded Water"  .

So as we can see, there are a lot of other atoms and molecules inside the Brown's Gas.  This findings goes counter to the "Conventional Brown's Gas/HHO theory" which states, that it is a 100% mixture of hydrogen, oxygen in atomic or diatomic forms, or in para or ortho states.  If Chris was using George's Brown's Gas, his generators are the most energy efficient electrolyzer generators one can buy "off the shelf" today.

In the graph above, the diatomic hydrogen came in second place, and the monatomic oxygen and hydrogen, were way down the list.  

I am sure that if you analyzed a Bob Boyce 101 plate cell, there would be more percentage of monatomic hydrogen & oxygen, but there are only a handful of units out there in the real world.  What is needed is more experiments, data and analysis from the different Brown's Gases researchers units being built and discovered daily.

For example, Fast Freddy ran his truck off his small tube cell unit in the truck bed.  That design I would like to see the gas spectrometer readings on.  I plan on building a unit.  http://www.futureenergyconceptsinc.com/product/hydrogen-hog

Another electrolyzer design that I am currently building is based on Zach West's spiral coil electrolyzer plates design.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ZachWest.pdf

West's design is very similar to Freddy's design where there are lots of electrode plate area that all fits inside a large GE water filter housing  A special PWM will be pulsing the 2 plate electrodes with high voltage (12V DC) and high amperages (250 amps), to 60 psi cell pressure.  That 1/2" thick walled GE house water filter is rated to 120 psi.  http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SpecPage&Sku=GXWH40L

Mike  

[Farrah Day]

Mike, I think we have to be very careful in what we think we know from Eckman's gas analysis, especially as he himself is only theorising on certain aspects and some of that is based on Wiseman's theories. Hence much is still only theory.

The electrons are coming from the DC power supply through electrode plates themselves, and here is why.  The Rydberg cluster theory states that not all of the Brown's Gas electrolysis input DC power is in splitting 100% the water molecule completely into hydrogen & oxygen, but that a good percentage of the electrons instead binds to form the Rydberg water clusters.  The gas spectrometer proves this out. 

Now, what you have said above might make perfect sense to you, but give it some real thought and there are problems.  For the cell to operate, it must pass a current. That current is ionic in the form of OH- and H+ radicals, and for current to flow through the cell and indeed the circuit, every time a hydrogen ion (H+) picks up an electron at the cathode, so a hydroxyl ion (OH-) drops an electron at the anode.  Electrons can't simply pour off the cathode and create ions of water gas (H2O-). To complete the circuit and so allow current flow electrons must be deposited at the anode.  This of course works perfectly well in Faraday Electrolysis, but not in the case of the water molecule ionising and leaving the liquid as a gas. Not only would this leave a surplus +ve charge within the cell, but it would effectively become a break in the circuit - and open circuit. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I see the chart, but I do not see that it supports the Rydberg water cluster theory. Clearly the 3rd highest peak appears to be ionised water vapour, but I personally think the term 'Plasma Expanded Water', is a little exotic and so likely somewhat misleading. 

I've already highlighted a few inconsistencies and legitimate reasons why I'm wary of the paper and the results, but obviously my concerns are, for some reason, not bourne out by yourself.  You must know that adding an electron to the water molecule is not how electrolysis works, and that an isotope is an atom with more or less neutrons... do these errors not bother you at all?

All I'm saying is that this paper has some obvious flaws and so cannot necessarily be taken as gospel. We too need to keep an open mind.

[vrand]

Farrah, thank you for your replies, and I agree that this is just a theory.  More experiments and analysis are needed. 
Thanks, Mike

[IceStorm]

If all post can be like the last 2 post , thing will be a lot easier and progress will be made a lot faster. Farrah Day i must say that im impress by the way you analyze and the way you stay critic. People often forget that the current science is the only reference point for the FE community , all device/idea/etc must first be compare with the current science, when the math AND experiment show divergence , OU perspective begin to appear but until it go against what we already know or the way we know, people should focus on fact and not interpretation/exotic thinking, its what make the difference between religion and science.

Keep up the good work!!

Best Regards,
IceStorm

[Farrah Day]

Farrah, thank you for your replies, and I agree that this is just a theory.  More experiments and analysis are needed. 
Thanks, Mike

Mike, I'm glad you've taken my last fews post in the manner they were meant, that is simply as a cautionary note.

Once again with reference to Eckmans paper, here's something else that is incorrect. Top of page 3, right hand side:

Some things to note are the presence of monatomic hydrogen
and oxygen, but in very small parts. Normally monatomic
hydrogen and oxygen would bond right away to form H2 and O2,
but it does not in Brown's Gas, they remain ions. This helps to
prove that Rydberg clusters are forming.

Monatomic hydrogen and oxygen are not ions. Molecular hydrogen does not form from ions, it forms from atomic hydrogen - atoms, not ions. A very distinctive and important difference. Two hydrogen ions would and could not bond as, in the case of H+ which is just a proton, they would have no electrons to form a molecular covalent bond and would infact simply repel each other.  I know I come across as nit-picking here, but this is afterall a scientific paper, so these small erronous details are significant.

I wonder if this paper was ever peer reviewed?

I'm fully aware that my negativeness may seem like I'm continually out to spoil the party, but this is not my intention, I'm simply trying to keep things balanced and real. Believe it or not I don't deliberately go out of my way to be the harbinger of doom and gloom.

It would be very interesting to see the gas analysis from Mookie's electrolyser, because if cavitation is occurring, then you would expect to see the presence of some hydrogen peroxide, and indeed other radical species not seen in Eckmans results. This may also be the case in some Meyer-like electrolysers that may also be creating some degree of cavitation.

Some of you may not have seen this before, if not you will find it quite interesting. Check out the following link featuring Dr. William Rhodes:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Common_Duct_Electrolytic_OxyHydrogen/

[Farrah Day]

Just to add a little further food for thought here.

If we assume that the combination of the resulting gases evolving from a common duct electrolyser to be Rhode's gas, Brown's gas, HHO - or whatever term you choose to use - then clearly different electrolysers would likely produce various gases in different proportions, hence no two samples of Rhode's gas will necessarily be the same. This of course is very different to true Hydroxy, which is specifically just a stoichiometric combination of hydrogen and oxygen, and nothing more.

A common duct electrolyser may itself from time to time even produce variations of the gases evolving due to the nature of the water being electrolysed. The amount of dissolved gases and impurities may well mean that various samples of the evolving gas may to some degree be different.

With these common duct electrolysers, I see a combination of gases resulting, but I do not sense the over-Faraday results claimed by the likes of Stanley Meyers. I do not see any mention of unexplained great increases in gas production, rather I just see claims of the unusual properties of the resulting gas.

Which brings me nicely back to cavitation.  Meyer and a few others always spoke of resonant or tuned systems, and that this tuning aspect was responsible for apparant over-Faraday gas production.  Well if acoustic oscillations or indeed ultrasonic oscillations played a part, then cavitation was likely occurring and would seem to be the most obvious explanation for apparent over-Faraday gas production. I say apparent over-Faraday gas production, because of course Faraday's laws of electrolysis were not being broken, these laws would still apply to the gases evolving that were resulting directly from current flowing through the cells. However, by its very nature, cavitation does not require electricity per se from the supply source, as the fundamental energy required to initiate cavitation is a result of mechanical not chemical or electrochemical reactions.  It's actually quite beautiful in its simplicity.

Let's say that we have an electrolyser that is drawing 5 amps dc from the supply source, and that this supply source is being pulsed. At any given frequency and voltage, a specific current flows through the cell which results in gas being evolved directly proportional to Faraday's laws.  However, the cell is designed in such a way that the electrodes themselves will to some degree oscillate in line with the pulsing current, and when a certain energy threshold is reached, cavitation spontaneously initiates.  

Now from the observers point of view, he or she will have steadily increased the voltage and seen the current, and so gas output, rise in accordance and proportionally... but then something incredible happens. When the cavitaion threshold is reached, the cell would appear to go into freefall, as the gas output is seen to increase dramatically and many fold, while the current remains steady. Furthermore this evolving gas would appear throughout the cell, not just from the electrodes, but emanating directly from within the water itself. Now I'm not saying that there is no price to pay for cavitation, as the mechanical oscillations will come at a price, but we would have already been paying this price to some extent before the threshold for cavitation was reached.  

Many people would no doubt immediately deem this as the magical and mysterious phenomenon known as 'resonance', and while it is down to oscillations, in this instance at least, the term 'resonance' would be incorrect.

[vrand]

Mike, I'm glad you've taken my last fews post in the manner they were meant, that is simply as a cautionary note.

Once again with reference to Eckmans paper, here's something else that is incorrect. Top of page 3, right hand side:

Monatomic hydrogen and oxygen are not ions. Molecular hydrogen does not form from ions, it forms from atomic hydrogen - atoms, not ions. A very distinctive and important difference. Two hydrogen ions would and could not bond as, in the case of H+ which is just a proton, they would have no electrons to form a molecular covalent bond and would infact simply repel each other.  I know I come across as nit-picking here, but this is afterall a scientific paper, so these small erronous details are significant.

I wonder if this paper was ever peer reviewed?

I'm fully aware that my negativeness may seem like I'm continually out to spoil the party, but this is not my intention, I'm simply trying to keep things balanced and real. Believe it or not I don't deliberately go out of my way to be the harbinger of doom and gloom.

It would be very interesting to see the gas analysis from Mookie's electrolyser, because if cavitation is occurring, then you would expect to see the presence of some hydrogen peroxide, and indeed other radical species not seen in Eckmans results. This may also be the case in some Meyer-like electrolysers that may also be creating some degree of cavitation.

Some of you may not have seen this before, if not you will find it quite interesting. Check out the following link featuring Dr. William Rhodes:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Common_Duct_Electrolytic_OxyHydrogen/

Hi Farrad, I understand your posts are meant to be a cautionary note.  My views are to "shine the light" on this wonderful technology that is at the start of a new energy industry.

Monatomic Hydrogen & Oxygen Ions actually exists.

- Negative Ions (Anions) Positive Ions (Cations) Nomenclature
http://science.marshall.edu/castella/chm211/nomenclature2.pdf

- Peter Jardine, Ph.D., DCH Technology Inc. Valencia, CA used it in his company's product literature.

Technical Paper
Hydrogen Sensors for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Applications
http://www.powerpulse.net/techPaper.php?paperID=99

- Here a scientist paper on the different chemical bondings:
CHEMICAL BONDING OF NEW ALLOTROPES OF HYDROGEN AND ITS MPLICATIONS TO FUEL SCIENCE
"Extreme heat will encourage the formation of monatomic hydrogen ions rather than triatomic and polyatomic allotropes of hydrogen atoms."
http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/45_3_WASHINGTON%20DC_08-00_0639.pdf

- Wiki
"An ion consisting of a single atom is an atomic or monatomic ion.}

"Formation of monatomic ions
Monatomic ions are formed by the addition of electrons to the valence shell of the atom, which is the outer-most electron shell in an atom, or the losing of electrons from this shell. The inner shells of an atom are filled with electrons that are tightly bound to the positively charged atomic nucleus, and so do not participate in this kind of chemical interaction. The process of gaining or losing electrons from a neutral atom or molecule is called ionization."

There is a lot of new and old info that needs to be gathered so that researchers can follow along in developing the HHO/Brown's Gas industry.

Mike

[iquant]

Add a catalyzed chemical reaction into the mix and you will have a nice mathematical mess of equations to postulate.

ie.  NaOH + AL or Na + H20 via magnetic induction along with acoustical cavitation/resonance and pulsed DC electrolysis...

Cavitation Hydrogen Generator Patent - Not sure if the claims made have any real merit.

So what is your goal or what are you after?   Most efficient manner for on demand hydrogen generation?
Proving or debunking OU?

[Farrah Day]

So what is your goal or what are you after?   Most efficient manner for on demand hydrogen generation?
Proving or debunking OU?

Personally I'm not interested OU one way or another. If things turn up to suggest OU, then so be it, but the concept of OU does not come into my immediate plans.  On-demand gas generation is my greatest area of interest, so naturally the most efficiently this can be achieved the better!

[Farrah Day]

Monatomic Hydrogen & Oxygen Ions actually exists.

Mike, I know what an ion is. 

You have misinterpreted what I was saying. I feel semantics are playing a part here.

Eckman states that monatomic hydrogen and oxygen remain as ions and do not bond to form H2 and O2. All I was saying is that this is wrong as ions of hydrogen and oxygen will never combine to form molecular gases. You can't make a neutral hydrogen molecule from two hydrogen (H+) ions, which is what I was getting at, and which is what Eckman is implying.

Hence I was not stating that monatomic ions do not exist, rather just that the monatomic hydrogen and oxygen that Eckmans states remain as ions, are not ions in the first place, but atoms.

[Farrah Day]

Hi Farrad, I understand your posts are meant to be a cautionary note.  My views are to "shine the light" on this wonderful technology that is at the start of a new energy industry.

Mike don't get me wrong, I love this stuff and would dearly love to be able to run my car on an on-demand electrolyser system, and indeed this would be my ultimate goal.  It's just that there's an awful lot of pseudoscience and misinformation to wade through, so I'm simply and continually striving to sort the facts from the fiction.

I wonder how carefully you have studied that Atomic Mass Analysis of Eckman's. I'm finding it quite hard to get it to a size and resolution whereby I can see the writing on the chart clearly. But after some close inspection and intense scrutinising I'm finding it very interesting.

The two peaks representing diatomic hydrogen are clearly not isotopes as Eckman states, but quite simply molecular gases, the respective masses do not suggest the addition of a neutron.

From left to right, the second diatomic hydrogen peak shows a mass of 2.02. No problem there - stable molecular hydrogen, 2 protons, 2 electrons.  The first diatomic hydrogen peak however, with a mass of 2.008 appears to be molecular hydrogen that is lacking in mass. But given that an electron is 1/1836 the mass of a proton, this discrepancy is surely too great to be simply down to missing electrons. Curiouser and curiouser. However, I think it logical to at least contemplate that this peak is depicting a deficiency of electrons. So we would therefore appear to have nearly as much charged molecular hydrogen as we do neutral molecular hydrogen. This I would not expect and I'd say is likely quite an anomaly in itself.

If we look at the water vapour peaks, here again, no isotope but a minor mass discrepancy that again suggests that the water molecule in one peak is carrying a charge. Again very odd, as this would mean that we also have nearly as much charged water vapour as we do neutral water vapour. It looks very much to me that the second water vapour peak likely has a surplus of electrons.  So, either these peaks are due to some anomaly in the instruments or the way the instrument takes the readings, or there are two distinct forms of molecular hydrogen formed from common duct electrolysis along with at least two maybe three distinct forms of water molecule.

Now, the really curious thing for me is that Eckman does not attribute an atomic mass to the unidentified peak that he proposes is Plasma Expanded Water. Why is this I wonder?  Originally I thought the figure was 22.992 before I determined that this figure was in fact for the following peak, sodium. As the elements and compounds get progressively heavier as we move to the right of the chart, we can assume that this so-called Plasma Expanded Water peak must lie between the 18.042 of the second water vapour peak and 22.992 of the sodium peak. And, although it seems like rather a high percentage, it does put us firmly in the mass territory of deuterium oxide, or heavy water (D2O), atomic mass being 20.04. And ah! An isotope at last!

Without knowing the exact figure for the atomic mass of this mysterious peak, we can only postulate. However, I feel the presence of D2O is more likely than simply water that has expanded due to taking on additional energy or electrons - which would surely show only a very slight variation in mass when compared to the other two water vapour peaks.

Whatever, from the chart we do seem to have gases that carry a charge, and so by very definition would be plasmas.  However, we do have to take the accuracy of the readings on good faith.

[Yaro]

It would be very interesting to see the gas analysis from Mookie's electrolyser, because if cavitation is occurring, then you would expect to see the presence of some hydrogen peroxide, and indeed other radical species not seen in Eckmans results. This may also be the case in some Meyer-like electrolysers that may also be creating some degree of cavitation.

Some of you may not have seen this before, if not you will find it quite interesting. Check out the following link featuring Dr. William Rhodes:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Common_Duct_Electrolytic_OxyHydrogen/

How was Meyer able to vibrate a set of tubes with electrical pulse if he ever did? Could be the holy grail he has been hiding with statements like " voltage does work". I guess if you can get the cavitation part going the applied voltage is minimal.

[Farrah Day]

How was Meyer able to vibrate a set of tubes with electrical pulse if he ever did? Could be the holy grail he has been hiding with statements like " voltage does work". I guess if you can get the cavitation part going the applied voltage is minimal.

A good question Yaro, and something that I'd never given any real thought to until recently. However, now I'm looking at things from a different perspective and I'm seeing possibilities that have never occurred to me in the past.

What I do think, is that if Meyer was creating cavitation, I don't think he was aware of it. I have never found any reference to cavitation anywhere in Meyer's papers. And, if anyone else looking in has, then please point it out.

Now, consider that any current carrying conductor will set up its own magnetic field, and that any other current carrying conductor in the immediate vicinity will also do this.  When these magnetic fields interact they will either cause the two current carrying conductors to move towards each other or move away from each other, depending on the direction of current in each.  This can be demonstrated very easily with two copper wires in close proximity, and is after all the principle by which electric motors and generators operate.  This is also where Flemming's generator and motor rules come into play.  But don't take my word for it, all this is very easy to research  on the net.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/mag/node10.html

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/~uglabs/lab_manual/force_between_conductors.pdf

So what I'm proposing is that two closely spaced electrodes within an electrolyser would to some extent also exhibit these properties. Hence, with each pulse of current they would attempt to move as a direct reaction to the magnetic fields produced. However, unlike the armature of an electric motor, they are fixed so cannot so obviously turn, or move up and down, by way of a reaction... but they may well oscillate as the attempt to do so. And if they oscillate enough, I would expect that there comes a time whereby the threshold of cavitation is attained.  

These are the lines along which I'm focussing all my efforts at present.

[Yaro]

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/mag/node10.html

http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/~uglabs/lab_manual/force_between_conductors.pdf

So what I'm proposing is that two closely spaced electrodes within an electrolyser would to some extent also exhibit these properties. Hence, with each pulse of current they would attempt to move as a direct reaction to the magnetic fields produced. However, unlike the armature of an electric motor, they are fixed so cannot so obviously turn, or move up and down, by way of a reaction... but they may well oscillate as the attempt to do so. And if they oscillate enough, I would expect that there comes a time whereby the threshold of cavitation is attained.  

These are the lines along which I'm focussing all my efforts at present.

Farrah,
Thanks for those two references. The force between the wires is directly  proportional to the square of the current. This reinforces my conviction that CURRENT drives the cell.

[Farrah Day]

Farrah,
Thanks for those two references. The force between the wires is directly  proportional to the square of the current. This reinforces my conviction that CURRENT drives the cell.

Yep, the magnetic fields produced are proportional to the current, which as such, then becomes the prime mover, not the voltage.

If you apply this to Fast Freddy's cells which are using pulsed dc at very high currents, then there is certainly going to be some oscillation of the anodes and cathodes. Every chance we're seeing cavitation there too, and all of a sudden some form of tube tuning actually becomes relevant!

Of course, conversely, Meyer always claimed his cells were voltage driven, with very low current. But I guess it all depends on how much faith you are prepared to put in Meyer's claims and indeed his version of science. In my particular case, after spending days reading through his technical brief some years ago, I... well let's just say it's there if we run out of toilet paper! 

[Yaro]

One more thing: the magnetic force is also proportional to the permeability of free space, that means the non-magnetic 316 ss is another disinfo. The 410 ss steel may be a much better option.

[Farrah Day]

One more thing: the magnetic force is also proportional to the permeability of free space, that means the non-magnetic 316 ss is another disinfo. The 410 ss steel may be a much better option.

What free space? Not sure what you are getting at here, but 410 ss is far less corrosion resistant than the 300 series, particularly if you are using such as lye as an electrolyte, so I'd personally stick with 300 series. I'm not worried about any magnetic property, if it can conduct and so carry a current that's fine by me - the magnetic field provided by the current is all I'm interested in!

[Yaro]

I am refering to the magnetic permeability in the formula, mu. Now, won't a higher permeability metal offer a greater magnetic force, putting aside the corrosion issue?

Look at the formula again.  It seems to me a magnetic metal would require less current to achieve a certain treshhold of force as opposed to a non-magnetic metal.

[Farrah Day]

I am refering to the magnetic permeability in the formula, mu. Now, won't a higher permeability metal offer a greater magnetic force, putting aside the corrosion issue?

Yes.

Look at the formula again.  It seems to me a magnetic metal would require less current to achieve a certain treshhold of force as opposed to a non-magnetic metal.

Correct, but I expect what we will need to determine sooner or later is how much gas is produced via electrolysis and how much by cavitation and at what individual efficiencies in terms of power.  Afterall, Mookie is employing quite a big electromagnet.  So what I'm saying is, reaching the cavitation threshold earlier would certainly mean that we would have less normal electrolysis in action.  If cavitation is the prime gas producer then it may be the way to go, but if not, then higher current through the electrodes to reach the cavitation threshold would be quite acceptable as we would be inducing more normal electrolysis.

At the end of the day, there are other ways of increasing the permeabilty and indeed strengthening the magnetic flux.  I've been playing with tubes rather than plates, and I can increase the permeability quite simply by inserting a soft iron rod into my inner tube, and gluing and sealing it in place. I can also insert a neo and glue and seal that in place.  Experimentation is the key, suck-it-and-see, but at this point I'd rather not have the worry of my SS corroding prematurely.

[Loner]

FD, I am looking for a method to determine if cavitation really has anything to do with this effect.

I'm NOT saying yes or no, I just have no "Useful" method for study.  The unit, in the video, does
not seem to produce any gas, nor any obvious cavitation effects, unless it's charged and working.

To me, from the layman's point of view, this would seem to indicate that cavitation is not taking
place, but it could be very close, and the charge on the plates is just enough to start the process?

What I'm really looking for is a way to check which of the two forces is really at work.  The mechanical
motion or the changing mag field.

Do you think that directly connecting two plates mechanically and inducing the motion while keeping
the mag field external would be effective, as in, could such a setup move the plates effectively
enough to cause the "Cavitation" process, or would that mechanical connection loose the impulse
energy?   I really have no idea, as it's not the type of work I have much experience with.

I Have worked with the "Sonic" cleaners for parts, etc. and never thought till right now about
simply dropping two plates in there, but all the units I have seen are SS.  I guess the inside of
the tank would need coating, and I doubt anyone will let me modify their unit in such a way,
but maybe I can find an old one....

Just looking for ideas and clues, as the one time I had a really efficient unit running, it was with
a coil on each side of flat plates.  Only was running once, correctly, but very well.  I would like
to try to define the operation a little better.  Any Ideas or comments?  All are welcome.

(Note:  A High power VCR tape demagnetizer works well for a re-production of the basic test.)

[Farrah Day]

Hi Art, long time no speak!

FD, I am looking for a method to determine if cavitation really has anything to do with this effect.

I'm NOT saying yes or no, I just have no "Useful" method for study.  The unit, in the video, does
not seem to produce any gas, nor any obvious cavitation effects, unless it's charged and working.

To me, from the layman's point of view, this would seem to indicate that cavitation is not taking
place, but it could be very close, and the charge on the plates is just enough to start the process?

What I'm really looking for is a way to check which of the two forces is really at work.  The mechanical
motion or the changing mag field.

This is exactly what I'm currently trying to determine myself. If you read through my previous posts on this subject you will see that this is of major importance to me.

Do you think that directly connecting two plates mechanically and inducing the motion while keeping
the mag field external would be effective, as in, could such a setup move the plates effectively
enough to cause the "Cavitation" process, or would that mechanical connection loose the impulse
energy?   I really have no idea, as it's not the type of work I have much experience with.

This is the main area of contention Art. I'm not even sure we would need the magnetic field if we were mechanically inducing cavitation. Unlike many of the others here, I see cavitation as a reaction to the mechanical movement of the plates that themselves are induced to oscillate due to the interaction of the magnetic field created by the current flowing through the cell and the Electromagnet flux, which is pulsing at mains ac frequency.  If you see what I mean.  Ohmasa seems to be creating cavitation independently of electrolysis itself and getting good results - and this would not seem to involve magnetic fields.

I'm of a mind that the magnetic field produced by the Electromagnet is itself doing nothing at all to the water.  Water is not magnetic, so will not react to the EM. However, once a current is flowing through the cell, then both the electrodes and the ion current will be creating their own magnetic fields which certainly will interact with the EM flux.

I have detailed more of my thoughts here, if you have no seen it:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=406.0

Just looking for ideas and clues, as the one time I had a really efficient unit running, it was with
a coil on each side of flat plates.  Only was running once, correctly, but very well.  I would like
to try to define the operation a little better.  Any Ideas or comments?  All are welcome.

(Note:  A High power VCR tape demagnetizer works well for a re-production of the basic test.)

I feel like I've been stumbling around in the dark for years, and now all of a sudden, thanks to Mookie, a light has come on and I'm seeing things for the first time with great clarity.  Parts of the puzzle seem to be dropping nicely into place and it's all actually starting to make sense!

[Loner]

After reading your other post, and checking a few things for myself, I realize that there IS more going on than what I thought, myself.  The cavitation looks like a likely prospect.  If so, as I really have no proof, either way, then it is the actual desired effect, whether produced by magnetic fields, or otherwise.  I will say, for certain, that a mag field is the easier method to produce the required movement.

I must state that I have personally seen that water CAN be directly affected by a mag field.  Once the water is ionized, that is.  Also, even if the water is not, once a current is passing through it, the same can be said.  This now leads me to the theory that you are on the right track as both those methods of "Moving" or affecting the water are for the purpose of producing the cavitation effect, and not for any unusual purpose that cannot be described.   (I like this as it "Feels" right.  Hard to explain that one...)

Just for the "Fun" of it, I'm going to drop a couple "Painted" piezio elements into water and see what difference this makes.  If I "BOND" them to a plate, each, then I should be able to produce the effect, without the mag field?  I'll see what happens as this is an easy and quick thing to do.  (Well, it will take me a week or so to get it all together.  I'm getting slower every day...)

Thanks for the insight into your thoughts, as ALL of the work I have seen, starting WAAAY back, could be traced to this type of effect and I wouldn't be too amazed to find the true reasons for these effects has been sitting in front of us the whole time.

[Farrah Day]

I must state that I have personally seen that water CAN be directly affected by a mag field.  Once the water is ionized, that is.  Also, even if the water is not, once a current is passing through it, the same can be said. 

Yes, so what you have witnessed is, at least to my mind, not the water molecule itself being affected by a magnetic field, but rather ions within the water, be they -OH and +H or ions from an electrolyte. Obviously any current drawn through the cell by a voltage on the electrodes is down to the movement of these ionic species which will create their own magnetic field. If water is passing a current to produce electrolysis, we know that ion charge carriers are responsible, and once moving they will be influenced by an exterior magnetic field.   Of course, even without a voltage across electrodes to induce ionic current flow, random ionic movements will also create small magnetic fields that can be influenced by an exterior magnetic field, but again this has nothing to do with an action or reaction of the water molecule itself.

I think of it this way. The electron is a charged particle that is influence by an electric field, but it is not magnetic. Hence it is not influenced by an exterior magnetic field until it is set in motion, as in a CRT.

Cavitation is a mechanical action, and I'm sure that we could achieve this affect without electrolysis happening at all, it's just that by using pulsed current carrying electrodes, we are able to get both electrolysis and cavitation occurring via one power source.  What interests me, is whether or not the combined action of these two relatively different processes somehow produces more gas than either would individually for the same combined energy. I would certainly expect that under these conditions the electrodes would suffer less gas polarising the surfaces.

Thanks for the insight into your thoughts, as ALL of the work I have seen, starting WAAAY back, could be traced to this type of effect and I wouldn't be too amazed to find the true reasons for these effects has been sitting in front of us the whole time.

I feel the same. Looking back and going over past claims, I can now see the possibility that cavitation may have been playing a big part all the time, it's simply that no one realised it or understood the processes involved.  And, if you look at Mookie's video and watch how not much happens until a certain threshold is attained, but once reached the cell is transformed by gas, then you can see how the idea of resonance came about.  It now seems to me that people were looking for the wrong thing and in the wrong places, and ultimately led others down a giant rabbit hole and into wonderland.  We might just be back in the real world now!

Fast Freddy is the latest person to claim to have a vehicle running on just water. A bloody big truck at that!  After stating that he was going to open source his set up, he's now gone very quiet, which is not a very good sign, but which is par for the course.  Whether his claims are true or not is a big unknown at this time, and he's really not doing himself any favours credibility-wise by drawing this out and playing silly buggers.  However, if he is for real and his claims are genuine, for the current he states his electrolyser is drawing, he is producing 10 times more gas than Faraday's laws state he should be from standard electrolysis. Now Freddy also talks about tube tuning, so if cavitation is in effect here too, then it would appear that the majority of the gas he is producing (90%) is coming via cavitation.

Very interesting and indeed exciting times at present.

[iquant]

Found an interesting video filmed at 12500 images per second regarding Cavitation Bubbles inside water drops in Microgravity:

1. Electrical discharge generates hot plasma.
2. Plasma expands to cold cavity.
3. Unstable cavity collapses rapidly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR0YBAhY2PQ