In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis

Farrah Day	In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis « on: 2011-01-10, 14:20:40 »
Group: Guest	The idea of this thread is to more closely examine Chris Eckman's findings related to his paper, 'Plasma Orbital Expansion of the Electrons in Water', with particular emphasis on the details provided by the atomic mass analysis of Brown's gas. And, though there would seem to be numerous errors related to various areas of the science detailed in Eckman's paper - in particular his use of the term isotope and indeed his apparent misunderstanding of how electrolysis works - I have no reason to dispute the findings of the mass spectrometer. ------------------------ In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis HHOAtomicMassAnalysis.jpg (44.57 kB, 650x376 - viewed 2263 times.) « Last Edit: 2011-01-14, 14:22:05 by Farrah Day »

Farrah Day	Re: In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis « Reply #1 on: 2011-01-13, 12:00:27 »
Group: Guest	It seems quite apparent that the biggest difference between hydroxy gas from tanked or bottled hydrogen and oxygen when compared to that of a common-duct electrolyser gases, is the water vapour content. Whereas you would expect there to be none (or very little) water vapour in bottled hydrogen and oxygen due to the drying process, water vapour is clearly abundant in the gas mixture evolving from a common-duct electrolyser. As bubbles of hydrogen and oxygen erupt from the surface in an electrolyser, the hydrogen bonding of the water maintains a thin film of liquid water over the emerging gases and indeed it is the encompassing liquid water film that highlights the gases in the form of visible bubbles. As the evolving gases leave the surface of the water, the hydrogen bonds try to maintain their hold, but at some point the surface tension becomes too great and the bubble effectively pops. This action will cause some molecules of the liquid water to be thrown up where it can evaporate into gaseous form. Hence we get water vapour along with hydrogen and oxygen from our common-duct electrolysers. Now, to my mind, this will happen with any common-duct electrolyser, be it straight dc or pulsed, and indeed any electrolyser whereby the resulting hydrogen and oxygen are not passed through a drier. To the best of my knowledge, Chris Eckman provides no details of the exact electrolyser which produced his test gases, but as he refers a great deal to George Wiseman in the text, I assume it would be a Eagle Research unit. On further reading of Wiseman’s website, he claims that Brown’s Gas can only be obtained by pulsing the current through an electrolyser, otherwise you just end up with plain hydroxy. Now clearly we would never end up with plain hydroxy from any electrolyser because unless we, at the very least, dry the resulting gases, there will always be water vapour present too. And as can be seen from Eckman’s gas analysis the water vapour content is higher than anything else. The one peak on Eckman’s gas analysis graph that demands the greatest attention has to be the 5th highest peak that he labels as, ‘Plasma Expanded Water’. We know this lies somewhere between the atomic mass 18.042 of the second water vapour peak and the 22.992 atomic mass of the sodium peak, but for some reason he does not provide an exact figure. And as the x axis of the graph is clearly not linear, it may be that this substance still has an atomic mass of 18… something, and so would be a third water vapour peak, and due to excess electrons, being heavily negative. To my mind the pulsing of the current in a correctly designed electrolyser will create cavitation (designed that is so that the plates or tubes are capable of at least some movement that could create areas of compression and rarefaction within the liquid), and so give us a number of more unusual radical species over straight dc electrolysers, however I’m not aware of George Wiseman designing his electrolysers with this in mind. It may simply be that his electrolysers do allow for the creation of at least some cavitation effect. If cavitaion is a major player in all this, it follows then that every electrolyser design will produce varying amounts of radical species, and that no two gas samples from differing electrolysers will be the same. Furthermore, no two gas samples from the same electrolyser would necessarily be the same if the pulsing signal has been altered, as altering the pulsing signal may also effect the resulting gas composition. Researching cavitation has lead me to believe that ultrasonic frequencies of around 20 – 40 kHz are the most efficient at creating cavitation in water, though of course Mookie appears to be getting great results from just 60Hz! « Last Edit: 2011-01-14, 14:27:13 by Farrah Day »

muDped	Re: In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis « Reply #2 on: 2011-02-06, 00:55:53 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	HERE is an unusual patent application which may (or may not) offer some possible insight. The page contains a link to the .pdf of the full patent which contains the diagrams. Is this a bunch of gobbledygook or does it present something useful? --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Farrah Day	Re: In-depth look at Chris Eckman's Atomic Mass Brown's Gas Analysis « Reply #3 on: 2011-02-06, 11:12:12 »
Group: Guest	Hi Dumped, a fairly recent (2009) patent, that I've not seen before. What's interesting here is that the inventors claim that no oxygen and hydrogen is actually produced in this method, but simply that the resulting water vapour itself is combustible. They claim that, from a basic electrolyser fed with the correct electrical input signal/s, that the bond angles of the H and O in the water molecule can be caused to alter. I assume this would infer that the water molecule is no longer dipolar and hence the hydrogen bonding aspect that normally holds water together as a liquid, is lost. The water molecule then being free of its natural hydrogen bonding can effectively leave the collective as a gas. I know that in the '70s Puharich claimed that he was altering the water molecules O-H bond angles too. But more recently, Chris Eckman in his paper, Plasma Orbital Expansion Theory for Brown's Gas, also claimed that the O-H bond angle was increased to a point whereby the natural hydrogen bonding was negated. But Eckman was producing oxygen and hydrogen, and maybe normal water vapour too. It does seem rather odd to me that a basic electrolyser can be made to produce so many different effects, but perhaps the key really is to get the input signal/s precisely right in order to see a specific effect. For the O-H bond angle of the water molecule to change, it goes without saying that energy must be added, as it must be assumed that the water molecule is usually effectively in its ground state. How this energy is accepted by the water molecule is debatable, but Eckman suggests that the water molecule ionises by taking on two more electrons. For numerous reasons, I am not personally taken by this idea. But, has the water molecule taken on additional electrons as in the Eckman theory or has the energy of the water molecule simply increased due to electron orbits increasing? In this patent, they are saying that this altered water molecule is now combustible, and that when ignited, there is an exothermic reaction as the water molecule reverts back to its usual O-H bond angles. At no time are they suggesting that the water molecule is completely dissociated - we are only ever dealing with water molecues of different energy states. However, what I'm struggling with is that there is not obviously much energy coming from the water molecule simply reverting back to its usual bond angles, and surely there is no energy to be gained! If the water molecule has taken on extra electrons then it makes sense that upon ignition these electrons be ejected and possibly create a plasma, but this does not necessarily mean that much in the way of heat will be generated. Conversely if the water molecules altered O-H bond angles are due only to increased energy states, then you would expect an exothermic reaction as the molecule returns to ground state. The one major problem I see with the water molecule in an exicted - energetic - state will be very unstable and may only exist in this state for fractions of a second before it reverts to its ground state. Hence the exothermic reaction might not be taking place in the combustion chamber where you want it to happen, but somewhere beforehand - perhaps within the electrolyser itself. Some very interesting things have come to light in more recent times, and in all of this, there does seem to be a clear over-lapping of the science in all of these various claims. It also then makes you look back at other claims and see them possibly in a different light. John Kanzius, burning water, is one such example. Everyone assumed he was dissociating water into H and O using a 13.56MHz RF signal. But what if he wasn't? What if he was achieving the same as is being claimed by this patent, and he was merely altering the O-H water molecule bond angles and was indeed simply producing combustible water? In some ways this would make far more sense, as I could never get around the issue of the water molecule breaking cleanly into O and H and not H+ and OH- ions. You will note that the inventors claim that more than one frequency of input signal is preferred as being more effective, which then maybe suggests that heterodyning may well have its place. Whatever is occuring, the inventors of this patent would effectively appear to be claiming overunity, as a small input signal (or two) required to change the O-H bond angle, provides a much greater exothermic reaction upon ignition wherby the O-H bond angles revert to their usual position. Whether or not this patent has actually ever been implemented and proven beyond doubt, or is in fact just theory, is for me the real issue. Many of these patents never seem to have gotten off the drawing board and are nothing more than theories, and in fact I do wonder how and why so many are granted. I have thought for some time now that possibly over-lapping reactions in various technologies may be influential in the myriad of seemingly anomalous claims that we hear of in this area of science. Perhaps it is these over-lapping reactions that serve only to add confusion to the pot and muddy the waters to a point whereby everything is suspect. After all this time, so little is known for sure, and so little thorough, high-tec research is being done. However, if this is real, then it is yet another intriguing addition to the mysteries of water. And every little insight helps towards unlocking the secrets and glimpsing the big picture.