RE: charged vs normal water 4 hydrogen production

Greetings Mates

Better to have fallen off my horse now than latter. Thanks for keeping me in the straight and narrow. I do appreciate your scrutiny and comments.

Today I had an unusual effect when using charged water vs uncharged water for dissasociating water into hydrogen. Below is the method used to charge the water then I'll explaing this unusual effect.

For the past few days, I've been using a charging cell made out 5 of ss soup ladels with center neg., two neutral and the outer pos. The containment is a one gallon ss pail. The base of a plastic funnel is used to support the cell.

Power input is 2 volts dc from a battery charger. Charging time approx. 2 hours per day for three days.

The cell is removed at night to allow the brown scum to settle to the bottom of the pail. In the morning I carefully pour off the clean water and throw out the sediment. Usually have to add some spring water to top off the volume.

Today was the third time that I poured off the scum that had settled out of the water.

No electrolite is used in the cell to generate hydrogen and HHO gases. The latter has a very drastis snap to it. As the sediment is removed from the water I have noticed that the bubbling action is increased. The foaming action takes less time to build the increased surface tension slows down the popping of the gas bubbles.

Reversing the polarity I have found helps to condition the water as to increase the ph level. Ths brown scum generated by the charging of the water is still coming out of the water but the process has slowed more than half. This tells me that the water is reaching its peak charge.

With only 2 amps at 12 vt dc the water temperature seems to be stable.

The first question that I have asked myself, where is all the brown scum coming from as the ss cell had been purged prior to charging the wate?

TEST TODAY ENVOLVING CHARGED AND UNCHARGED WATER FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION:

TEST ONE:

One crudely made Joe cell using three 316 ss pipes approx. 1/2, 3/4, 1 1/4 and 2 inch outer ss beaker.

Appros. 10 oz. of spring water and a tad of lye crstals used to make the electrolite.

Center neg. with outer pos. and two inner neutral pipes.

Power 2 amps and 100 amp test.

Having no amp meter I can only relate my observations. On two amps the foaming of the hydrogen gas was minimal. Hydrogen could be seen coming out of the top of the ss beaker. Lighging the hydrogen produced an orange flash. Cranking the amperage all the way up caused about a 50 percent increase in the action. My guess is that the amperage draw would be between 3 - 5 amps.

TEST TWO:

Same set-up as above with the exception of the spring water being replaced by the same amount of 'charged water' and lye crystals.

Using only amps it was visually obvious that gas production was between 300 - 400 percent increased. The top portion of the ss beaker quickly filled up with foaming bubbles spilling over and down the sides.

It was obvious that that the bubbles were not popping because of the increased water tension. Popping the bubbles with a barbecue lighter was like having a shot gun blast going off by your head! Not unlike the flashing hydrogen in the first test. It is obvious that a higher much more active gas is being produced. My gues is HHO. The pops were identical to igniting the bubbles in the one gallon ss pail using the charging cell.

Within five minutes the ss beaker was much too hot to touch and yet the foaming action seemed to be unaffected although only two the charger was turned on at 2 amps. From these observations the charged water was far more reactive to dissasociate the water into not only hydrogen but also to form this implosion gas. Like comparing dynamite to C4!

Very little brown scum could be seen in the second test. There was an unsual anomoly that may have been taking place having to do with the neg. electrode. Having taken the cell apart three times to make sure that the spacing between the neg. and neutral plates were even, I could hear this faint arcing sound in the water. Nothing visual but the sound was distinct.

The sound of the arcing increased as the neg. center electrode was pushed closer to the bottom of the test beaker. So I just raised it about an inch off the bottom of the test beaker and the sound subsided.

Letting the cell set without igniting the bubbles, it only took a few moments for the foam to rise about two inches higher than the cell. Real good water tension it seems.

The two niegbours that were at hand to watch the demonstration were absolutely amazed at the amount of punch this cell could produce using the charged water. They were present in the initial test with the spring water and couldn't believe the difference.

There may be something using conditioned water as these witnesed by these observations. Of all the tests people are doing with poping hydrogen bubbles on u tube, this one would certainly take first prise. Could take some night shots to get some visuals. The blast is significantly louder than convensional hydrogen. In the past three years I've played around with many types of fuel vapors and do understand the differance between explosion and implosion reactions.

One thing that I have notived in the charging cell, the bubbles take on a greater degree of water retension the longer the charge and become much more louder. A bubble two inches round will give the shop a good shake and create a blue flash with a tinge of orange.

I'm being good and not looking to fall off my horse again for any time soon. These are the observations that I have witnessed today in these two back to back tests. If you require more information regarding the procedure and testing please ask.

Sure would like to know what is going on here in these two tests. In the charging cell no electrolite is put in the water and the bubbling action continues to improve with time. The more aged the more action. Just trying to be down to earth here.

Looking forward to your comments. Joshua.